NationStates Jolt Archive

Huh? I just tried TGing Brians Room, who to my knowledge doesn't have me on ignore, from Gruenberg. The text was this:

Hi. You mentioned you'd be interested in supporting a repeal of "Right To Divorce". We've been discussing a draft, and come up with this. Thoughts?

The United Nations,

NOTING the recent passage of "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution,

OBSERVING that given that the resolution only creates a right, where divorce 'may be granted', the final decision still rests with national or local courts, who would be better placed to judge the circumstances of the case anyway,

DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

BELIEVING it to be mistaken to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

RECOGNISING that it would be better to have visitation and other rights assessed on a case-by-case basis by a local agency, better appraised of the facts of the individual situation, where the welfare of the child, as well as the rights of the parents, could be taken into consideration,

NOTING FURTHER that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such enforces one particular set of values,

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS that clause 1.5 opens up the possibility that someone attempting to gain a divorce in order to extort alimony payments could be legitimately granted such opportunity by simply registering two complaints,

CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies,

REMAINING OPEN to the possibility replacement legislation that legislates a 'right to divorce' without resorting to unnecessary micromanagement:

REPEALS "Right To Divorce".

I got the message 'This request failed a security check'. I was logged in, the TG doesn't contain any inappropriate language...what does this mean? I hadn't seen the message before.

I'm not too sure about it.


But it might be the part of the proposal with the "Sexual Molestation" part in it. But to get a clear answer you will have to wait for a Moderator on this one.

But it might be the part of the proposal with the "Sexual Molestation" part in it.

Ok, but this was instantaneous, not reviewed. I don't see how 'sexual molestation' could set off a filter.

Then i have no clue......


I'm not sure how the Telegram system really works.

It probably refers to internet security, meaning it is due to a browser problem.

I got the message 'This request failed a security check'.
Might have been flood control. You can only send TGs every 30 seconds or so (don't know the exact figure). If you still can't send to Brians Room, post here again with the exact message and whether it's an on-page NS message or a browser pop-up or something.

Hmm, sent fine this time. Probably my end. Definitely wasn't flood control, though; it wasn't that message, and in any case I hadn't sent a TG (if you have logs, I assume you can verify this). Puzzling, but no matter.

Might have been flood control. You can only send TGs every 30 seconds or so (don't know the exact figure). If you still can't send to Brians Room, post here again with the exact message and whether it's an on-page NS message or a browser pop-up or something.
No, that's not it. The flood control has its own special message: "To prevent spam, you cannot wire a message so soon after your last one. Please try again in a few moments."

IIRC, the security check message is when you try and log into two nations at once. I'm not 100%, but I'm fairly sure that's the reason.

IIRC, the security check message is when you try and log into two nations at once. I'm not 100%, but I'm fairly sure that's the reason.

It could have been that, actually. Would make more sense. I may have been puppet-fiddling at the time.

A security check can result when the page is not properly associated with your current login. This can especially happen if you use autologin and you idle on the page long enough to logout, and then sending the telegram causes you to automatically log back in (but with a different session).