Here's number 66.

Here's the Fluffy killer.

Don't see to much wrong with it, looks good from here.

Unless someone sees something that needs to be changed, I'll probably submit this tomorrow evening. It's pretty straight forward. Really no reason to draft a replacement as this is something that should have been left to the nations in the first place.

EDIT: Added a clicky thingamajig.

OK then:

This clause doesn't mean anything. Do you commend or praise the resolution for its good intent, or just "recognize" it? Do you condemn its intent, even? Be more specific.

"Willingly"? "Illegally"?

Add to that, I'm not sure what this clause is supposed to mean. What further power would you like to see nations granted under this resolution? It doesn't exactly take any powers any from them; it only implies special powers for a commission to certify legally logged wood, but doesn't make these powers clear, and as you said, it doesn't define "illegal logging," so the committee's authority is not clear at all.

Some punctuation nitpicking:

Put "illegal logging" in scarequotes, so the meaning is more clear.

- Also, end your clauses with commas or semicolons, not periods. Resolutions using this format are supposed to be one long, continuous sentence, so ending the clauses in periods just creates a bunch of sentence fragments.

Finally:

Your sentence has a verb but no subject. :P

"The United Nations hereby repeals R66: Illegal Logging."

Ah ha. Someone actually did read it.

That was a test, Douria failed. :P

I've taken note of your suggestions. I had planned on retyping it tonight when it was submitted.

As for the powers that weren't granted, that came from a past attempt to repeal. I'll retype it for this forum. Then I'll shut up. :lol:

Well isn't that lovely. Leave it to me to find out the repeal formatting doesn't read format coding. Oh well.

What's "CONDEMMING"?

Yeah yeah, I hit M twice. I'm just gonna let it run for now to see what happens. I'm starting to feel the signs of the flu coming on so I may be out of it in the coming days. I'm planning on resubmitting after I fix the two errors and following with a TG campaign.

Ya know, I'm probably going to oppose this publicly and vociferously. Not because R66 isn't shitty, it is. But this is a stupid argument. Illegal logging doesn't need a freaking definition...'logging' has a well-known common definition and if people don't know what 'illegal' means then may the gods help us.

As with any resolution that doesn't specify a detail, that detail resolves to the nation itself. !omfgbbq! Nations actually have to decide for themselves what is legal and illegal logging (with the "help" of Forest Management now, btw). And the WWP has to follow those definitions when assisting in tracking and eliminating trade in "poached" logs? What's the world coming to....

There are surely better arguments, Shirley. ;)


ETA: Oh, and take care of that flu...the one going round is killer.

You could've asked someone before you submitted.

It's not that big of a deal, at least he didn't do like me and do a telegram campaign immediately after submitting. Come to think of it though there is some work to be done on this repeal. 66 definitely needs to die though.

Now Ruby, you're not saying that those people in the UN actually have common sense are you? :blink:

I had looked at Forest Management, and thought that it was good enough on its own not to even need the logging one. Then again, FM relies on the WWp from IL. So this one may not be needed afterall, leaving me with yet another repeal that goes nowhere fast.

Flib: Rookie mistake, I submitted in a hurry and didn't think about the tags. I know better next time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to prepare my neuse.

OOC: I've felt like shit all day. My fever is starting to go up again. Hopefully it wont keep me restrained to the bed. I will have something worth voting on damnit, or my name isn't.......my name isn't......well it isn't Ralph! :auss:

It's fluff for the fluffies, that's all. Makes it look like he's singing Caesar's praises while he's really saying nothing.


That being (not?) said, I agree with Ruby. I've always hated these ridiculous semantic arguments, as they just lead to bigger and bigger idiocy ("I defined 'logging' as being homosexual, so gay are banned!!!!! lololololol!"). I'd rather not enshrine such nonsense in irremovable legislation.

No, what I'm saying is that the next time someone else files a poorly argued proposal, you (non-specific you meaning anyone who glibly lets crap slide) will look like a damn hypocrite when you tell them their repeal is shite.

Forest Management doesn't need R66. It was written with the knowledge that R66 would be on the chopping block (heh) at some point. With the rules concerning added duties to committees, the WWP will continue its existence. None of that is an issue.

I chose to use that one cause it seems like that's the one the trolls like, make it easier to get the point across.

