NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Ransium
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6621
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ransium » Mon May 03, 2021 8:43 am

I am against. I find this proposal arbitrarily narrow in scope, too inflexible and prescriptive, and adding little helpful protection that aren’t already covered by existing proposals.
Last edited by Ransium on Mon May 03, 2021 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest from March 20th, 2007 to August 19, 2020.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor January 20th, 2017 - November 23rd, 2020.
Author of 27 issues. First editor of 44.
Moderator November 10th 2017 - November 23rd 2020.

User avatar
New Ladavia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Feb 12, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Ladavia » Mon May 03, 2021 10:54 am

I would agree with Uan aa Boa. International law is meant to define the problem in a general and like the name suggests an "International" sense. To deal with a specific situation is more of a question for national law based of the recommendations of the international law, rather than to be defined by the global assembly.

User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Mon May 03, 2021 11:44 am

Uan aa Boa wrote:Like my fellow Forestian Daarwyrth I'll be opposing this one. We already have GA#465 Preventing Species Extinction which charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. It's difficult to see how this proposal meaningfully extends beyond that.


The problem with GA 465 is that it does not extend protections to species that are not currently endangered. It does provide protections for the species currently at risk of becoming extinct (ie, endangered), but it does not protect species and habitats that are at risk of becoming endangered (ie threatened, or at risk of becoming at risk of becoming extinct, which is definitely not protected under GA 465). Under GA 465, a nation could destroy an ecosystem to the brink of becoming endangered, then back off and let it recover for a bit, then continue to destroy the ecosystem. This prevents critical ecosystems from reaching the prevalence required to see the environmental and industrial benefits provided by these ecosystems on a large scale. The thing about my proposal is that it continues to protect habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This prevents us from making the same mistakes as our forefathers, and allows us to realize the potential benefits afforded by tallgrass prairies on a large scale, such as effective runoff filtration, and establishment of habitat for large mammals, such as the RL examples of bison and grey wolves who are otherwise nonexistent in the currently remaining scattered parcels.

The great virtue of GA#465 is its flexibility. It calls for plans to be drawn up for endangered species that take account of their particular circumstances, without asserting that certain local circumstances must be repeated across the world. It doesn't overstate the risk to a particular type of habitat if it is, in fact, widespread but it does already mandate action to protect a unique habitat that only exists in 1 or 2 neighbouring nations.


Oh, I agree that GA 465 is still a great proposal that has done a lot to prevent the extinction of endangered species, but I see no problem with a proposal targeting a specific type of ecosystem either. NationStates has approximately 1000 times the number of countries as the real world. Although this type of prairie may exist in only 1% of real world nations, it is rather foolish to think that only 1 or 2 nations would experience similar ecosystems in NationStates. I'm not necessarily saying that this habitat is super prevalent, just that it is likely more common than you are making it out to be.

You wouldn't address the threat to native Madagascan forest by defining that habitat in a way that removes the real world reference and then writing an international law asserting that it is in fact present in many nations, but that's precisely what this proposal does.


I don't believe Madagascar is necessarily a good comparison here. Madagascar is an ocean-locked nation, so the international benefits of the Madagascan forest are far less than that of tallgrass prairies. The species of tallgrass prairies (pollinators and migratory birds, for example) frequently cross national boundaries, so the failure of one nation to protect tallgrass prairies can absolutely affect the ecology of another nation. The assertion that this habitat exists in many nations is simple probability. We know the occurrence rate of this ecosystem in nations in the real world, and we know approximately the number of countries in NationStates. It is simple to deduce that there are probably many nations with tallgrass prairies.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21172
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon May 03, 2021 4:35 pm

"Seeing as this bans the construction, maintenance, modification, and renovation of roads and railways, emergency service infrastructure, farmhouses, agricultural infrastructure, and existing city centers wherever tall, temperate grasslands exist, Wallenburg is firmly against this proposal. We will not have anything to do with countless people being left to rot in decaying buildings and endangering themselves around unserviced, obsolete infrastructure."
In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Mon May 03, 2021 5:33 pm

Wallenburg wrote:"Seeing as this bans the construction, maintenance, modification, and renovation of roads and railways, emergency service infrastructure, farmhouses, agricultural infrastructure, and existing city centers wherever tall, temperate grasslands exist, Wallenburg is firmly against this proposal. We will not have anything to do with countless people being left to rot in decaying buildings and endangering themselves around unserviced, obsolete infrastructure."


