NationStates Jolt Archive

UN resolution 245A states that resolutions must contain correct grammar and nations submitting resolutions without correct grammar be temporarily restricted from making resolutions. Equality for All contains the following grammatical error:
"eachother"

While this is argueably a middling point, it is important that the UN carefully observe it's own decrees. Far to often quorum is a rubber stamp for the passing proposals that are vague, poorly worded or poorly considered. Already UN members in my modest region have resigned their UN posts in disgust. If the UN resolutions are to have any meaning what so ever all resolutions must be considered. The people and government of The Oppressed People of Cannot think of a name and the UN nations of the modest region of Flotsam sincerely hope that the UN nations take this into consideration and defeat this proposal and adhere to past UN resolutions regarding this issue.

The resolution you're citing is a game mechanics one which shouldn't have passed to begin with and only did because no moderators existed at the time to delete it. Ergo, irrelevant.

Next.

The resolution you're citing is a game mechanics one which shouldn't have passed to begin with and only did because no moderators existed at the time to delete it. Ergo, irrelevant.

Next.
I am in no way attempting to be a griefer, and ask that you take this into consideration when I ask this:
In what way is it a mechanic question? It states that the resolutions must have correct grammar in order to be considered. While I would agree that the wording of the resolution is un-neccisarily smarmy, it does seem to present a good point. It is not unreasonable to ask that resolutions contain correct grammar.

Furthermore, as it is not clear how this is in violation, how are we nations that exist in the UN to determine valid and invalid resolutions? I have only the list of resolutions that are posted to go by. If a resolution is invalid it needs to be clear, otherwise I see too much opportunity for selective interpretation and recognition.

In researching the passed resolutions I find there are already two resolutions that deal with sexual freedoms, one that outlaws slavery, yet another that outlaws child labor and one that deals with religous freedoms. What freedoms have been left out for this resolution to resolve? It is a redundancy that is too vague to be considered seriously. However, I selected a resolution in existance to mount my challenge.

Please bear in mind that The Oppressed People of Cannot think of a name hold civil rights in the highest regard, we are in fact considered excessive in our strivings towards them. It is not that we are opposed to such protections, rather the reckless application of such, especially when they have been dealt with in greater detail in previous resolutions. Furthermore, we consider it neccisary to make clear and enforce past resolutions so as to prevent the proposal and passing of resolutions becoming nothing more than pointless pagentry.

As a final note, I have been respectful and diplomatic in my proposal to retain the integrety of the UN and it's member states. My concern is not to spoil but to strengthen the level of discourse within the UN. With all respect to acts my nation has observed in your state's moderatorship, The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name would appriciate a level of decorum befitting your position when answering diplomatic dispatches rather than a dis-respectful "next."

The Oppressed People of Cannot think of a name thanks you.

I still believe that this issue needs to be dealt with.

In what way is it a mechanic question? It states that the resolutions must have correct grammar in order to be considered. While I would agree that the wording of the resolution is un-neccisarily smarmy, it does seem to present a good point. It is not unreasonable to ask that resolutions contain correct grammar.

Imposing requirements for consideration of a proposal or resolutions alter game rules and are therefore game mechanics proposals/resolutions.

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "Just say no to EFA.
Even plants will be off-limits."

Then why wasn't the resolution deleted if it’s irrelevant?

The Commonwealth of Baakon fully supports The Oppressed People of Cannot Think of a Name in regard to this issue.

Next.

I'm afraid it's not that simple.

Who was that directed at?

Then why wasn't the resolution deleted if it’s irrelevant?

The Commonwealth of Baakon fully supports The Oppressed People of Cannot Think of a Name in regard to this issue.

Next.

The resolution you're citing is a game mechanics one which shouldn't have passed to begin with and only did because no moderators existed at the time to delete it. Ergo, irrelevant.

which one?

which one?

<---- doesn't know what you're asking

In what way is it a mechanic question? It states that the resolutions must have correct grammar in order to be considered. While I would agree that the wording of the resolution is un-neccisarily smarmy, it does seem to present a good point. It is not unreasonable to ask that resolutions contain correct grammar.

Imposing requirements for consideration of a proposal or resolutions alter game rules and are therefore game mechanics proposals/resolutions.
Certainly this can be a self-imposed practise. There doesn't need to be a program mechanic in place if the member states of the UN take the pains to follow and address the mandates of the UN on their own. After all, the UN in the physical world does not rely on program functions to enforce it's mandates but rather the agency of it's members to recognize violations and call attention to them. Without such agency I see no real function of the proposals other than the aforementioned pagentry. We are, in essence, playing mere lip service and it matters not whether we pass or defeat any proposal.

