04-04-2004, 07:05
In light of such resistance, I present a Declaration…
To the Peoples and Nations of the World:
On Friday, October 3, 2003, a topic was posted that attempts to explain what a Nation must consider before proposing a resolution. This topic is ingeniously written and does clearly explain what and what not to do. However, like within many Organizations before it, the system has its flaws.
In the Constitution of the United States of America many laws and amendments have come and gone. Times do indeed change. While the idea of slavery was originally an issue of population versus representation in the House of Representatives was later solved in the Three-Fifths Compromise; eventually, slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. The 18th Amendment made it illegal to produce or sell any alcoholic beverages, Prohibition, which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. Woman’s suffrage was finally realized under the laws of the 19th Amendment. Times do indeed change.
On Monday, December 30, 2002, the ‘Expedition of Resolution Votes’ resolution was passed to ensure speedy passage of queued proposals to the U.N. floor.
On Sunday, January 26, 2003, the ‘Proposal Limits’ resolution was passed to ensure that a Nation may only make one proposal per week.
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, the ‘Search Function’ resolution was passed simply to install a function that allowed Nations to search for specific resolutions.
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, ‘Resolution 245A Proper Grammar’ resolution was perhaps a much more controversial issue. It stressed the importance of proper grammar when proposing resolutions and that:
“Any country that files a proposal with such language shall henceforth be banned from proposals until such time as they understand the English language and can properly convey their ideas.”
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, the ‘Reduction of Needed Approvals’ resolution passed simply limiting the number of approvals (15% to 5%) needed to pass a queued proposal to the U.N. floor.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, the ‘Resolution Restrictions’ resolution was passed simply to convey the need to scrutinize proposals being submitted.
On Friday, October 3, 2003 an edict was declared that attempts to explain what a Nation must consider before proposing a resolution.
The official web-site declaration is as such:
“Inappropriate proposals will be removed. This includes proposals that:
* suggest changing how the game works (use the Forum instead)
* contain descriptions that do not match the category and effect
* are not worthy of the UN's consideration”
All Seven resolutions listed above do, in some form or another, break the first item. Are we to let these Seven stay in effect because they were passed before October 3, 2003? If this were indeed true, then slavery in the United States still exists. Women do not have the right to vote. Production and sales of alcohol is still illegal. Is this the case? No, it is not. Times do indeed change.
I am not expressing that these Seven are inappropriate. On the contrary, I agree with them wholeheartedly and applaud their authors and the impact that they have had. The same is true for such amendments in the Constitution of the United States. At the time, they were poignant and necessary. They were meant to answer the conditions of the United States and her People. Likewise, these Seven intended the same affect.
To this day, the Nations of the U.N. have no such power granted to them to challenge the Authoritarian decree. In the instance of the ‘Resolution 245A Proper Grammar’ resolution, I may be “banned from proposals” if I confuse “your” for “you’re”, such homonyms are never confusing. As Enodia points out on this resolution:
“…while it might be well-intentioned now (it was very well-intentioned at the time it passed) is effectively meaningless.”
Slavery was well intentioned at one point in time. Prohibition was an attempt at a moral society. Women were thought to be too emotional to vote. Many laws have well intentions. This resolution is effectively a meaningless resolution today, although any nation could easily argue to ban me from proposals for grammar if this resolution, which is still in effect, is read strictly for what it says. Thusly, it still has some potency to it. That resolution, in my opinion, was to bring to the attention of the U.N. members at the time that they should be careful of their grammar. That is all. It has a rather subjective quality about it; take it for what it’s worth. Is it then true that our beloved “U.N. is meaningless”?
Many laws passed by the U.N. later come up as issues within U.N. and non-U.N. member Nations, thusly, if you choose an option that goes against the U.N. law, you are breaking U.N. law. Are you not? Example, 'Legalize Euthanasia' (purposefully proposed by The Republic of Grande on Friday, Jan 16, 2004) passed within one of the closet voter margins ever, only by 779 votes. This law, therefore, legalizes the use of Euthanasia. However, many Nations are bombarded with this same issue titled 'Cancer Sufferer Demands Euthanasia Bill'. (I am a member of the U.N.; doesn't such a bill already exist?) You then are prompted three options (respectfully paraphrased): 1) pass the bill, 2) not kill them, continue to find a cure, and 3) let God decide when it is time. The last two, if chosen, would nullify the U.N. bill, thusly, you would be breaking the U.N. resolution. Is it true that the “U.N. is meaningless”? Many today may find this to be true.