It is important for the nation for the nation of Wallenburg to recall that the maintenance, modification, and renovation of roads and railways, emergency service infrastructure, farmhouses, agricultural infrastructure, and existing city centers is not prohibited under the definition of "land development", which stipulates that the tallgrass prairie cannot be altered from their naturally occurring form if it is not allowed to recover within a period of 5 years. If the existing infrastructure has already altered the landscape, then the tiny bit of land upon which the infrastructure lies is not in its "naturally occurring form", and works to improve the infrastructure are not prohibited. Most of these activities are not usually terribly intrusive into the surrounding prairie, which is protected, and hence not likely to prevent the surrounding prairie from recovering on the 5-year timescale, so they would also not be prohibited, although the delegation of Big Boyz finds it rather odd that the nation of Wallenburg has infrastructure and civilizations constructed within its otherwise untouched tallgrass prairie ranges. Finally, the delegation of Big Boyz would also like to point out that these renovations are unlikely to be prohibited in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies as well, since they are typically not intrusive enough to alter the ecosystem.

Of the desired tasks listed, only the construction of new, above-ground, infrastructure within tallgrass prairies seems to be prohibited by this proposal, but there is nothing prohibiting the construction of these necessary systems in the surrounding areas, so long as they are minimally intrusive.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21172
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon May 03, 2021 6:04 pm

I'm not sure how permanent land exploitation qualifies as "allowing the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years." How does a road going through a grassland allow the paved area to "recover to its naturally occurring form" in any sense? No, it seems rather obvious that this affects all land development.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Mon May 03, 2021 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Mon May 03, 2021 6:41 pm

Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure how permanent land exploitation qualifies as "allowing the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years." How does a road going through a grassland allow the paved area to "recover to its naturally occurring form" in any sense? No, it seems rather obvious that this affects all land development.


This affects all new land development. Current land development (such as a paved road which is currently going through a tallgrass prairie) cannot be "prevented" since it already exists. The maintenance done to repair this road is permitted, so long as it doesn't affect the surrounding prairie. New roads cannot be paved over tallgrass prairie, but existing roads can be repaired and maintained, since the tiny strip of land they occupy is not tallgrass prairie.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21172
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon May 03, 2021 10:03 pm

Big Boyz wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure how permanent land exploitation qualifies as "allowing the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years." How does a road going through a grassland allow the paved area to "recover to its naturally occurring form" in any sense? No, it seems rather obvious that this affects all land development.


This affects all new land development. Current land development (such as a paved road which is currently going through a tallgrass prairie) cannot be "prevented" since it already exists. The maintenance done to repair this road is permitted, so long as it doesn't affect the surrounding prairie. New roads cannot be paved over tallgrass prairie, but existing roads can be repaired and maintained, since the tiny strip of land they occupy is not tallgrass prairie.

That is not specified in your definition. Your resolution does what it says, not what you want it to.
In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Laka Strolistandiler
Envoy
 
Posts: 323
Founded: Jul 14, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Laka Strolistandiler » Mon May 03, 2021 10:06 pm

Big Boyz wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure how permanent land exploitation qualifies as "allowing the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years." How does a road going through a grassland allow the paved area to "recover to its naturally occurring form" in any sense? No, it seems rather obvious that this affects all land development.


This affects all new land development. Current land development (such as a paved road which is currently going through a tallgrass prairie) cannot be "prevented" since it already exists. The maintenance done to repair this road is permitted, so long as it doesn't affect the surrounding prairie. New roads cannot be paved over tallgrass prairie, but existing roads can be repaired and maintained, since the tiny strip of land they occupy is not tallgrass prairie.


Ambassador, but this ignores some of the main problems- sometimes the roads have to be not just maintained, but also expanded with, say, the addition of lanes.This soon-to-be resolution shall ban it with easily foreseeable consequences. As such, yes, my comrade from Wallenburg was indeed partially right- it will not lead to people living in old, decaying buildings, BUT it WILL lead to giant traffic jams in non-expandable highways because additional lines can’t be built due to this resolution
Last edited by Laka Strolistandiler on Mon May 03, 2021 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sub Administrator of Affairs Departament for the World Assembly, The Educated Obraztsova Elena-Himiko
Political views:
Authoritarian Center-left, a little bit too left to be a nazbol
Religius Views:
planning to baptize as an orthodox Christian

User avatar
Comfed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 925
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Tue May 04, 2021 6:32 am

This is now at vote. Somehow, it seems to be passing.
Mall:
Best part about being a mod was engaging in normal player behavior and getting accused of abuse
"You think this is abuse? I'll SHOW you abuse."
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

Numero Capitan wrote:I haven't bothered reading back but I can unequivocally say that I agree with everything HEM has said and Unibot is wrong

Put this in your sig if you passed biology and know that gender and sex are not the same thing.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11671
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Outer Sparta » Tue May 04, 2021 6:51 am

Ambassador Tav: Despite the good intentions of the resolution, we have decided to vote against because it's too narrow in its scope and we felt it should have included other grassland habitats like savannas under its protection.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 2:55 pm

Vyn Nysen: "I fear too many voters that have voted 'for' on this proposal, are somewhat blinded by the fact that it feels good to vote in favour of a proposal that appears to promote environmentalism at a first glance. While it certainly can feel good to do so, the flaws of this resolution proposal outweigh the intent with which it has been written, or what it intends to do. I point out the fact that a majority of my fellow Forestians, who are known for spreading a messsage of environmentalism, have voted 'against' this proposal, with several individual Forestians evenly openly speaking out against this proposal.

