NationStates Jolt Archive

The debate that has resulted in "Equality for All in Violation of Res 245" has revealed a disturbing discovery.

In essence, it has been proposed that the text of a resolution is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is catagory and strength. If this is true, than the voting and passing of resolutions is nothing more than mere pagentry and being a UN member is no more than being in attendance at a parade.

The current resolution being voted on is a clear example of that. Not only does it cover issues dealt with more clearly and in detail in resolutions already passed by the UN, it violates one of the earliest UN resolutions calling for correct grammar. Voting for it would mean voting for a vague redundancy and tacetly ignoring the will of the UN. By doing so we are creating the dreaded 'paper tiger' effect.

It has been argued by the mods that this is a mechanics issue and that the resolution (245A) is therefore irrelivant. But we, the voting nations of the UN, can take the agency upon ourselves to enforce the will of the UN and to recongize the actions of the UN in the past. We cannot rely on mods and game mechanics, lest our voting is nothing more than pointless affermations of single catagories. We must take the agency upon ourselves and enforce the UN by defeating this proposal based on it's violation of previous UN decrees. Otherwise, what is the UN and who are we as UN members?

TAKE THE UN BACK FROM THE MACHINE!!!

There are a few ways that this might work--they're all workable as a system, but we all need to agree on one of them based on where we want the game to go:

1.) This is all best represented as a major issue that should be worked into NS2, and we will all just have to deal for now.

2.) We can pretend that we don't know the mechanistic nature of UN resolution process and look at it as a way of figuring out our politics, rather than a way of enforcing them.

3.) We can strip it down to the bare essentials and say in each res. what the effect in terms of game mechanics will be and strip out the content, leaving the actual meaning of the thing up to RP.

Any other ideas?

I agree with the third option. The only real effect, mechanics-wise, resolutions have on the game is raising or lowering certain stats. How it actually works out is left up to RP.

I agree with the third option. The only real effect, mechanics-wise, resolutions have on the game is raising or lowering certain stats. How it actually works out is left up to RP.
In the RP scenario we must consider the effect past resolutions have and work to enforce them within ourselves with our votes. Not only does the resolution tread poorly over ground already covered, it violates edicts already set forth by the UN. If we are simply piling on bonuses to our nation's stats, the UN is increasingly pointless. Defeating this resolutions strengthens the UN.

What do you mean by strengthens the UN?

From a game mechanics perspective, all the resolutions do is fiddle with stats. It is up to the players to roleplay out the consequences of the resolution as they see it.

What do you mean by strengthens the UN?

From a game mechanics perspective, all the resolutions do is fiddle with stats. It is up to the players to roleplay out the consequences of the resolution as they see it.
If we succumb to a simple game mechanics notion, than why have text in the UN resolutions at all? By dismissing flawed or repetitive resolutions by saying that the game effect is all that matters than the voting system is nothing more than a vote for "more cherries, please."

But if we take into regard the text, within ourselves, of the resolutions that are proposed within the light of those that have passed we strengthen the UN. If we disregard the past resolutions then all resolutions are nothing more than cherries. If we acknowledge them by voting within their interpretations we strengthen the UN by acknowledging it.

If the UN is just a source of 'cherries' it is nothing more than a self-appreciation society exchanging favors. The text of the resolutions are pointless. Even if you do not RP in the forums (I do not) you would have to consider effect within the context of UN past and present in order for it to have relevance beyond 'give me cherries.'

So consider the effect then - just don't try to say that a proposal/resolution can't be voted on if it goes against a game mechanics resolution.

So consider the effect then - just don't try to say that a proposal/resolution can't be voted on if it goes against a game mechanics resolution.
I haven't said it can't be voted on, I've said it should be voted against.

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

So consider the effect then - just don't try to say that a proposal/resolution can't be voted on if it goes against a game mechanics resolution.
I haven't said it can't be voted on, I've said it should be voted against.
Go ahead and do so then.

So consider the effect then - just don't try to say that a proposal/resolution can't be voted on if it goes against a game mechanics resolution.
I haven't said it can't be voted on, I've said it should be voted against.
Go ahead and do so then.
Are you suggesting that I cannot campaign against proposals?

Not in the least bit. Campaign all you want. What I'm saying is that there are arguments which are more likely to find favour with the voting public.

Not in the least bit. Campaign all you want. What I'm saying is that there are arguments which are more likely to find favour with the voting public.
As long as I'm not bogged down in technical issues of solutions I haven't called for I hope to raise the discourse and by stirring a no vote make further proposal writers take this into consideration. This seems more viable than the "but what about the plants" arguement to me. The "why" of my wanting this proposal to fail is more important to me. If I am the only one considering the UN as a continuos line instead of a single moment then I will be swimming upstream. If I can campaign the notion that we look at the UN as a continous unit then perhaps more UN nations will, thus taking the agency I keep talking about.

I am trying to change the nature of the voting public, the nature of debate, but have spent too much time slogging through technical issues raised from an incorrect interpretation of my platform.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but that is the nature of a polititian. At least until they realise how much money it takes to get into office.

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

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
I'll grant your arguement as I have never been a fan of the "What about the plant's" arguement. But you posted this in mine so I'll lay out why I'm against it, leaving the much balihooed technicality for last.

In examining the past UN resolutions (for the record, homework) I find that all of the tenants of your proposal have already been dealt with, and with greater and more careful detail. As such, your proposal only offers the UN a short memory. I do not believe we do a service to the UN with repititions. Your proposal is not additive and, taking past proposals into account, not well considered in my humble opinion.

And the technicality, the typo being in violation of 245A In this case, you may claim your proposal is a victim of bad timing. Many of the proposals are poorly worded and riddled with errors, and yet they pass. As a relatively new UN member this trend was disturbing. So when I saw a proposal that had covered two major frustrations, redundancy and poor wording, I decided that now was the time that I should become active, campaigning that the members of the UN should hold the proposals to a higher standard than "Hey this'll increase my civil rights rating..." When I found that the UN had passed a standard I felt that I had the presedent to campaign for a "No" vote as a method of raising the discourse. Is it entirely fair that it is yours that I campaign against when previous proposals have had even worse errors? No, not entirely. You are a victim of timing, often the unconsidered spectre of politics. The time was right for revolution(even if all the people don't agree on why we are rebeling), you have the miss-fortune of being the brunt of it. And you still may win. We have not yet reached a record level of 'no' votes, the election could easily swing back your way.

To be clear, because it seems to happen pretty often, do not take this as a personal assault. In principle I agree with you-all for equality. And as you can see if you look closely, I could benefit greatly from a spell check and occasionally have word choice issues, but I would edit these if I where to make a proposal. But as for your nation and you as a player, I have nothing against either. You even seem like an earnest person. I just need to defeat your proposal in order to raise the UN to a higher standard.

I'm not out to personally convert you. If you feel that you have to vote against because of a typo, then do so with my blessing....but about the issue of redundancy? Again my friend, I ask you to take a look at the forums pages I authored, because I addressed that issue long before this was even put for a vote.

Emperor Dalith

I'm not out to personally convert you. If you feel that you have to vote against because of a typo, the do so with my blessing....but about the issue of redundancy again my friend I ask you to tak a look at the forums pages I authored, because I addressed that issue long before this was put for a vote.

Emperor Dalith
Covert me to what?

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.

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

Respectfully,
Emperor Dalith
Still doesn't work, sorry.

I have read the passage regarding the previous articles.

By recognizing gay marriages there is a de facto lack of catagorization. The fact that it's no longer called a gay marriage won't make it anything other than a gay marriage. Removing the wording doesn't change anything, except in maybe an Orwellian way. I still contend that the previous resolution is better considered as it doesn't rely on restricting language as a way of ignoring something. By stopping the governments from calling gay marriages gay you won't stop homo-phobia, you'll simply make it more difficult to talk about. In this light, I find the passage of your proposal dangerous.
As some opportunists have pointed out, some sexual classifications-such as sexual predators- are still neccisary. This isn't dealt with.

As for the members that contain multiple races: In this time, since we only have the catagory of 'human' rights we have to extend that meaning to self-aware members of recognizable societies. That would have to have been the approach. By re-instating the rights in an open ended "living beings" you have created a vague and uninforcable notion. You would have done better to extend the meaning and thus include the previous proposals than to re-word them all into a vague and un-enforcable utopian ideal. As such, this is still redundant to me and dangerous at it's worse.

Again, it's symbolic, I salute your intentions but as I see more danger in passing this proposal than to defeat it, I continue my campaign against.

*stands up and applauds*

We admire Cannot think of a name's attempts to adhere to the UN's resolutions and will support said nation in all their attempts.

*stands up and applauds*

We admire Cannot think of a name's attempts to adhere to the UN's resolutions and will support said nation in all their attempts.
The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name thanks you and welcomes your support.

stands and nods his head towards the other members

We, the representives of the Republic of Necrotasia must applaud not only those who voiced a No on this proposal, but also those who shed some common sense into this issue. Of all, the estemed nation of Cannot think of a Name should get a verly long and well deserved round of applause.

Crusading against the lack of common sense, redundantcy, etc, they have risen to the top IMHO.

gives applause to Cannot think of a Name

As pointed out prior, the current proposal is just what? 6 already passed Resolutions merged into one with some bad grammer. This adresses the need for the UN to mediate more into the submission processs so that future repetitive proposals do not make it to the floor. Unlike The United Middle Earth, the rest of us actually have work to do in our own nations. Stopping crime, helping the economy, stopping a coupe de ta because some uneducated person with a molitov cocktail decides to toss one at an innocent child (Brianna was fine due to the swift actions by her security detachment btw..).

Comming here to the UN everytime someone comes up ith a proposal that has already been voted on (and passed) demands my time here in New York and thus I have to spend money to get here, stay here until the vote is final and thus spend more of my people's money.

Simply, do your homework prior to submitting proposals and see what's already been passed and what hasnt. Dont waste valuable time on insignifcant issues.

-Chairman J.Manning
Republic of Necrotasia