NationStates Jolt Archive

The Ariens would not vote for this resolution, for three reasons:
1) Some UN nations may have been founded as refuges for various groups, and if this resolution passes, they would not be able to control their demographics. A real life example is Puritan Massachusetts: The Puritans left so that their movement could have its own society, yet when others moved in, they lost consderable power and had to conform, to a degree.
2)This resolution would seriously limit RP possibilities for member nations. Basically, it would be illegal to play an "evil" nation. Keep in mind that very few countries in the real world, if any, follow all of these provisions already. It could even be said that this resolution would make illegal any Civil Rights level below a Very Good, right?
3) This resolution bundles too many ideas at once. We agree with a few, disagree with some. As a result, The Ariens would vote no. Now, if this resolution was unbundled and reintroduced measure by measure, as in the US's Compromise of 1850 (for you familiar with US history), we would reconsider various measures.

-Commander Tojo


-Exerpt taken from The Democratic Republic of Agua Puro

What the hell? I wrote that!
Proof: South America's bulletin.


Delete this thread. I don't take plagiarism lightly.

AP

I sent you a telegram but you did not reply

Nope. No telegram in my box. I haven't gotten one, and just because you don't get an immediate response DOESNT MEAN ITS OK!

I was just wanting to relay this point to everyone. I apologize if this upset you. I thought everyone should see the point you were making

01

It isn't plagarism unless it's published.

It isn't plagarism unless it's published.

Though I have not personally looked at the laws concerning plagerism directly, someone who had mentioned that one can publish via web medium. I am not exactly sure how posting fits in, but I always like to give people credit where it's due. If the Ariens cited Agua Puro, I'm sure this wouldn't have been an issue. Aguo Puro likely would have been proud to see his (or her) words repeated as the flagship of a point, if the credit was given.

I'd suggest that you let it go. To be clear though the definition I am familiar with for 'publication' is simply the written word of one person being read by another. It need not involving publishing companies, simply a transferance of written ideas.

In any case, I think the points made were valid.

OOC I'm sorry but I have to disagree, you can be as evil as you want your nation to be! But you can't expect to be so evil and taken seriously in the UN. It's a United Nations...meant to create a better world. If your afraid of what it might do to your "evil" nation. Well got some bad news buddy...the past resolutions pretty much put you out of business.

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

OOC note, , ,
Once something is posted on teh Interweb, it is considered Published so Yes, if A says something on a Forum, and you person B, quotes it as your own original material, then Yes you have Plagarised,

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

What are you people arguing about, you have taken this issue and spun it so many ways that you are arguing your own creations. I state symbiosis, the life cycle which includes death, and more importantly the word being, an amoeba is not a being contrary to the belief of those riding the chariots screaming death and destruction! This has nothing to do with vegans and eating habits, it says quite clearly LIVE AND LET LIVE. Those who have said that we can't protect ourselves from diseases and such are you serious...listen to yourselves. You argue the points of this proposal stating that if this were the real UN, it would never have been worded in such a way. It isn't if this were the UN the proposal would have consisted of taking the floor and addressing everyone with the proposal, and the resolution when signed has an attached agreement/decree of the understood provisions and interpretations of such. This can not be done here, that is why when the proposal was first submitted, there were a couple of forum pages devoted to the topic, which explained and answered anyones questions. There were few because the delegates were asked personally by me, to visit those pages before voting on the topic...that is why it was passed because people did their homework. The UN members had the responsibility, and obligation to do the same, but some nations, instead of getting their "homework" done...or maybe for whatever hidden agenda decided to create mass-hysteria, and scream the "end of the world". Do your research seek out the agreed understanding of this proposal without falling victim to this nonesense of hysterics. Search the chat strings for my nations' name if you have to, but be informed!!!!

Emperor Dalith

OOC I'm sorry but I have to disagree, you can be as evil as you want your nation to be! But you can't expect to be so evil and taken seriously in the UN. It's a United Nations...meant to create a better world. If your afraid of what it might do to your "evil" nation. Well got some bad news buddy...the past resolutions pretty much put you out of business.

This is true, the past resolutions do place limits on the behavior of nations, if those nations are members of the United Nations. As stated in the UN documents that are required to be a member of the UN, the resolutions are binding on nations that choose to accept them. Not all nations in the world are members of the UN. Some nations choose to remain outside the UN for this very reason - the tyranny of the majority. Every nation has a choice. If that nation does not like what the UN has to say, there is no requirement that anyone has to be in the UN. But that does not give the UN the right to do as is pleases in global affairs. The trick is finding the middle ground.

The Foreign Ministry of the States of Stephenson

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

Never mind, I'm fine now with Ariens writing what he did. No hard feelings.

Just the initial freakout got to me...

The Ariens would not vote for this resolution, for three reasons:...
...2)This resolution would seriously limit RP possibilities for member nations. Basically, it would be illegal to play an "evil" nation. Keep in mind that very few countries in the real world, if any, follow all of these provisions already. It could even be said that this resolution would make illegal any Civil Rights level below a Very Good, right?


The Principality of Uber Neo Zeon also has reservations concerning the Proposal. In theory, it could lead to the UN dictating the the behavior and even the political thought of it's member nations. It limits what countries can do when faced with certian situations. Especially if the country must try and balance other essential issues, such as the economy, and the politcial freedoms of it's citizens. Are we supposed to focus on Civil Rights, almost to the point of excluding all other factors? Until I am reassured by the author of the proposal, that this senario will not come to pass, Uber Neo Zeon shall not act on the current proposal. I will also ask by delegate to reserve voting on it as well.

Sincerly,
The President of Uber Neo Zeon

OOC I'm sorry but I have to disagree, you can be as evil as you want your nation to be! But you can't expect to be so evil and taken seriously in the UN. It's a United Nations...meant to create a better world. If your afraid of what it might do to your "evil" nation. Well got some bad news buddy...the past resolutions pretty much put you out of business.

But why should the UN be one sided? Isn't the UN the place where countries with differing points of view can find comprimise? No country is perfect, but why shouldn't those with a more evil sighted point of view also be heard? (That sounded better in my head. :? ).

02

Good and Evil are just words. They dont have any real meaning, all is contextual. What some consider Evil, some will consider good or even reasonable, and in most of the case: necessary (evil:)

"Violence is never an awser, but it is an adequate and efficient response most of the times.."

It isn't plagarism unless it's published.

Though I have not personally looked at the laws concerning plagerism directly, someone who had mentioned that one can publish via web medium. I am not exactly sure how posting fits in, but I always like to give people credit where it's due. If the Ariens cited Agua Puro, I'm sure this wouldn't have been an issue. Aguo Puro likely would have been proud to see his (or her) words repeated as the flagship of a point, if the credit was given.

Isn't there some bit in the terms and conditions or whatever that says all text posted on the NationStates server is owned by Max Barry or something to that affect?

03

OOC I'm sorry but I have to disagree, you can be as evil as you want your nation to be! But you can't expect to be so evil and taken seriously in the UN. It's a United Nations...meant to create a better world. If your afraid of what it might do to your "evil" nation. Well got some bad news buddy...the past resolutions pretty much put you out of business.

The Most Serene Republic Hyper Evilness isn't really that evil actually...

04

Ariens I can't help but disagree with you on all three counts.

1) The Puritans may have had to conform, and that is regretable but has nothing to do with this. The Puritans were judgemental of others and only sought refuge as they were too small in number to impose their views on others, you only need look at the bloodbath that was the English Civil War to see what tryany Puritans can unlease when given power. As such I don't believe that the Puritans would have or indeed should have been welcome in the UN. Bear in mind outside the UN this resolution means nothing.

2) Again evil nations are fine and dandy, but should the UN support them? I believe not, those who choose for our own sick warped reasons to repress and mutilate our own populations would still be free to do so but outside the UN.

3) On the last issue I conceed that you have a point, there are indeed many issues tied in within this one resolution. It may have been better if split in several smaller bills. However I still feel that I can support this bill as a whole.

-Me