This is not a good proposal. This is a proposal that will create more problems than it solves, if it even solves any, and it has no consideration for many of the unique and diverse ecosystems across the member nations of the World Assembly."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Tue May 04, 2021 3:07 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "I fear too many voters that have voted 'for' on this proposal, are somewhat blinded by the fact that it feels good to vote in favour of a proposal that appears to promote environmentalism at a first glance. While it certainly can feel good to do so, the flaws of this resolution proposal outweigh the intent with which it has been written, or what it intends to do. I point out the fact that a majority of my fellow Forestians, who are known for spreading a messsage of environmentalism, have voted 'against' this proposal, with several individual Forestians evenly openly speaking out against this proposal.


The claims made against this proposal have been debunked, either in this thread, or in the Forest RMB. I fear that many so-called "environmentalists" are wantonly overlooking the benefits that this proposal would ensure for the sake of pure tribalism.

This is not a good proposal. This is a proposal that will create more problems than it solves, if it even solves any, and it has no consideration for many of the unique and diverse ecosystems across the member nations of the World Assembly."


This proposal is targeted at an ecosystem that provides vital ecological and economic functions and, while there are estimated to be over 2400 nations with this ecosystem, the range of these tallgrass prairies have been significantly diminished by the advent of agriculture and land development, as well as carelessness in management. This proposal attempts to right the wrongs of our past.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 3:14 pm

Big Boyz wrote:The claims made against this proposal have been debunked, either in this thread, or in the Forest RMB. I fear that many so-called "environmentalists" are wantonly overlooking the benefits that this proposal would ensure for the sake of pure tribalism.


Vyn Nysen: "No, Ambassador, they have not been debunked, you simply stopped replying in the correspondence. You have failed to provide convincing counter arguments that were capable to disprove the arguments brought forth by my fellow Forestians."

Big Boyz wrote:This proposal is targeted at an ecosystem that provides vital ecological and economic functions and, while there are estimated to be over 2400 nations with this ecosystem, the range of these tallgrass prairies have been significantly diminished by the advent of agriculture and land development, as well as carelessness in management. This proposal attempts to right the wrongs of our past.


"Excuse me, 2400 nations? Where did you get this number from? What source did you use to pinpoint the exact number of 2400? Have you asked every single nation in the World Assembly whether they have a biome with prairie tall grasses in their native ecosystems? Sources, Ambassador, sources, because now it seems as if you have pulled the number 2400 out of a whale's mouth.

Also, Ambassador, what wrongs, of whose past? The species of prairie tall grasses that your proposal intends to protect are nowhere to be found in Daarwyrth. What wrongs have we committed against your prairie tall grasses? The answer is 'none'. You have based this entire proposal on the presumptuous assumption that prairie tall grasses appear in every single nation across the multiverse. I bet that there are many nations who have never even heard of your prairie tall grasses. How then can you presume to know that these particular biospheres are of economic and environmental importance to all nations, if many will not even have them occurring naturally in their biosphere?

Instead of listening to valuable and constructive criticism, you have consistently remained stubborn in your approach to this resolution proposal. A pity, for a resolution on the protection of all unique ecosystems would have received the support of our delegation without any fuss."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 3:24 pm, edited 5 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Tue May 04, 2021 3:26 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Big Boyz wrote:The claims made against this proposal have been debunked, either in this thread, or in the Forest RMB. I fear that many so-called "environmentalists" are wantonly overlooking the benefits that this proposal would ensure for the sake of pure tribalism.


"No, Ambassador, they have not been debunked, you simply stopped replying in the correspondence. You have failed to provide convincing counter arguments that were capable to disprove the arguments brought forth by my fellow Forestians."


Which arguments, specifically, are you referring to that I supposedly did not provide a counterargument for?

Big Boyz wrote:This proposal is targeted at an ecosystem that provides vital ecological and economic functions and, while there are estimated to be over 2400 nations with this ecosystem, the range of these tallgrass prairies have been significantly diminished by the advent of agriculture and land development, as well as carelessness in management. This proposal attempts to right the wrongs of our past.