What in essence I am calling for is the member states recognize their own decisions and live up to them by defeating this proposal based on it's violation. This requires no game mechanics, simply that the UN act within it's own decries and enforce itself. What meaning does the UN have if it's member states cannot do this?

"The resolution you're citing is a game mechanics one which shouldn't have passed to begin with and only did because no moderators existed at the time to delete it."

Can it be deleted now?

"The resolution you're citing is a game mechanics one which shouldn't have passed to begin with and only did because no moderators existed at the time to delete it."

Can it be deleted now?

"The resolution you're citing is a game mechanics one which shouldn't have passed to begin with and only did because no moderators existed at the time to delete it."

Can it be deleted now?

Only a mod can answer that, but I doubt it.

Certainly this can be a self-imposed practise. There doesn't need to be a program mechanic in place if the member states of the UN take the pains to follow and address the mandates of the UN on their own. After all, the UN in the physical world does not rely on program functions to enforce it's mandates but rather the agency of it's members to recognize violations and call attention to them. Without such agency I see no real function of the proposals other than the aforementioned pagentry. We are, in essence, playing mere lip service and it matters not whether we pass or defeat any proposal.

What in essence I am calling for is the member states recognize their own decisions and live up to them by defeating this proposal based on it's violation. This requires no game mechanics, simply that the UN act within it's own decries and enforce itself. What meaning does the UN have if it's member states cannot do this?

No objection here, in fact I support this.

UN resolution 245A states that resolutions must contain correct grammar and nations submitting resolutions without correct grammar be temporarily restricted from making resolutions. Equality for All contains the following grammatical error:
"eachother"

While this is argueably a middling point, it is important that the UN carefully observe it's own decrees. Far to often quorum is a rubber stamp for the passing proposals that are vague, poorly worded or poorly considered. Already UN members in my modest region have resigned their UN posts in disgust. If the UN resolutions are to have any meaning what so ever all resolutions must be considered. The people and government of The Oppressed People of Cannot think of a name and the UN nations of the modest region of Flotsam sincerely hope that the UN nations take this into consideration and defeat this proposal and adhere to past UN resolutions regarding this issue.

In answer to all the questions asked here, and one which hasn't been asked yet but might otherwise be:

1. Did the UN pass resolution "Proper Grammar" with pretty numbers in front of it?
Yes. Yes it did.

2. Was this resolution a game mechanics issue and if so, why was it one?
Yes it was. It was game mechanics-related because it sought to restrict the abilities of nations to make proposals and have them adopted by the UN. While it makes sense to enforce a rule that UN proposals have to be properly spelled and follow English grammar rules, the game is not coded that way and no amount of UN proposals and resolutions will change that fact.

3. So, why didn't someone delete it before it got passed?
From memory, the resolution was passed before moderators were appointed. The only people who can delete proposals are moderators and the site admin - who as we know was getting rather snowed under, hence the appointment of mods. As a result, the game mechanics resolution in question was passed. Interesting fact, the same goes for at least two other game mechanics resolutions - "Expedition of Resolution Voting" and "Search Function".

4. Right, but it was passed, so can't we argue using it?
No. Well, you can but it won't get you anywhere. As has been stated on many previous occasions, the text of a resolution is actually immaterial - all that matters is the category and strength. Therefore, proper grammar isn't being enforced as rigidly as you might otherwise think. Because it was a game mechanics issue to start off with, the text is worse than irrelevant.

5. You mods are all-powerful, why can't you delete the proper grammar thing now?
To my knowledge, we just can't. Once a proposal actually hits the floor for a general vote, it's out of our hands. Once it's passed, even more so. Admin might be able to delete it, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

6. So why were you so crabby when you posted earlier?
Because it was very late at night and I needed sleep.

4. Right, but it was passed, so can't we argue using it?
No. Well, you can but it won't get you anywhere. As has been stated on many previous occasions, the text of a resolution is actually immaterial - all that matters is the category and strength. Therefore, proper grammar isn't being enforced as rigidly as you might otherwise think. Because it was a game mechanics issue to start off with, the text is worse than irrelevant.

I would argue that this paints resolutions and the UN itself as completely toothless. If the text is irrelevant, then we are merely voting on strength and catagory? Strong/Civil Rights, sounds good? Why include text at all? Why bother naming or stating resolutions in the first place? Again we are at the issue of pagentry and lip service.