The other was that this was the UN should have no power over forests in national borders. Really seeing as how the Forest Management bill was passd, IL isn't needed since FM covers what it was suppose to do.

Do the argument on redundancy then, that seems to work well.

Um, no. Clear-cutting an entire nation, for example, has serious negative effects on neighboring nations both in terms of land quality and in terms of wildlife species. That's the underpinning for FM and I/we pinned the ears back of anyone who snotted up the forum with "lalala natsov my resources".

Again not totally. FM addresses forest operations as resource utilization. Illegal Logging was meant to (but doesn't successfully) address the problem of logging by wildcat companies outside of the law and the presence of that forest product in the international market.

Then it looks to me like we need a resolution that does what IL was meant to do.

Indubitably. (I've always wanted to say that.)

:blink:

That was scary. I got a call earlier today about a job I applied for, so I start on Thursday. It shouldn't interupt me that much as far as activity except on Tuesday and Thursday when I have class at night. Which should satisfy those of you who voted to shut me up. :D

Oh, and I had to temporarily leave the region. Now don't get all gooey, I have a suspicion that two UN nations snuck into my Backwaters region to take it over. I'm blocking them at the moment until I come up with a plan to keep them from getting it.

Unless you turned off delegate controls they still have the upper hand. You need to get towel nation revived in order to kick them. /hijack

Not at the moment, you need the majority of endorsements to take the delegacy. I endorsed the one of them, so the only way they can take it is to bring up another. I may let them just go ahead and take it, but I'm not fond of infiltration.

Isn't it redundant, then? If it's to stop illegal operations, then, by definition, such things are already outlawed. It would be like doing a resolution to stop "illegal murder". Or, locally, a law to outlaw an illegal action.

<insert rant about gun laws here?>

For the record, I still think it's rather silly for a resolution to go after "illegal logging" without clarifying according to whose law. The entire resolution makes a bunch of implications, especially where the powers of this committee is concerned, but no actual directives or instructions. Interpreting it requires governments to make a lot of assumptions, which, sensible or not, you shouldn't have to make so many just to bring your nation into "compliance." I think Zarquon's argument was fine the way it was, though it does need some padding, maybe some repetition of the principle of quality legislation in the UN blah blah blah, and an added point about redundancy vis a vis Forest Management.

I'm planning on doing a restructure of this with more "padding" on the arguments, in the coming days. I stayed home from class both yesterday and today cause I've been ill. I went to class last night and boy was that a mistake because I feel worse today.

Right now, I'll be gone all day tomorrow, most of Friday and nearly all day Saturday. I'll get done what I can but it's likely to be next week before I have something finished.

Logical in the light of day. There's something niggling in the back of my mind about the different focus of the two resolutinos, and if it hits the right synapse (probably in the shower), I'll formulate an argument.

If Z. comes up with an argument other than semantics wank, I'll support the repeal as the author of FM (and campaign the enviros to do so as well).

That in itself is a tad silly. There can only be two choices, either international law or the laws of the component states. Since the resolution doesn't define what makes particular logging illegal, then the only option left is the law of the nation. And since I am not required under any definition of sovereignty to enforce the law of $NATION other than my own, each nation determines the legality of the logging within their nation (and now within the restrictions of FM). The "every word except "the" must be defined" philosophy is bankrupt, if only because of reasonable nation theory.

Reasonable nation theory is a crutch. Fact is, reasonable nations differ on what is the 'reasonable' thing to do. Defining 'logging' as 'homosexual' is not reasonable. Getting confused on if it is the states who decide or an Environmental Commitee who decides...that's sound rather reasonable.

Anyway, the World Woodland Protection Team seems to me to just be a UN Police Force, and any replacement is likely enough going to ensure the WWPT still be the UN Police Force. It enforces national law, by doing searches to find all those 'illegal loggers' violating various contradictary national laws (On a sidenote: "So I can't spy on a mega corporation because I would break privacy rules, but Treehuggers CAN?" [[EDIT: Oh no, oh no, um...er...side-side note, I was pointing to the fact that tehre is no delination of what powers the Commitee has to investigate the causes, stating that it is allowed to do random checks...meaning, well, does allow the Treehuggers right to do whatever it wants]]).

Once you find an illegal logger, you, um, hand it over to the Government to go and ensure they get...uh...fined. Oh, and having your trade license revoked, by, uh, the nation again? And, um, er, what does that mean?