"Excuse me, 2400 nations? Where did you get this number from? What source did you use to pinpoint the exact number of 2400? Have you asked every single nation in the World Assembly whether they have a biome with prairie tall grasses in their native ecosystems? Sources, Ambassador, sources, because now it seems as if you have pulled the number 2400 out of a whale's mouth."


We know that these biomes occur in approximately 1% of RL nations. We know that there are approximately 240,000 nations in nationstates, so one would expect this ecosystem to occur in approximately 2400 nations, although some room has to be left for role play disparities. This is an estimation that has been confirmed numerous times on this thread.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 3:29 pm

Big Boyz wrote:We know that these biomes occur in approximately 1% of RL nations. We know that there are approximately 240,000 nations in nationstates, so one would expect this ecosystem to occur in approximately 2400 nations, although some room has to be left for role play disparities. This is an estimation that has been confirmed numerous times on this thread.

OOC: Real life does not apply to NationStates. NS is its own entity, with its own multiverse, that contains its own rules. Just because something is true in the real world, does not make it true for NationStates. Also, you presume to tell 2400 nations what their nation's biosphere. A big no-no, because that infringes upon player autonomy.
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 3:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Tue May 04, 2021 3:34 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:Also, Ambassador, what wrongs, of whose past? The species of prairie tall grasses that your proposal intends to protect are nowhere to be found in Daarwyrth. What wrongs have we committed against your prairie tall grasses? The answer is 'none'. You have based this entire proposal on the presumptuous assumption that prairie tall grasses appear in every single nation across the multiverse. I bet that there are many nations who have never even heard of your prairie tall grasses. How then can you presume to know that these particular biospheres are of economic and environmental importance to all nations, if many will not even have them occurring naturally in their biosphere?


The nation of Daarwyrth, being devoid of tallgrass prairies, is not the subject of this resolution. We have failed on a global, international scale to protect this once vibrant ecosystem. I have not made any claim that this prairie exists across every nation in the multiverse, I made general references that there are many nations (ie, more than just 1 or 2) that have or have historically had tallgrass prairies. I have absolutely not claimed that they exist in every nation. This is a point that I have already addressed specifically to you. You are overlooking my past responses and simply reiterating the same old tired arguments.

Instead of listening to valuable and constructive criticism, you have consistently remained stubborn in your approach to this resolution proposal. A pity, for a resolution on the protection of all unique ecosystems would have received the support of our delegation without any fuss."

This criticism has been neither valuable nor constructive. These claims are misleading and insincere, putting forth poor arguments that intentionally overlook certain aspects of the proposal.

A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Tue May 04, 2021 3:37 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Big Boyz wrote:We know that these biomes occur in approximately 1% of RL nations. We know that there are approximately 240,000 nations in nationstates, so one would expect this ecosystem to occur in approximately 2400 nations, although some room has to be left for role play disparities. This is an estimation that has been confirmed numerous times on this thread.

OOC: Real life does not apply to NationStates. NS is its own entity, with its own multiverse, that contains its own rules. Just because something is true in the real world, does not make it true for NationStates. Also, you presume to tell 2400 nations what their nation's biosphere. A big no-no, because that infringes upon player autonomy.


NS may not be real life, but the overall treads are modeled after the real world. If this wasn't the case, there would essentially be no laws whatsoever, because most legislation is predicated upon real world issues.

I do not presume to tell individuals what is in their nation, just that the trend indicates that we would expect this ecosystem in approximately 2400 nations, which is a big and important distinction. Individuals are free to make decisions for themselves, but the large scale trends are expected to follow that of the real world, to an extent.
Last edited by Big Boyz on Tue May 04, 2021 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 3:45 pm

Big Boyz wrote:The nation of Daarwyrth, being devoid of tallgrass prairies, is not the subject of this resolution. We have failed on a global, international scale to protect this once vibrant ecosystem. I have not made any claim that this prairie exists across every nation in the multiverse, I made general references that there are many nations (ie, more than just 1 or 2) that have or have historically had tallgrass prairies. I have absolutely not claimed that they exist in every nation. This is a point that I have already addressed specifically to you. You are overlooking my past responses and simply reiterating the same old tired arguments.

Vyn Nysen: "Think again, Ambassador. As Daarwyrth is a member of the World Assembly and will be subject to its laws and regulations, it is very much one of the 21.410 subjects that will all have to suffer the restrictions of this proposal. You argue on the basis of your own presumptuous assumptions without providing proof for the fact that prairie tall grasses are prevalent. I have not seen a single decisive and conclusive source that proves you know what you're talking about when it comes to the make-up and nature of the members of the World Assembly, or the nations of the multiverse."

OOC: And relying on real life sources exclusively doesn't go up in NationStates! ;)


Big Boyz wrote:This criticism has been neither valuable nor constructive. These claims are misleading and insincere, putting forth poor arguments that intentionally overlook certain aspects of the proposal.

