NationStates Jolt Archive

I have drafted, for the inspection of those who would in the end vote on it, a proposal that I fervently support. I haven't wrote it in the typical format, but I do believe it is find as is. It is for the repeal of "Citizen Rule Required".
I do await any suggestions, or reflections.

Edit: I have come to find that a proposal has already been submited for this topic, but as it consists of a single FRAGMENT ("isn't good for all nations"), I am still going to submit this as I believe I have MUCH more distinct reasoning.

I will submit this either tonight or tomorrow, but I wish to gain some oppinions first-and possibly make admendments were you make valid points.
___________________________________________________

We Address this issue on the grounds of it's blatant disregard for the autonomy and individualism inherently allotted to each sovereign nation.

The basis for it's initial proposal were: "These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called 'rouge nations' that to this day threaten all nations."

While we of Failing Moons sympathize with the ultimate goal of such a resolution (potential for greater peace), we also recognize the demonstrative (of it's inadequacy) property in it's foundation: It was founded upon assumptions and false pretense.

The conclusion that the aforementioned 'rogue nations' are naturally oppressive is NOT based on any true definition, only distinct possibilities. And WE are of the oppinion that posibilities should not be used to explain away unnecessary micro-management.

Furthermore: This succesful and honorable organization was founded on the general principle of protecting international interests. We are convinced of the inferiority of this resolution when compared with that standard.

To declare what this resolution purports is simillar to assuming a black man will mug you or that an Indian will scalp you. And as such it borders on (if it in fact does not breach) PREJUDICE. Only it is by Governing Style in the stead of race.

And, as there is no proven correlation between the condemned governing fashion and actions disruptive of the international peace we vow to protect, we feel this resolution only rationalizes UN Interference. A Nation (upon entering the UN) should not relinquish the right to govern itself simply because the UN deems it likely that your particular form of government degrades Peace. The UN should concern itself only with issues of INTERNATIONAL affairs, and deign to deal with the individual members only upon their breach of our precepts.

And, For The Reasons Enumerated Above, We Call For The Resolution In Question's Immediate Revocation.

Lose all mention of "The Dominion of Failing Moons and the Region of Eudaimonia" or I'll be deleting it for Branding violations.

Meanwhile, take a look at "Rules for UN proposals". It'll probably help.


Edit: don't plan on submitting tonight or tomorrow. Get some feedback. This one needs a LOT of work.

"rouge nations". Hah. Always like that one.

"rouge nations". Hah. Always like that one.

Even better are the lipstick nations. ;)

Firstly:

it's = it is It's problematic
its = belongs to it Its problems

Secondly, adding all CAPS words may seem like A good idea but IT'S really not. It doesn't SEEM to add anything to the proposal. I would GO for just normal capitalisation.

Thirdly, I would tone down the pomposity. Big words are nice, but they don't really add anything to the argument.

Fourth, have you really read the resolution? All you have to do to comply is allow a town council to elect their secretary.

Finally, the NSUN wasn't founded to bring about, support or even tolerate peace. Don't know where you got that from.

Hmmm....there is something starkly grand about reality checks...thanks for the oppinions (those I've gotten so far that is), you had really good points that I would've never considered. Which is why I put it here in the first place I suppose...I responded to all the comments so if you don't care for that then don't read it I guess:

Finally, the NSUN wasn't founded to bring about, support or even tolerate peace. Don't know where you got that from.

I blame it on my pomposity.

But I guess I could rationalize it with the fact that while it wasn't founded on that it is defender of peace and equality. I don't know how many bills I've read that made sense, and really fit into the grander scheme of things-all working towards (generally) peace. And then there are of course the repeals which work towards perfecting the ideals set out in the name of peace. Ah, whatever, I'll do something with it to reduce bragadocious statements such as that.

Secondly, adding all CAPS words may seem like A good idea but IT'S really not. It doesn't SEEM to add anything to the proposal. I would GO for just normal capitalisation.


