NationStates Jolt Archive

Fine people of the world:

Over the past several years, it has become clear that no nation is safe from the threat of terrorism. Though it pains the peace-loving people of Andinostan, we believe that this threat is serious enough to warrant direct and serious action.

Any nation that harbors terrorist organizations is complicit in their crime. Thus, it follows that any nation that is home to a single terrorist is a terrorist nation. As finding this terrorist is an undue strain on those that quiver in fear, and given the fact that the nature of terrorism hinders our abilities to avoid or mitigate the ill-effects of a terrorist attack, we find no other solution than to destroy any country that houses or may house known or suspected terrorist. And we must do this swiftly and decisively.

Conventional military tactics are not enough. Perhaps the terrorists are hiding in caves in a desert wasteland, or escaping to Syria, or perhaps Antarctica. Whatever the case, they are a serious threat, and probably possess weapons of mass destruction or at least some rotten couscous. Therefore, it is imperative that we destroy them entirely by blanketing their hideouts with nuclear bombs.

The noble people of Andinostan know no crime, due to our social equality. However, those terrorists...well, they hate our freedoms. So we have to kill them and anyone who looks like them. To support freedom for your citizens and to protect ourselves from the scourge that is international terrorism, you must support our resolution, "Everyone dies," before the council for your approval. The survival of liberty depends on it.

Such bad sarcasm.

Unfortunately, the mods are about as linguistically savvy as the previous post (c.f. telegram from the mods, "Please refrain from making real-world based UN proposals.").

First, my proposal, "Everybody Dies," while implicitly referencing (for humorous effect) recent real-world events WAS NOT based in said events. Both the proposal and previous post were made in character, and both were no more contingent on real-world events than similar passed resolutions (e.g. Fight the Axis of Evil, the formation of the Red Cross, Bill of Rights, etc.). Further, it made no reference to specific world events, but rather referenced the environment in which we live in. While real-world events were implied in some of the language, there are no indications that similar events could have not occurred in the nation of Andinostan.

Second, from a real world point of view, my proposal was preposterous. It called for the outright destruction of the world, pretty much. However, nonsense of similar caliber has been seen in many resolutions that have come to a vote (see the most recent on regarding dumping that requires nations to come up with potentially millions of workers to guard the oceans). In fact, my resolution made a valid, in-game proposal of increasing the production of nuclear arms worldwide, which is not incongruent with the equations that govern the game.

Third, as the line between "real world" and "role play" seems arbitrarily drawn by whichever mod makes these decisions, a better explanation is in order. Perhaps a quick conversation could have shown that the proposal was well-rooted in imagination and not in real-world events. Instead, a one-line 'response' was made, laying down the judgment of the mods.

In sum, my proposal was quite trivial, but no more trivial than any other currently under consideration. It was not based in real-world events, but rather drew on real-world experiences. The mods provided no guideline to prevent future proposals. Even if it were "too real world" for the mod's taste, what's the harm in letting the game players decided that through the representative functions already provided?

Max' "Fight the Axis of Evil" is the most stupid resolution which has come to vote.

The threat of death has made all our lives seem more vibrant and meaningful. Thank you for this proposal.

I just love death threats!

Now I'll just send my army of mad cows after you and haave them trample your loved ones in a stampede.

Fear The Holy Empire of Bovarchy! :evil:

I just love death threats!

Now I'll just send my army of mad cows after you and have them trample your loved ones in a stampede.

Fear The Holy Empire of Bovarchy! :evil:

Everyone must die? Isn't that a given? I don't know about you but I don't want to live forever.

"Everyone dies. Not everyone truly lives"

have you visited a region called Middle Earth? In this region there are elves and they say they live forever....

The way to test immortality is to try to kill the person claiming to be immortal.

Unfortunately, the mods are about as linguistically savvy as the previous post (c.f. telegram from the mods, "Please refrain from making real-world based UN proposals.").

First, my proposal, "Everybody Dies," while implicitly referencing (for humorous effect) recent real-world events WAS NOT based in said events. Both the proposal and previous post were made in character, and both were no more contingent on real-world events than similar passed resolutions (e.g. Fight the Axis of Evil, the formation of the Red Cross, Bill of Rights, etc.). Further, it made no reference to specific world events, but rather referenced the environment in which we live in. While real-world events were implied in some of the language, there are no indications that similar events could have not occurred in the nation of Andinostan.

Second, from a real world point of view, my proposal was preposterous. It called for the outright destruction of the world, pretty much. However, nonsense of similar caliber has been seen in many resolutions that have come to a vote (see the most recent on regarding dumping that requires nations to come up with potentially millions of workers to guard the oceans). In fact, my resolution made a valid, in-game proposal of increasing the production of nuclear arms worldwide, which is not incongruent with the equations that govern the game.

Third, as the line between "real world" and "role play" seems arbitrarily drawn by whichever mod makes these decisions, a better explanation is in order. Perhaps a quick conversation could have shown that the proposal was well-rooted in imagination and not in real-world events. Instead, a one-line 'response' was made, laying down the judgment of the mods.

In sum, my proposal was quite trivial, but no more trivial than any other currently under consideration. It was not based in real-world events, but rather drew on real-world experiences. The mods provided no guideline to prevent future proposals. Even if it were "too real world" for the mod's taste, what's the harm in letting the game players decided that through the representative functions already provided?

I would completely support you if you change Syria to a "neighbouring country", and "Antarctica" to the south pole. Terrorist wars are a regularity in nation states.

A tought experiment. Formulate it from the other point of few, so it sounds positively, and see if you can get it to pass. Would be a most intresting thought experiment if you can get people to increase there nuclear weapons by for fighting terrorism. I understand there are quite some RP nations suffering from it. I also understood there where wars because of them.

Herre is an appropriate poem excerpt from the remarkably inept Adam Lindsay Gordon:

The staff is snapp'd, the sandal fray'd,
The flint-stone galls and blisters,
Our brother's steps we cannot aid,
Ah me! nor aid our sister's:
The pit prepares its hidden snares,
The rock prepared to cleave is,
We cry, in falling unawares,
"Ars longa, vita brevis."


Oh! Wisdom, which we sought to win!
Oh! Strength, in which we trusted!
Oh! Glory, which we gloried in!
Oh! puppets we adjusted!
On barren land our seed is sand,
And torn the web we weave is,
The bruised reed hath pierced the hand,
"Ars longa, vita brevis."