A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.

Vyn Nysen: "How convenient of you, Ambassador, that you call any comment that you don't like misleading and insincere. You have displayed a horrendous attitude during the drafting of this proposal, where the only opinion you listened to was your own. You do not look beyond your own flawed opinions and are unwilling to consider any other viewpoint that does not align with your own. And calling the constructive criticism of multiple delegations 'misleading' or 'insincere' does not make it so. I have seen the commentary and feedback, and it's not the critics who are the problem, Ambassador. It is your attitude and inability to look beyond your own thoughts and considerations.

Your own proposal is laden with bureaucracy that is even destructive to some nations. Have you considered nations where prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere in their ecosystems? For example, a nation where this species of tall grasses grows everywhere? You have effectively condemned them to a slow death with this proposal, Ambassador, as they will not only be unable to develop any of their land, but they will also be unable to sustain population growth or their economy. Your resolution condemns those nations to economic disaster, food and housing shortages, as well as dangerous overpopulation.

All because you were unable to accept the commentary and feedback from others, Ambassador."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 3:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Tue May 04, 2021 4:07 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Big Boyz wrote:The nation of Daarwyrth, being devoid of tallgrass prairies, is not the subject of this resolution. We have failed on a global, international scale to protect this once vibrant ecosystem. I have not made any claim that this prairie exists across every nation in the multiverse, I made general references that there are many nations (ie, more than just 1 or 2) that have or have historically had tallgrass prairies. I have absolutely not claimed that they exist in every nation. This is a point that I have already addressed specifically to you. You are overlooking my past responses and simply reiterating the same old tired arguments.

Vyn Nysen: "Think again, Ambassador. As Daarwyrth is a member of the World Assembly and will be subject to its laws and regulations, it is very much one of the 21.410 subjects that are a member of this international organisation. You argue on the basis of your own presumptuous assumptions without providing proof for the fact that prairie tall grasses are prevalent. I have not seen a single decisive and conclusive source that proves you know what you're talking about when it comes to the make-up and nature of the members of the World Assembly, or the nations of the multiverse."

Daarwyrth may be a member of the WA, but none of the directives in the proposal affect nations that do not have tallgrass prairies. To say that the international community of NationStates does not at least follow the general trends of the real world is foolish.


Big Boyz wrote:This criticism has been neither valuable nor constructive. These claims are misleading and insincere, putting forth poor arguments that intentionally overlook certain aspects of the proposal.

A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.

Vyn Nysen: "How convenient of you, Ambassador, that you call any comment that you don't like misleading and insincere. You have displayed a horrendous attitude during the drafting of this proposal, where the only opinion you listened to was your own. You do not look beyond your own flawed opinions and are unwilling to consider any other viewpoint that does not align with your own. And calling the constructive criticism of multiple delegations 'misleading' or 'insincere' does not make it so. I have seen the commentary and feedback, and it's not the critics who are the problem, Ambassador. It is your attitude and inability to look beyond your own thoughts and considerations.


I have consistently listened to and applied the feedback that was given to me in good faith during the drafting process. Go back to the early pages of this forum. I implemented dozens of changes based on the feedback of dozens of nations. The criticisms that came later, which simply presented fallacious arguments attacking the proposal and provided no feedback on improvement are the ones that I would call 'misleading' and 'insincere', and you, Daarwyrth, have been one of the worst offenders. You are so biased against this proposal that you will attack it from any angle that you could possibly envision, without ever having suggested improvements.

Your own proposal is laden with bureaucracy that is even destructive to some nations. Have you considered nations where prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere in their ecosystem? For example, a nation where this species of tall grasses grows everywhere? You have effectively condemned them to a slow death with this proposal, Ambassador, as they will not only be unable to develop any of their land, but they will also be unable to sustain population growth or their economy. Your resolution condemns those nations to economic disaster, food and housing shortages, as well as dangerous overpopulation.


There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.

All because you were unable to accept the commentary and feedback from others, Ambassador."


I have accepted feedback that was in good faith, Ambassador. It is you who is failing to hear my responses and instead is insisting on repeating the same arguments over and over again.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
First Nightmare
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Tue May 04, 2021 4:20 pm

Big Boyz wrote:
Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "Think again, Ambassador. As Daarwyrth is a member of the World Assembly and will be subject to its laws and regulations, it is very much one of the 21.410 subjects that are a member of this international organisation. You argue on the basis of your own presumptuous assumptions without providing proof for the fact that prairie tall grasses are prevalent. I have not seen a single decisive and conclusive source that proves you know what you're talking about when it comes to the make-up and nature of the members of the World Assembly, or the nations of the multiverse."