Sure. I'll probably leave a few stressors for the sake of stressing, but your point is taken.

it's = it is It's problematic
its = belongs to it Its problems

Yep, thats just me typing(=bound to be stupid flaws). I might pound the grammatical law into my skull someday, but I suspect I'll have to force you to live with my ineptitude until I overcome laziness' tendencies.

Thirdly, I would tone down the pomposity. Big words are nice, but they don't really add anything to the argument.


Point taken, but I really think I'll leave it as I really don't feel like doing That much editing. I will keep this in mind for future resolutions though.

Lose all mention of "The Dominion of Failing Moons and the Region of Eudaimonia" or I'll be deleting it for Branding violations.

Meanwhile, take a look at "Rules for UN proposals". It'll probably help.


Edit: don't plan on submitting tonight or tomorrow. Get some feedback. This one needs a LOT of work.

Lol...cool: I love rules ever so much!I guess I just have to read them now...and I'll extricate the 'branding' pronto.


Alright, so I'll probably give it awhile for more suggestions, then rework the draft, and submit it here for your final review. If I then feel it passes muster I'll submit it. But I guess since there wasn't total backlash I did alright for a first proposal type thing...? Anyway, more suggestions wanted.

The average good resolution goes through at least one, if not two or more weeks of revision. I know Right to Divorce had half of it's lines redone, and it's replacement is getting nearly every line scrutinized to every detail (week 3..... yes it will be up here soon) and has less than enthusiastic support. Other proposals take several months to work with. Being unwilling to do "that much editing" isn't the smartest of plans when it comes to resolution writing.

Right to Divorce was submitted within 10 days of it's official release onto the forums, and looking back, I wish we had waited another 10, because we got hammered once the ball got rolling on problems.

Edit: I have come to find that a proposal has already been submited for this topic, but as it consists of a single FRAGMENT ("isn't good for all nations"), I am still going to submit this as I believe I have MUCH more distinct reasoning.
Repeals get submitted for CRR about every three days. None of them have more than a devil's chance in heaven of reaching quorum, let alone passing. So you're justified in trying to submit a good one.

However, I cannot support this repeal (OOC: because I don't feel like a strong hit to my World Benchmark political freedoms) because it is not strong enough to do damage to dictatorships and Ceorana sees no reason anyway why absolute dictatorships should be allowed anyway, seeing as they are opressive &c.

Repeals get submitted for CRR about every three days. None of them have more than a devil's chance in heaven of reaching quorum, let alone passing. So you're justified in trying to submit a good one.

However, I cannot support this repeal (OOC: because I don't feel like a strong hit to my World Benchmark political freedoms) because it is not strong enough to do damage to dictatorships and Ceorana sees no reason anyway why absolute dictatorships should be allowed anyway, seeing as they are opressive &c.

The blanket statement that all absolute dictatorships are oppressive is incorrect. Besides, the UN has no business saying that one form of government is better than any other.

The blanket statement that all absolute dictatorships are oppressive is incorrect. Besides, the UN has no business saying that one form of government is better than any other.

Or, at the very least, no right to

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

Or, at the very least, no right to

My inherent laziness thanks you, FL. ;)

The blanket statement that all absolute dictatorships are oppressive is incorrect. Besides, the UN has no business saying that one form of government is better than any other.

That is exactly the point of this proposal...

And FL I definitely get the Weeks of revision thing....*sighs*....*starts to revise*-

I'll put the new draft up for your all's inspection later I suppose.

That is exactly the point of this proposal...

And FL I definitely get the Weeks of revision thing....*sighs*....*starts to revise*-

I'll put the new draft up for your all's inspection later I suppose.

FL makes a very good point about revising. It really does take a lot of time and effort to craft a proposal. Hell, my first proposal (not counting the joke ones I submitted -- BAD Cluich!), which I started writing in October of last year, has only recently made it into the queue.

I have submited a slightly altercated version.

As I do believe in the topic's foundations, and in the need for it to be repealed, I, of course, then ask for your support.

I understand the idea of an oppresive government being offensive to certain nations, but as is even stated in the rules, so CRR is technically not even legal...then again I could be misinterpretating it.

The point I'm deviating from though is that Citizen Rule Required is a resolution I feel has no business being a law in the NSUN. I can only hope you share that belief.

Your proposal is still branded. You can't use phrases like 'we of Failing Moons'.

I can be a bit of a grammar freak, so please forgive me. (I don't support the repeal, but I do want to help if I can.)


We Address this issue on the grounds of it's blatant disregard for the autonomy and individualism inherently allotted to each sovereign nation.

Instead of "it's" use "its." And don't capitalize "address."

Also, using "individualism" when referring to a nation is wrong. A nation is a unit, but it is not an individual. Individualism refers to rights and choices by individuals, the very point of CRR.

The basis for it's initial proposal were: "These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called 'rouge nations' that to this day threaten all nations."
Either use the plural of basis, which is "bases" if I'm not mistaken, or change "were" to "was." And, again, "it's" should be "its".


While we of Failing Moons sympathize with the ultimate goal of such a resolution (potential for greater peace), we also recognize the demonstrative (of it's inadequacy) property in it's foundation: It was founded upon assumptions and false pretense.

As others said, remove "we of Failing Moons". Also, parenthetical remarks like you use really break up the flow of the text. I would recommend instead:

"While we sympathize with the ultimate goal of such a resolution, which is greater peace, we also recognize this inadequacy, which is demonstrable: It was founded upon false assumptions and pretense." Or something like that. (Don't say it's founded upon assumptions--everything is founded on some kind of assumption. The question is whether that assumption is correct or not.)

The conclusion that the aforementioned 'rogue nations' are naturally oppressive is NOT based on any true definition, only distinct possibilities. And WE are of the oppinion that posibilities should not be used to explain away unnecessary micro-management.

Don't capitalize not. Also, remove "And we are of the opinion that". It weakens your rhetoric, without making it broader. (If you leave it in, the words are spelled "opinion" and "possibilities".)

Furthermore: This succesful and honorable organization was founded on the general principle of protecting international interests. We are convinced of the inferiority of this resolution when compared with that standard.

Again, don't use "We are convinced." Just say "This resolution does not conform to that standard." (I disagree with the statement, but that's neither here nor there.)

To declare what this resolution purports is simillar to assuming a black man will mug you or that an Indian will scalp you. And as such it borders on (if it in fact does not breach) PREJUDICE. Only it is by Governing Style in the stead of race.

Again, bad use of capitals. Also, linking this to racism is a rhetorically bad idea. This resolution was to increase political freedom and help the underprivileged...equating racism with stopping oppressive systems is bad rhetorical form. Also, the parenthetical remark also distracts...especially because the word breach doesn't fit. I think you mean it borders on, or crosses the line into, prejudice. (I'm also not sure you spelled that right, but I don't have time to look it up right now.) (Also, never start a sentence with a conjunction like "and".) And, just use "instead" instead of "in the stead of".

And, as there is no proven correlation between the condemned governing fashion and actions disruptive of the international peace we vow to protect, we feel this resolution only rationalizes UN Interference. A Nation (upon entering the UN) should not relinquish the right to govern itself simply because the UN deems it likely that your particular form of government degrades Peace. The UN should concern itself only with issues of INTERNATIONAL affairs, and deign to deal with the individual members only upon their breach of our precepts.

Change "your form of government" to "their form of government." You started in the third person, stick to it. Also...your last statement is hard to follow. I think I understand it, but you might change "our precepts" to "these precepts."

And, For The Reasons Enumerated Above, We Call For The Resolution In Question's Immediate Revocation.

Again, quit the capitals. And don't use "we." Change it to something like

"For the reason enumerated above, Resolution ### is hereby repealed."

I hope this is helpful. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'd rather your proposal be written well then poorly, even if I am against it.

Fu Huangdi
Whose player is a grad student and has to spend way too much time correcting the errors in his professor's grammar and spelling.

I have submited a slightly altercated version.

Are you sure that you mean "altercated" rather than "altered"?

Are you sure that you mean "altercated" rather than "altered"?He altered, I altercated:

Thu Feb 2 10:31:19 2006: the_most_glorious_hack deleted the UN proposal "Repeal "Citizen Rule Required""