I'm reasonably assuming that if your trade liscene is revoked, it means "OH NO, YOU CAN'T SELL LOGS ANYMORE IN UN"...unless you do so illegally, meaning all your logs are illegal. Meaning you just get fined again. And again. And again. And that's the extent of punishment.

Where do the fines goes? To the government? Or to the WWPT? Anyway, if the only thing an illegal logger can do is suffer the full wrath of 'fines'...it just seems rather weak. You sell the logs illegally to make money, then you go and use the profits to pay the fines and then retire comfortably as entire forests are annhilated. Of course, you don't even have to pay for the fines if you actually log in an area that tolerates cutting down trees, but that does make the enviromentalists unhappy.

The fines could therefore be seen as a 'enviromental tax', but of course, that tax does nothing to those dead trees. In any, uh, revision of "Illegal Logging", is it okay to recommend some sort of harsher punishment?

[[EDIT 2: The mandating of punishments like "fines" and "trade license suspesnion", assuming that the State has to do them, seems to contradict the FSA as well. You have to go and have the Commitee decide fines and suspend trade licenses in order for it to be legal.]]

Bull.

That's not exactly what reasonable nation theory is. Reasonable nation theory with regard to resolutions presupposes a rational set of parameters with respect to the composition of a nation and the way that nation operates. It's why proposal authors don't have to take into consideration every wank that could possibly be constructed, like redefining theft or cats.

The establishment of WWP and assigned duties under Illegal Logging predates FSA, rendering reliance on FSA moot.

However (with respect to a replacement), issuing licenses or certifying operations does not a police force make. Nor does assisting nation's law enforcement by providing information relating to the existence of illegal product on the international market that issues from their nation--otherwise ICPIN would be a police force, and it's not.

-------

I dunno man, you sound a little bitter. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to with respect to spying on corporations.

I'm not so certain that is really something to assume. It may work for nations that don't RP (you can reasonably assume their nations follow the gameplay mechanics of NS), but for nations that do RP, well, the 'rational set of parameters' may also be radically different for each nation. There are 'wanks' that I condemn, but there are also 'legit RPers' who reasonbly differ on what words mean.

Hm. An example: The "Patient Rights Act" mandates nations must allow for all medial procedures to occur. This would include euthanisa as well. But some people see euthanisa as not a medical procedure because it kills someone. Others see euthanisa as a medical procedure because it helps the paitent. We got ourselves a dispute, and since 'medicial' is not defined, the nation must therefore decide what is 'medical' and what isn't.

Using "reasonable nation theory" here won't actually get us anywhere because there are two rational set of parameters that conflict, the right-wing view of 'no right to die' and the left-wing view of 'right to die'. In which case, a new method is needed, like say, a "Nations Decide" view.

And it is the same thing here. I sincerecly don't really know what is going on and is trying to figure it out. This isn't 'loopholes', this resolution is rather unclear. As Kenny said: "Interpreting it requires governments to make a lot of assumptions, which, sensible or not, you shouldn't have to make so many just to bring your nation into 'compliance'."

In this case, I was assuming a replacement of Illegal Logging.

Guess we differ. Both the ICPIN and the WWPT gathers information. Unlike the ICPIN though, the WWPT will be allowed to PUNISH itself, by revoking the licenses or not certify operations (note, I don't see any power that allows the WWPT to actually give licenses, just allow them to revoke it). Sounds like "de facto" policing to me (certaintly not 'de jure'). It's like arguing that we only have one division that actually gathers information, and another division that goes and punish them, the punishing is not as important as the "intel gathering" that allows for the punishing to occur.

And I'm okay with such police forces, as long as they don't infringe on NatSov, which neither do...er...okay, not that much.

But this resolution merely calls for a 'fine' or a 'suspension of trade' (which doesn't stop the illegal loggers from still logging my trees). It doesn't make me feel my forests are protected at all (of course, my forests, the fact remains, if the nations allow all logging, this resolution means nothing to them). The more I read it, the more I dislike it.

The 'spying on corporations' part is referring to "Resolution #10: Stop privacy intrusion", which is that nations can't spy. But, according to the Resolution itself, the nation is allowed to do any checks necessary to stop those corporations from illegal logging. So, it does present a double-standard in my OOC viewpoint, but that's not what my IC nation is going to ream on, of course.