Daarwyrth may be a member of the WA, but none of the directives in the proposal affect nations that do not have tallgrass prairies. To say that the international community of NationStates does not at least follow the general trends of the real world is foolish.



Vyn Nysen: "How convenient of you, Ambassador, that you call any comment that you don't like misleading and insincere. You have displayed a horrendous attitude during the drafting of this proposal, where the only opinion you listened to was your own. You do not look beyond your own flawed opinions and are unwilling to consider any other viewpoint that does not align with your own. And calling the constructive criticism of multiple delegations 'misleading' or 'insincere' does not make it so. I have seen the commentary and feedback, and it's not the critics who are the problem, Ambassador. It is your attitude and inability to look beyond your own thoughts and considerations.


I have consistently listened to and applied the feedback that was given to me in good faith during the drafting process. Go back to the early pages of this forum. I implemented dozens of changes based on the feedback of dozens of nations. The criticisms that came later, which simply presented fallacious arguments attacking the proposal and provided no feedback on improvement are the ones that I would call 'misleading' and 'insincere', and you, Daarwyrth, have been one of the worst offenders. You are so biased against this proposal that you will attack it from any angle that you could possibly envision, without ever having suggested improvements.

Your own proposal is laden with bureaucracy that is even destructive to some nations. Have you considered nations where prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere in their ecosystem? For example, a nation where this species of tall grasses grows everywhere? You have effectively condemned them to a slow death with this proposal, Ambassador, as they will not only be unable to develop any of their land, but they will also be unable to sustain population growth or their economy. Your resolution condemns those nations to economic disaster, food and housing shortages, as well as dangerous overpopulation.


There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.

All because you were unable to accept the commentary and feedback from others, Ambassador."


I have accepted feedback that was in good faith, Ambassador. It is you who is failing to hear my responses and instead is insisting on repeating the same arguments over and over again.

A nation can circumvent the prohibition on land development by leaving the WA, developing the land, and then re-entering the WA. The repercussions of leaving the WA might have a sizable impact, but if land development is really necessary then the benefits outweigh the losses.

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 4:24 pm

Big Boyz wrote:Daarwyrth may be a member of the WA, but none of the directives in the proposal affect nations that do not have tallgrass prairies. To say that the international community of NationStates does not at least follow the general trends of the real world is foolish.

OOC: Oh right, because we have blue-skinned aliens, talking rabbits and magical entities in the real world. I suggest you take a good, close look at the rules regarding real-life references here in the GA. Because they are there for a reason, and they even apply to you.

Big Boyz wrote:I have consistently listened to and applied the feedback that was given to me in good faith during the drafting process. Go back to the early pages of this forum. I implemented dozens of changes based on the feedback of dozens of nations. The criticisms that came later, which simply presented fallacious arguments attacking the proposal and provided no feedback on improvement are the ones that I would call 'misleading' and 'insincere', and you, Daarwyrth, have been one of the worst offenders. You are so biased against this proposal that you will attack it from any angle that you could possibly envision, without ever having suggested improvements.

Vyn Nysen: "The theatre is that way, Ambassador, this isn't the place for such dramatics. We do not attack this proposal, we oppose it. And I have the admit the longer I interact with you, Ambassador, the stronger my opposition to this proposal becomes. If you fail to recognise the difference between 'opposition' and 'attack' I suggest you pick up a dictionary, Ambassador, and peruse it attentively. Also, let me remind you that our delegation actually did respond to your proposal with constructive criticism, which you chose to dismiss:

Daarwyrth wrote:Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, please answer this for me: what if some of your prairie tallgrass species would turn out to be damaging to the natural Daarwyrthian ecosystem? In the sense that they could be considered an invasive species? Your resolution would effectively prevent us from destroying the invasive tallgrass species.

For some inexplicable reason you assume that the tallgrass species that you seek to protect naturally occur across all the member states of the World Assembly. Ambassador, they don't. The species of prairie tallgrass that you apparently wish to protect don't occur in Daarwyrth naturally, yet you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, and even willingly so. Also, you fail to notice the very flaw in your thinking, namely, if you assume that these tallgrass species are so prevalent across the multiverse, then they aren't really endangered or danger of becoming such, no?

This resolution proposal will receive a firm 'against' from our delegation once it comes to a vote. We will not allow a potential invasive species to threaten our nation's ecosystem because some unknown ambassador got it in their head that the entire fabric of existence is exactly like their nation, and only like their nation."

Daarwyrth wrote:"Then leave it to the individual nations themselves that do have these biomes to deal with their maintenance and preservation. It is useless to enforce this onto nations that do not have this biome. This is a highly local issue, not one for the entirety of the World Assembly.

Our delegation remains opposed to this legislation, as your arguments fail to convince us."


Big Boyz wrote:There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.


Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, really, your imagination can't be that limited. A nation that can no longer develop new hospitals, new housing, new infrastructure or economic centres, places of work because they can't develop land with prairie tall grasses will be led to its doom with time. New houses won't be able to be built, when the population grows. Joblessness numbers will grow because no new places of work arise. Food shortages will occur with a lack of nutritional resources being produced, because those lands can't be touched. You completely fail to take into account developing nations, all for the sake of preserving your own flawed argument. Because your arguments only work if you ignore the facts all around us. Nothing else counts beyond your own limited viewpoints, even if they stand overtly and prominently in front of your own nose. It baffles me how you can be willingly blind to my arguments, but also the arguments of many other delegations and representatives from other nations. You ignore everything they say, Ambassador."

Big Boyz wrote:I have accepted feedback that was in good faith, Ambassador. It is you who is failing to hear my responses and instead is insisting on repeating the same arguments over and over again.

Vyn Nysen: "Because by perhaps repeating them they will finally pass through your skull into your mind, Ambassador. You are not an arbitrator that gets to decide what feedback has been given in good faith and what not. Most of the feedback and criticism that others have offered to you as a result of your resolution proposal was, objectively, in good faith, sincere and valid. Yet for some reason, stubbornness or pride, you are unwilling to look at the feedback and criticism provided objectively, Ambassador. You take everything that disagrees with you as an attack and as something malicious.

A veritable shame."

First Nightmare wrote:A nation can circumvent the prohibition on land development by leaving the WA, developing the land, and then re-entering the WA. The repercussions of leaving the WA might have a sizable impact, but if land development is really necessary then the benefits outweigh the losses.

Vyn Nysen: "Or, and here is just a thought, we can have a resolution proposal that actually works efficiently and properly, instead of having to resort to onerous circumventions. The solution is right in front of us, draft a better proposal, but the authoring delegation refuses to see what stands right in front of them."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 4:31 pm, edited 5 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Tue May 04, 2021 4:51 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Big Boyz wrote:Daarwyrth may be a member of the WA, but none of the directives in the proposal affect nations that do not have tallgrass prairies. To say that the international community of NationStates does not at least follow the general trends of the real world is foolish.

OOC: Oh right, because we have blue-skinned aliens, talking rabbits and magical entities in the real world. I suggest you take a good, close look at the rules regarding real-life references here in the GA. Because they are there for a reason, and they even apply to you.


Again, I must reiterate. Individual nations can be wildly different from the real world, but the general trend regarding real world issues must share some parallels, or else there would be no basis for legislation.
Big Boyz wrote:I have consistently listened to and applied the feedback that was given to me in good faith during the drafting process. Go back to the early pages of this forum. I implemented dozens of changes based on the feedback of dozens of nations. The criticisms that came later, which simply presented fallacious arguments attacking the proposal and provided no feedback on improvement are the ones that I would call 'misleading' and 'insincere', and you, Daarwyrth, have been one of the worst offenders. You are so biased against this proposal that you will attack it from any angle that you could possibly envision, without ever having suggested improvements.

Vyn Nysen: "The theatre is that way, Ambassador, this isn't the place for such dramatics. We do not attack this proposal, we oppose it. And I have the admit the longer I interact with you, Ambassador, the stronger my opposition to this proposal becomes. If you fail to recognise the difference between 'opposition' and 'attack' I suggest you pick up a dictionary, Ambassador, and peruse it attentively. Also, let me remind you that our delegation actually did respond to your proposal with constructive criticism, which you chose to dismiss


Pray tell, what criticism did Daarwyrth provide that could in any way be considered "constructive"?


Daarwyrth wrote:Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, please answer this for me: what if some of your prairie tallgrass species would turn out to be damaging to the natural Daarwyrthian ecosystem? In the sense that they could be considered an invasive species? Your resolution would effectively prevent us from destroying the invasive tallgrass species.

For some inexplicable reason you assume that the tallgrass species that you seek to protect naturally occur across all the member states of the World Assembly. Ambassador, they don't. The species of prairie tallgrass that you apparently wish to protect don't occur in Daarwyrth naturally, yet you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, and even willingly so. Also, you fail to notice the very flaw in your thinking, namely, if you assume that these tallgrass species are so prevalent across the multiverse, then they aren't really endangered or danger of becoming such, no?

This resolution proposal will receive a firm 'against' from our delegation once it comes to a vote. We will not allow a potential invasive species to threaten our nation's ecosystem because some unknown ambassador got it in their head that the entire fabric of existence is exactly like their nation, and only like their nation."


This criticism was responded to numerous times. Its claims have been addressed, and since Daarwyrth had already made up its mind regarding a vote, clearly this was not meant to encourage improvement. This was given only when the proposal had already reached quorum and was no longer up for drafting, I could hardly consider this constructive.