This brings us to Sunday, April 4, 2004; the idea, which has been previously brought up before, for the need of a ‘United Nations Referendum’. Admittedly, this resolution does indeed ultimately attempt to change the mechanics of the game; in the same manner as the Seven before it. Are we to further support the popular belief that the “U.N. is meaningless” by undermining this resolution from ever seeing the eyes of the international community? The “moderators” say ‘yes’. Such an inherent right shall not be granted to us. Why? Is the U.N. indeed an Authoritarian? Do they wish to oppress its Peoples? Do they simply want to avoid the complexities that it may bring about? All three may be true; I for one believe the latter.
The Independent States of Bytek is a peaceful nation. We are not looking instigate aggression against the tranquility that lines the halls of the U.N. We do, however, feel it our right as a People of the world; as a people of the U.N.; and as a Nation, to challenge the practices and resolutions of the U.N. as found necessary by ‘popular support’. We are granted the right to debate. We are granted the right to express our views; no more proof is needed to be found except within this very post. However, and it is with a most dismal heart, that we may not rise up peacefully en masse to challenge the Authoritarian. Such arguments were made prior to the Civil War, except then it took the form of secession; the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions their only ammunition. We are not even given such blessed ammunition as that. Our only cries can be heard in the thousands upon thousands of posts found every day within the Forum; posts that hourly move from page one to page thirty-six to be never looked at again; posts that at times are scarcely looked at except by the “moderators”, which most gratefully take time to try and answer such important issues. They only intend the best; they intend to inform. They are the eyes and ears that listen, but are constantly bombarded with needless complaints and issues, which they may indeed come to call mine. The Independent States of Bytek is a peaceful nation. We are not looking to instigate aggression against the tranquility that lines the halls of the U.N.
Peoples of the world: why shall we be devoid of this inherent right, which stands along side the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? All that we ask; all that we ask! Is that we be granted the right to legally challenge the U.N. authority. Such a resolution as the ‘United Nations Referendum’ would make this possible. Is work needed on such a resolution, yes; does it require input from many U.N. members and the “moderators”, yes; and is all that possible to do, yes. Together as the Nations of the world, we can accomplish this task. Together as the U.N., we can accomplish this task. The heart of the U.N., indeed the very fabric that binds the Peoples of the world together, can be recaptured through such a resolution. The U.N. is indeed, not meaningless.
Sincerely,
The Independent States of Bytek
NOTE: All information and quotes were gathered from the www.nationstates.net web-site.
To the Peoples and Nations of the World:
On Friday, October 3, 2003, a topic was posted that attempts to explain what a Nation must consider before proposing a resolution. This topic is ingeniously written and does clearly explain what and what not to do. However, like within many Organizations before it, the system has its flaws.
In the Constitution of the United States of America many laws and amendments have come and gone. Times do indeed change. While the idea of slavery was originally an issue of population versus representation in the House of Representatives was later solved in the Three-Fifths Compromise; eventually, slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. The 18th Amendment made it illegal to produce or sell any alcoholic beverages, Prohibition, which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. Woman’s suffrage was finally realized under the laws of the 19th Amendment. Times do indeed change.
On Monday, December 30, 2002, the ‘Expedition of Resolution Votes’ resolution was passed to ensure speedy passage of queued proposals to the U.N. floor.
On Sunday, January 26, 2003, the ‘Proposal Limits’ resolution was passed to ensure that a Nation may only make one proposal per week.
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, the ‘Search Function’ resolution was passed simply to install a function that allowed Nations to search for specific resolutions.
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, ‘Resolution 245A Proper Grammar’ resolution was perhaps a much more controversial issue. It stressed the importance of proper grammar when proposing resolutions and that:
“Any country that files a proposal with such language shall henceforth be banned from proposals until such time as they understand the English language and can properly convey their ideas.”
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, the ‘Reduction of Needed Approvals’ resolution passed simply limiting the number of approvals (15% to 5%) needed to pass a queued proposal to the U.N. floor.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, the ‘Resolution Restrictions’ resolution was passed simply to convey the need to scrutinize proposals being submitted.
On Friday, October 3, 2003 an edict was declared that attempts to explain what a Nation must consider before proposing a resolution.
The official web-site declaration is as such:
“Inappropriate proposals will be removed. This includes proposals that:
* suggest changing how the game works (use the Forum instead)
* contain descriptions that do not match the category and effect
* are not worthy of the UN's consideration”
All Seven resolutions listed above do, in some form or another, break the first item. Are we to let these Seven stay in effect because they were passed before October 3, 2003? If this were indeed true, then slavery in the United States still exists. Women do not have the right to vote. Production and sales of alcohol is still illegal. Is this the case? No, it is not. Times do indeed change.
I am not expressing that these Seven are inappropriate. On the contrary, I agree with them wholeheartedly and applaud their authors and the impact that they have had. The same is true for such amendments in the Constitution of the United States. At the time, they were poignant and necessary. They were meant to answer the conditions of the United States and her People. Likewise, these Seven intended the same affect.
To this day, the Nations of the U.N. have no such power granted to them to challenge the Authoritarian decree. In the instance of the ‘Resolution 245A Proper Grammar’ resolution, I may be “banned from proposals” if I confuse “your” for “you’re”, such homonyms are never confusing. As Enodia points out on this resolution:
“…while it might be well-intentioned now (it was very well-intentioned at the time it passed) is effectively meaningless.”
Slavery was well intentioned at one point in time. Prohibition was an attempt at a moral society. Women were thought to be too emotional to vote. Many laws have well intentions. This resolution is effectively a meaningless resolution today, although any nation could easily argue to ban me from proposals for grammar if this resolution, which is still in effect, is read strictly for what it says. Thusly, it still has some potency to it. That resolution, in my opinion, was to bring to the attention of the U.N. members at the time that they should be careful of their grammar. That is all. It has a rather subjective quality about it; take it for what it’s worth. Is it then true that our beloved “U.N. is meaningless”?
Many laws passed by the U.N. later come up as issues within U.N. and non-U.N. member Nations, thusly, if you choose an option that goes against the U.N. law, you are breaking U.N. law. Are you not? Example, 'Legalize Euthanasia' (purposefully proposed by The Republic of Grande on Friday, Jan 16, 2004) passed within one of the closet voter margins ever, only by 779 votes. This law, therefore, legalizes the use of Euthanasia. However, many Nations are bombarded with this same issue titled 'Cancer Sufferer Demands Euthanasia Bill'. (I am a member of the U.N.; doesn't such a bill already exist?) You then are prompted three options (respectfully paraphrased): 1) pass the bill, 2) not kill them, continue to find a cure, and 3) let God decide when it is time. The last two, if chosen, would nullify the U.N. bill, thusly, you would be breaking the U.N. resolution. Is it true that the “U.N. is meaningless”? Many today may find this to be true.
This brings us to Sunday, April 4, 2004; the idea, which has been previously brought up before, for the need of a ‘United Nations Referendum’. Admittedly, this resolution does indeed ultimately attempt to change the mechanics of the game; in the same manner as the Seven before it. Are we to further support the popular belief that the “U.N. is meaningless” by undermining this resolution from ever seeing the eyes of the international community? The “moderators” say ‘yes’. Such an inherent right shall not be granted to us. Why? Is the U.N. indeed an Authoritarian? Do they wish to oppress its Peoples? Do they simply want to avoid the complexities that it may bring about? All three may be true; I for one believe the latter.
The Independent States of Bytek is a peaceful nation. We are not looking instigate aggression against the tranquility that lines the halls of the U.N. We do, however, feel it our right as a People of the world; as a people of the U.N.; and as a Nation, to challenge the practices and resolutions of the U.N. as found necessary by ‘popular support’. We are granted the right to debate. We are granted the right to express our views; no more proof is needed to be found except within this very post. However, and it is with a most dismal heart, that we may not rise up peacefully en masse to challenge the Authoritarian. Such arguments were made prior to the Civil War, except then it took the form of secession; the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions their only ammunition. We are not even given such blessed ammunition as that. Our only cries can be heard in the thousands upon thousands of posts found every day within the Forum; posts that hourly move from page one to page thirty-six to be never looked at again; posts that at times are scarcely looked at except by the “moderators”, which most gratefully take time to try and answer such important issues. They only intend the best; they intend to inform. They are the eyes and ears that listen, but are constantly bombarded with needless complaints and issues, which they may indeed come to call mine. The Independent States of Bytek is a peaceful nation. We are not looking to instigate aggression against the tranquility that lines the halls of the U.N.
Peoples of the world: why shall we be devoid of this inherent right, which stands along side the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? All that we ask; all that we ask! Is that we be granted the right to legally challenge the U.N. authority. Such a resolution as the ‘United Nations Referendum’ would make this possible. Is work needed on such a resolution, yes; does it require input from many U.N. members and the “moderators”, yes; and is all that possible to do, yes. Together as the Nations of the world, we can accomplish this task. Together as the U.N., we can accomplish this task. The heart of the U.N., indeed the very fabric that binds the Peoples of the world together, can be recaptured through such a resolution. The U.N. is indeed, not meaningless.
Sincerely,
The Independent States of Bytek
NOTE: All information and quotes were gathered from the www.nationstates.net web-site.