The mods are clearly a dead end. And certainly, if the UN states are to have any agency then we should be able to act without them. As I have stated before, the physical UN does not rely on such god-like figures but on the agency of it's own members. Are we to reduce our actions and resolutions to meaninglessness, mere catagories re-named and recycled? Are the member states to be nothing more than rubber-stamps on meaningless edicts? We must take the agency upon ourselves and defeat this proposal based on it's violation of a previously passed resolution.

Take back the UN from the machine!

I would argue that this paints resolutions and the UN itself as completely toothless. If the text is irrelevant, then we are merely voting on strength and catagory? Strong/Civil Rights, sounds good? Why include text at all? Why bother naming or stating resolutions in the first place? Again we are at the issue of pagentry and lip service.
The alternative is for the text to be relevant and this would be a big nightmare. Just think for a second about how much coding would need to be added to the site following the passage of even the simplest, most straightforward UN resolutions - let alone the massive legalistic tomes some people refer to as "proposals". Do I see any volunteers from the audience who would want to work on the game every time a resolution is passed, just to make the text actually apply to every single UN member? Somehow, I don't think I do.

The mods are clearly a dead end. And certainly, if the UN states are to have any agency then we should be able to act without them. As I have stated before, the physical UN does not rely on such god-like figures but on the agency of it's own members. Are we to reduce our actions and resolutions to meaninglessness, mere catagories re-named and recycled? Are the member states to be nothing more than rubber-stamps on meaningless edicts? We must take the agency upon ourselves and defeat this proposal based on it's violation of a previously passed resolution.

Take back the UN from the machine!

I've been called a lot over the years, but never a dead end. That's "borderline conduct" in my book, not warning material just as yet but you're close to the line.

In response to the substance of this vitriol, UN members do frequently act without the mods. Would you like to see what the game would be like with rampant multi-ing, silly UN proposals, spam coming out of your eyeballs and so on? I thought not.
The game is a game - it's not the real UN or the real world, so why are you holding it up to those standards? In the real UN the text of a resolution is worse than meaningless when it doesn't suit the foreign policy objectives of a member state, but that's irrelevant here. Can you honestly tell me that every single UN resolution which has been passed as had text which is completely and utterly relevant? Of course not.

If you want to campaign against the resolution because it violates an earlier one - go right ahead and do so. Nobody's going to stop you. People mightn't take much notice, but they won't stop you. If you want to vote against the resolution, go ahead and do so.

Like most of the points raised against this resolution, this one just does not pass 'the laugh test.' Sorry

-Free Outer Eugenia

I would argue that this paints resolutions and the UN itself as completely toothless. If the text is irrelevant, then we are merely voting on strength and catagory? Strong/Civil Rights, sounds good? Why include text at all? Why bother naming or stating resolutions in the first place? Again we are at the issue of pagentry and lip service.
The alternative is for the text to be relevant and this would be a big nightmare. Just think for a second about how much coding would need to be added to the site following the passage of even the simplest, most straightforward UN resolutions - let alone the massive legalistic tomes some people refer to as "proposals". Do I see any volunteers from the audience who would want to work on the game every time a resolution is passed, just to make the text actually apply to every single UN member? Somehow, I don't think I do.

The mods are clearly a dead end. And certainly, if the UN states are to have any agency then we should be able to act without them. As I have stated before, the physical UN does not rely on such god-like figures but on the agency of it's own members. Are we to reduce our actions and resolutions to meaninglessness, mere catagories re-named and recycled? Are the member states to be nothing more than rubber-stamps on meaningless edicts? We must take the agency upon ourselves and defeat this proposal based on it's violation of a previously passed resolution.

Take back the UN from the machine!

I've been called a lot over the years, but never a dead end. That's "borderline conduct" in my book, not warning material just as yet but you're close to the line.

In response to the substance of this vitriol, UN members do frequently act without the mods. Would you like to see what the game would be like with rampant multi-ing, silly UN proposals, spam coming out of your eyeballs and so on? I thought not.
The game is a game - it's not the real UN or the real world, so why are you holding it up to those standards? In the real UN the text of a resolution is worse than meaningless when it doesn't suit the foreign policy objectives of a member state, but that's irrelevant here. Can you honestly tell me that every single UN resolution which has been passed as had text which is completely and utterly relevant? Of course not.

If you want to campaign against the resolution because it violates an earlier one - go right ahead and do so. Nobody's going to stop you. People mightn't take much notice, but they won't stop you. If you want to vote against the resolution, go ahead and do so.
You misunderstand the post and as such have taken it personally. What I am calling for, in fact, is that member-states take into consideration, on their own, the proposals that they have already passed. By doing so they can vote down proposals that are:
A)Redudant.

and

B)In violatition of standards that the UN has elected to up-hold.

The gist here, which appears to have gone over everones head, is that we as states have to take agency to look after the decisions made. I have called for no enforcement mechanism other than personal responsability in the voting members of the UN. A technical, software, solution to this problem is your hang up, not mine.

The alternative ignored is that the players hold the text relevant and use precident to establish votes, standards and practices. This provides a more realistic and maliable game situation than any of the technical solutions could possible accomplish. So keep your implementing procedures, I prefer the infinately faliable system that already exists. This is what is fun for me, campaigning for the UN members to vote responsably and facing the possibilty of failure and opposition.

You seem to be caught up in making this a mechanical, technical issue. I am simply approaching this as an issue in a self-governing body. I hold it to that standard because it is called "The United Nations" and the countries we are running are called "Nations." Certainly I can be defeated, I can be ignored, or you can search for personal attacks in my rhetoric that are not intended and likely not present and be deleted. However, I believe I have approached this from a workable angle that takes into account that this is a game.

I am, in effect, playing politic. Calling on the players to regard the politic and passings that have gone by is politic. I want the UN to have relevance, and as such campaign that the other nations regard the decisions that have been made when they make new ones. I have not called for any new programming or adjusting except in how people play, which is in effect politics. In essence, I want them to vote this down because it is in violation of a previous UN resolution and redundent. That is my campaign-not for a software solution, a self-governing solution.

I made the comment of "dead end" to dismiss the notion that this was a technical issue. What you, then, think of policy is no more relivant than any other voting member. I certainly agree with the neccisity of moderators and if you look in the past I have even given praise to your specific actions. Even in my initial defense I gave all due respect. It was, and is, my intent to keep the game in the hands of the game players, not the game-keepers. This in no way reflects on you or your function. Don't take people trying to play the game personally.

If you look carefully at the original text of my plea, I simply called for the UN members to defeat this proposal, i.e. vote it down. I have not called for moderation.

Like most of the points raised against this resolution, this one just does not pass 'the laugh test.' Sorry

-Free Outer Eugenia
Is it not funny enough for you?

No, the very idea made me break out in peals of laughter.

The typo?! The lack of a SPACE BETWEEN TWO WORDS?!

Seriously- that is just pathatic. Where is your crusade to repeal the resolution passed right after it for its spelling of the word 'ammusing?' :roll:

<I>1)redudant</i>

Now there is a typo

<I>1)redudant</i>

Now there is a typo
Fair enough, but there is no standard for the threads, so I excuse myself.

I suspect the point that Free Outer Eugenia was really getting at, but not stating in the post, because it is almost painfully obvious, is that a very sound resolution will have all of its wording carefully considered, in order to minimize unintended effects due to multiple interpretations, and ways to instantiate a proposal into law. If this time was taken, a simple typo would have been detected. So it becomes clear that the text was never seriously reviewed or edited. There is no easy way for the UN to make a resolution stating that all proposals must be edited and reviewed thoroughly beforehand; however, making a requirement for grammer does take a significant first step to accomplish that.

-Speaker of the Federation
(who was speaking directly, without editing his words. But since the above is not going to be drafted into a extremely powerful, world effecting law, it is not terribly important)

a very 'ammusing' comment though. Seriously, where is your crusade to repeal all of those other violaters? The grammer resolution is obsolete: The resolution that was passed RIGHT AFTER IT violated it! :roll:

Please do not hide your opposition behind sophistry.

No, the very idea made me break out in peals of laughter.

The typo?! The lack of a SPACE BETWEEN TWO WORDS?!

Seriously- that is just pathatic. Where is your crusade to repeal the resolution passed right after it for its spelling of the word 'ammusing?' :roll:
A standard is a standard. What is the point of having one if we do not hold to it?

Had I been more active at the time, I would have.

I chose initially to try and defeat this proposal on a 'legal' technicality because I had over-estimated the way people approach the UN. Ultimetily, this resolution is a poor retread of previuos resolutions that deal with all the specifics contained. In essence voting for it is voting for nothing. I wanted this to fail to restore my faith in the voting populace and to particpate in the politics of the UN. The only way the UN can be more than a plus in our stats is if we, as players, regard our own decisions.

So, examining this issue, in light of the decisions already reached by the UN-Is it a good idea? Does it resolve something left out by the numbers of other resilutions already passed? Does it meet the standards that we have established? If the answer is no, your vote should be no as well.

A standard is a standard. What is the point of having one if we do not hold to it?
My point exactly :roll:

a very 'ammusing' comment though. Seriously, where is your crusade to repeal all of those other violaters? The grammer resolution is obsolete: The resolution that was passed RIGHT AFTER IT violated it! :roll:

Please do not hide your opposition behind sophistry.
Are you saying that once a mistake is made we are doomed to making it forever?

No, the very idea made me break out in peals of laughter.

The typo?! The lack of a SPACE BETWEEN TWO WORDS?!

Seriously- that is just pathatic. Where is your crusade to repeal the resolution passed right after it for its spelling of the word 'ammusing?' :roll:
A standard is a standard. What is the point of having one if we do not hold to it?
My point exactly :roll:
That's not an arguement, its a platitude.

Are you saying that once a mistake is made we are doomed to making it forever? No, I am saying that you are bing very selective about applying this obsolete standard. Take a look at some of the other resolutions.

Are you saying that once a mistake is made we are doomed to making it forever? No, I am saying that you are bing very selective about applying this obsolete standard. Take a look at some of the other resolutions.
I am selecting the first proposal that I am active with. I haven't been an active member in the past and as such could not campaign those proposals. Think of me as a "return to standards" campaigner-I'm not saying that this is the first to fail our established standard, I am saying that this should be the first time we enforce our standards with our votes and raise the discourse.

It's commendable that you want to have all proposals spelled correctly and expressed in correct grammar, but unfortunately the best anyone can do is to pat you on the back and say "yep, them's noble sentiments" (of course, the irony of someone saying exactly that is considerable).

It's commendable that you want to have all proposals spelled correctly and expressed in correct grammar, but unfortunately the best anyone can do is to pat you on the back and say "yep, them's noble sentiments" (of course, the irony of someone saying exactly that is considerable).
Or we could uphold those standards by voting down proposals that violate them. In truth, you and a handful of hold-outs are the last people I'm still argueing this with, the main thrust of my arguement has been that this proposal is a meaningless retread and should be voted down. That it is in violation is an attempt to make the standard proposed a factor when people submit proposals. As you continuely point out, there is no other way the proposals to have an effect unless we take the agency ourselves to observe them by voting down propositions that do not meet the agreed upon standard and those that cover ground already aptly covered by previous resolutions.

The main thrust of my argument has been that you're perfectly welcome to take as much agency as you want and to observe whatever standards you want.

Please join me in this chat portal on real discussion, truth, and perhaps enlightenment for all (including myself) on this proposal.

http://pub42.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3557937850

Respectfully,
Emperor Dalith

The main thrust of my argument has been that you're perfectly welcome to take as much agency as you want and to observe whatever standards you want.
Really? It seems that the main thrust has been telling me that such agency was technically impossible and that I was insulting you. It would seem that your main thrust was to insist that I was calling for moderation. Otherwise, why were you listing all the technical problems such moderation would entail? If you're arguement was that I can make my arguement, then why state anything at all? I would have been able to infer as much from a tacit response.

Please join me in this chat portal on real discussion, truth, and perhaps enlightenment for all (including myself) on this proposal.

http://pub42.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3557937850

Respectfully,
Emperor Dalith
I tried and it wouldn't load. Sorry, man. I would at least like to have shown the respect of meeting you, so to speak, to discuss the issue. Computer just isn't co-operating.

Then why wasn't the resolution deleted if it’s irrelevant?

The Commonwealth of Baakon fully supports The Oppressed People of Cannot Think of a Name in regard to this issue.

Next.

The States of Stephenson agree with the Commonwealth of Baakon and The Oppressed People of Cannot Think of a Name. The UN must abide by its decrees even if the rules have changed.

The main thrust of my argument has been that you're perfectly welcome to take as much agency as you want and to observe whatever standards you want.
Really? It seems that the main thrust has been telling me that such agency was technically impossible and that I was insulting you. It would seem that your main thrust was to insist that I was calling for moderation. Otherwise, why were you listing all the technical problems such moderation would entail? If you're arguement was that I can make my arguement, then why state anything at all? I would have been able to infer as much from a tacit response.
What I was saying was that the only agency you can take is a voluntary thing where you (or anyone else) undertake to spell correctly and use correct grammar and everyone else undertakes to take spelling and grammar into account when the vote for or against a proposal. The list of moderation problems it would raise was because you were implying - or the way I read you you were implying - that the mods should assist in this endeavour.

The Oppressed People of Cannot think of a name and the UN nations of the modest region of Flotsam sincerely hope that the UN nations take this into consideration and defeat this proposal and adhere to past UN resolutions regarding this issue.
From my original post.

Please join me in this chat portal on real discussion, truth, and perhaps enlightenment for all (including myself) on this proposal Equality For All.

Monday November 17th, 2003...7pm EST (12am GMT)

http://pub42.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3557937850

Please join me in this chat portal on real discussion, truth, and perhaps enlightenment for all (including myself) on this proposal Equality For All.

Monday November 17th, 2003...7pm EST (12am GMT)

http://pub42.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3557937850
Sweet cr*p........


well ,you're persitant, I'll give you that....
but how many times do you really need to post this? Let the other issues have space if you're not going to debate here....
(ah man-glass houses, by responding I'm bumping....*trapped*)

edit:I should have waited. despite current dispute still respect the mods.

UME, can you stop posting the same thing? It's getting a bit spammy in here with this appearing all over the place.

UME, can you stop posting the same thing? It's getting a bit spammy in here with this appearing all over the place.

My deepest apologies, it's that I have found that there are so many strings on this issue some specific and some not, I'm trying to get as many people as possible, so that they can just stop arguing already and save the posts for the discussion. Again, that's no reason and I am sorry....Panting in sheer exhaustion, will go to bed now!

Hello http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/csmith_fan/Hiyas.gif I have a question (ok 2) and I hope you dont get mad and send American politicians to my shores but...

Currently, isnt there already safeguards in place (rules, Resolutions, troops, etc) to make sure Proposals are not redundant versions of already passed Resolutions? Example..If I were to make the Proposal to end the making of weapons with atomic warheads, I could be told that a Resolution is already in place the prohibits nuclear tipped missle manufacturing. Wording is a bit different, but the same.

Also, if the Grammer Resoultion doesnt really matter because it was, for the lack of a better phrase, Pre-Mod, does that mean my country and go full bore and make every known bio-weapon because the Resolution banning Bio Weapons was also Pre-Mod?

Mind you, I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to better understand the micro-politics that are going on within the UN.

Hello http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/csmith_fan/Hiyas.gif I have a question (ok 2) and I hope you dont get mad and send American politicians to my shores but...

Currently, isnt there already safeguards in place (rules, Resolutions, troops, etc) to make sure Proposals are not redundant versions of already passed Resolutions? Example..If I were to make the Proposal to end the making of weapons with atomic warheads, I could be told that a Resolution is already in place the prohibits nuclear tipped missle manufacturing. Wording is a bit different, but the same.

Also, if the Grammer Resoultion doesnt really matter because it was, for the lack of a better phrase, Pre-Mod, does that mean my country and go full bore and make every known bio-weapon because the Resolution banning Bio Weapons was also Pre-Mod?

Mind you, I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to better understand the micro-politics that are going on within the UN.
Good questions.
The only enforcement that we can hope for is that our member states take agency and regard past resolutions in their current decision making by voting down redundant resolutions and proposals that violate our voted upon standards.

I know you weren't directing this at me, I just took another opportunity to soap box...

While it doesn't really violate the resolution, it's vagueness means that it should be disqualified.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat on the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

If i may say, some of these rules would and should come into play. The correct grammer rule is to be taken out, people would have trouble understanding. Save your slang for AIM etc.

Also, as for the Bio-Weapons, those are basic rules of war, meant to protect countries and the world from Bio-Hazerds, which can destroy the land, so you may NOT have them. But these are my opinions, and those are good questions.

I would argue that this paints resolutions and the UN itself as completely toothless. If the text is irrelevant, then we are merely voting on strength and catagory? Strong/Civil Rights, sounds good? Why include text at all? Why bother naming or stating resolutions in the first place? Again we are at the issue of pagentry and lip service.
The alternative is for the text to be relevant and this would be a big nightmare. Just think for a second about how much coding would need to be added to the site following the passage of even the simplest, most straightforward UN resolutions - let alone the massive legalistic tomes some people refer to as "proposals". Do I see any volunteers from the audience who would want to work on the game every time a resolution is passed, just to make the text actually apply to every single UN member? Somehow, I don't think I do.

<---- volunteers

And the resolutions DO count...ICly for RP purposes.

This has been an OOC post.

I would argue that this paints resolutions and the UN itself as completely toothless. If the text is irrelevant, then we are merely voting on strength and catagory? Strong/Civil Rights, sounds good? Why include text at all? Why bother naming or stating resolutions in the first place? Again we are at the issue of pagentry and lip service.
The alternative is for the text to be relevant and this would be a big nightmare. Just think for a second about how much coding would need to be added to the site following the passage of even the simplest, most straightforward UN resolutions - let alone the massive legalistic tomes some people refer to as "proposals". Do I see any volunteers from the audience who would want to work on the game every time a resolution is passed, just to make the text actually apply to every single UN member? Somehow, I don't think I do.

<---- volunteers

And the resolutions DO count...ICly for RP purposes.

This has been an OOC post.

[OOC: And that's important. Enodia, while I'm generally quite down on resolutions that violate your sticky, I think "Cannot think of a name" is trying to make the following argument, which I'm not sure is a bad one:

The text of resolutions doesn't matter to game mechanics, but it *does* matter to those players who RP. For example, a resolution that states "All nuclear weapons are hereby banned" doesn't change game mechanics because of that, but it does have an effect on RP: If someone in the International Incidents forum says, "I launch my nukes at you," and they are a U.N. member, it is within RP ettiquette for their opponent to say, "You can't do that--it contradicts a U.N. resolution." This doesn't place real limits on their power, and it's nothing that the mods or game engine can enforce, but it becomes a game rule "on the honor system," as it were.

This forum is primarily an RP forum. Not everyone uses it that way, but most do.

Therefore, the text of resolutions is relevant to posts made in this forum. If there's a U.N. resolution that states, "Proposals must have proper grammar," that doesn't change game mechanics in any way, but it does have an effect on RP: If someone in this forum says, "I support the Equality for All resolution," it is within RP ettiquette for someone else to say, "You can't do that--it contradicts a U.N. resolution." Cannot Think of a Name is not suggesting that Equality for All should have been automatically deleted or deleted by you or another mod, just that U.N. members should consider themselves honor-bound to vote against it. People are free to vote for it anyway--just as they'd be free to post "I'm firing my nukes at you" even if there were a no-nukes resolution--but he/she is claiming that diligent RPers should not do so.]

I would argue that this paints resolutions and the UN itself as completely toothless. If the text is irrelevant, then we are merely voting on strength and catagory? Strong/Civil Rights, sounds good? Why include text at all? Why bother naming or stating resolutions in the first place? Again we are at the issue of pagentry and lip service.
The alternative is for the text to be relevant and this would be a big nightmare. Just think for a second about how much coding would need to be added to the site following the passage of even the simplest, most straightforward UN resolutions - let alone the massive legalistic tomes some people refer to as "proposals". Do I see any volunteers from the audience who would want to work on the game every time a resolution is passed, just to make the text actually apply to every single UN member? Somehow, I don't think I do.


<---- volunteers

And the resolutions DO count...ICly for RP purposes.

This has been an OOC post.

[OOC: And that's important. Enodia, while I'm generally quite down on resolutions that violate your sticky, I think "Cannot think of a name" is trying to make the following argument, which I'm not sure is a bad one:

The text of resolutions doesn't matter to game mechanics, but it *does* matter to those players who RP. For example, a resolution that states "All nuclear weapons are hereby banned" doesn't change game mechanics because of that, but it does have an effect on RP: If someone in the International Incidents forum says, "I launch my nukes at you," and they are a U.N. member, it is within RP ettiquette for their opponent to say, "You can't do that--it contradicts a U.N. resolution." This doesn't place real limits on their power, and it's nothing that the mods or game engine can enforce, but it becomes a game rule "on the honor system," as it were.

This forum is primarily an RP forum. Not everyone uses it that way, but most do.

Therefore, the text of resolutions is relevant to posts made in this forum. If there's a U.N. resolution that states, "Proposals must have proper grammar," that doesn't change game mechanics in any way, but it does have an effect on RP: If someone in this forum says, "I support the Equality for All resolution," it is within RP ettiquette for someone else to say, "You can't do that--it contradicts a U.N. resolution." Cannot Think of a Name is not suggesting that Equality for All should have been automatically deleted or deleted by you or another mod, just that U.N. members should consider themselves honor-bound to vote against it. People are free to vote for it anyway--just as they'd be free to post "I'm firing my nukes at you" even if there were a no-nukes resolution--but he/she is claiming that diligent RPers should not do so.]
Wow man, thanks. You summed it up to a T. Thank you for the back up.

Point taken. In RP terms, yes it's important.

Necrotasia - the "pre-modness" of a resolution only really matters (or mattered here) because it was a game mechanics thing. In other words, if people raised the question "why was 'Resolution 245A Proper Grammar' not deleted appropriately?" then the answer is that "At that stage, only admin could do so". Anything non-game-mechanics-related should be assumed to be valid, IMO.

Thank you Enodia. Was just wondering is all.

I admit that i only read the first page of this, but how can you have gone on for 3 pages of posts about how someone forgot a space in a UN Resolution for the betterment of society?!?! I have news for you, in real life, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES! It's that simple - even the goverments of Earth (probably even people in the UN) make the occasional grammatical mistake that sometimes Microsoft Word doesn't catch! I regard it as a spelling mistake when people spell colour without a 'u', but Americans would think me mad to spell it with one, well online and in computers, people can miss-key something by simple accident and you want to nullify a UN Resolution, just because of a typo?! How mad are you?!?!

Pnlrogue1

So, moderators weren't around when the Proper Grammar resolution was passed. Meaning, any complaints made by moderators over game mechanics, no matter how much explanation is given, is irrelevent. We're stuck, therefore, it's in the books, it IS a "reality." We should move on.

At least NOW there are moderators to do away with further episodes of such resolutions. Thank you. Game, set, match, McEnroe (or whomever your favorite tennis star is). :D

I admit that i only read the first page of this, but how can you have gone on for 3 pages of posts about how someone forgot a space in a UN Resolution for the betterment of society?!?! I have news for you, in real life, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES! It's that simple - even the goverments of Earth (probably even people in the UN) make the occasional grammatical mistake that sometimes Microsoft Word doesn't catch! I regard it as a spelling mistake when people spell colour without a 'u', but Americans would think me mad to spell it with one, well online and in computers, people can miss-key something by simple accident and you want to nullify a UN Resolution, just because of a typo?! How mad are you?!?!

Pnlrogue1
The main thrust of it is this: If the author cannot take the time to proof-read their proposal, how careful can they have been in it's construction? Make no mistake, if your resume contains a typo it will go to the bottom of the pile and this is a proposal to an international community.

Certainly this proposal is not the worst offender since resolution 245A, but it is a continuation of a dis-regard for the UN resolutions that have already past-something this proposal does in spades.

If you had read the entire arguement, or it's 'sister' arguement in "Member States:Take Agency" you'd see that there is more at stake than just the 'noble intent' of the current proposal.

Indeed, intent is all this current resolution has. It retreads or dismantles better resolutions already in the books and continues the downward decline of the UN's established standards.

I just wrote out the whole arguement for those who don't want to read the reams and reams of threads in an answer to "So I've noticed..." or whatever that thread is. In the intrest of reducing redundancy and saving server space for other issues I invite you to read this entire thread, the sister thread "Member States:Take Agency" or the summary in "So I've noticed...."

We cannot just vote for good intent, we must vote for good resolutions. The UN must recognise itself if it is to have any relevance.

While it doesn't really violate the resolution, it's vagueness means that it should be disqualified.


I know this is pretty late, but Letila just made my point for me. This Resolution is a tad on the vague side of the spectrum and, while I agree with United Middle-Earth on the concept, the resolution it's self is worded, at least in my opinion, that it could be used to enforce a minimum level of civil rights on the member nations. And how fun would that be if we all agreed on the same thing when a topic comes along? Out of preserving a factor that makes NationStates fun, Uber Neo Zeon will probably not enter a vote on this resolution. That is of course, if United Middle-Earth doesn;t take the time to explain the intent when it is more convenent for everyone.

The King of Metternic would like to make his views know:

1) The resolution is rather vague, thus Metternic has not entered a vote

2) The "typo" of the lack of a space is, in the eyes of the King, completely understandable.

3) The whole "Correct Grammar" resolution was a good idea, so as to avoid posts in non-English languages or slang or something to that effect.

4) The resolution's difficulty in understanding comes not from typos, but general vagueness/broadness.

I say it also violates a bunch of other things like "Freedom of Humor" and Common Sense