Daarwyrth wrote:"Then leave it to the individual nations themselves that do have these biomes to deal with their maintenance and preservation. It is useless to enforce this onto nations that do not have this biome. This is a highly local issue, not one for the entirety of the World Assembly.

Our delegation remains opposed to this legislation, as your arguments fail to convince us."


You'll recall that my response to this was:
Big Boyz wrote:I respectfully disagree. This is an international issue. Neither pollinators nor migratory species know human boundaries, so the effect of one nation failing to protect prairies can devastate the ecology and agricultural sector of another.

Nothing is being forced upon nations that do not have this biome, save for some simple research studies conducted primarily by the WASP. Restoration efforts are encouraged, but voluntary, so a nation that does not currently have this ecosystem will not be affected by the mandates of clause 3.

If you remain unconvinced, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.



Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, really, your imagination can't be that limited. A nation that can no longer develop new hospitals, new housing, new infrastructure or economic centres, places of work because they can't develop land with prairie tall grasses will be led to its doom with time. New houses won't be able to be built, when the population grows. Joblessness numbers will grow because no new places of work arise. Food shortages will occur with a lack of nutritional resources being develop on land that can't be touched."


As has been pointed out by First Nightmare membership in the World Assembly is voluntary. A nation that is truly struggling still has the option of leaving and then rejoining the WA.


Vyn Nysen: "Because by perhaps repeating them they will finally pass through your skull into your mind, Ambassador. You are not an arbitrator that gets to decide what feedback has been given in good faith and what not. Most of the feedback and criticism that others have offered to you as a result of your resolution proposal was, objectively, in good faith, sincere and valid. Yet for some reason, stubbornness or pride, you are unwilling to look at the feedback and criticism provided objectively, Ambassador. You take everything that disagrees with you as an attack and as something malicious.

A veritable shame."


You can pretend that your actions have been nothing but noble, and mine nothing but ignorant, but that doesn't make it true. You are living in a dream world, Ambassador, in which you envision yourself as the hero, and anyone who points to the folly of your worldview as a villain.


Vyn Nysen: "Or, and here is just a thought, we can have a resolution proposal that actually works efficiently and properly, instead of having to resort to onerous circumventions. The solution is right in front of us, draft a better proposal, but authoring delegation refuses to see what stands right in front of them."


The situation you are describing is, at best, a fringe case. You could make the same claim about a nation that exclusively contains endangered ecosystems, or exclusively contains other protected ecosystems, such as wetlands. If you allow this level of roleplay to interfere with a proposal, then there would be no environmental protections whatsoever.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Daarwyrth » Tue May 04, 2021 5:04 pm

Big Boyz wrote:You can pretend that your actions have been nothing but noble, and mine nothing but ignorant, but that doesn't make it true. You are living in a dream world, Ambassador, in which you envision yourself as the hero, and anyone who points to the folly of your worldview as a villain.

Vyn Nysen: "An excellent speech that you should be giving yourself in the mirror, Ambassador."

Big Boyz wrote:The situation you are describing is, at best, a fringe case. You could make the same claim about a nation that exclusively contains endangered ecosystems, or exclusively contains other protected ecosystems, such as wetlands.

Vyn Nysen: "Your inability to listen or consider the feedback of others has given our delegation ample material for the repeal draft of this resolution. The criticism that's offered is not only meant to try to help improve a resolution, but if ignored or dismissed, they will become the repeal hooks meant to pull a resolution back down.

I have said my pieces, Ambassador, and it felt as if I was talking to a brick wall. If you have anything relevant or meaningful to state, I will respond in kind, yet thus far you have been unable to do so.

I wish you a good day, Ambassador."
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Tue May 04, 2021 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Leader: Queen Demi Maria I | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech


User avatar
Big Boyz
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Apr 27, 2017
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Big Boyz » Tue May 04, 2021 5:24 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "An excellent speech that you should be giving yourself in the mirror, Ambassador."


Now who is being pretentious?


Vyn Nysen: "Your inability to listen or consider the feedback of others has given our delegation ample material for the repeal draft of this resolution. The criticism that's offered is not only meant to try to help improve a resolution, but if ignored or dismissed, they will become the repeal hooks meant to pull a resolution back down.


If you are meaning to garner support for repeal, then this argument is largely trivial.

I have said my pieces, Ambassador, and it felt as if I was talking to a brick wall.


I can relate. This needless argument has been tiring, to say the least. I have made my points, and if we can find no common ground, then there is no point in arguing further.

I wish you a good day, Ambassador."


And a good day to you as well.
I'm not psychotic, the voices tell me I'm sane!
Pretending to give my citizens freedom
Actually giving my citizens freedom

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads