I submitted a legit proposal
why was my proposal deemed inappropriate. I submitted a proposal regarding naming Chuck Palahniuk a worldwide treasure. This was a genuine proposal. It was deleted and I was scolded. I was just trying to use my platform as a delegate to draw attention to another excellent author. Why was this wrong?
Perhaps because "legitimisation of authors" no matter what their level of artistic or literary prowess, is not a valid usage of UN appropriate space or time. Though, for the record Chuck Palanhiuk is a really great author, so I have to give you backing on the intent, at least.
New Clarkhall
17-11-2003, 22:10
Haha. Sorry Dog Breath, but I think that proposals specifically dealing with RW leaders, celebrities and nations are automatically considered inapprorpriate and not worth the UN's time.
Enodia does mention in his post "Before you make a proposal" that this is not the real world. As previously stated, this may be the reason. Or perhaps someone thought you were being silly.
The proposal was also rather poorly classified and will remain so regardless of the classification. Consider:
Environmental Proposal?
I doubt it. While you could argue that reading any good author improves your environment, it doesn't do so "at the expense of industry". In fact, if anything it's likely to increase the need for industry in order to make more books to read.
Human Rights?
Unlikely. Again, you can argue that "freedom to read whatever you want" is a human right, but the proposal was basically just "let's say that Palahniuk is a good author", not "let's campaign to let those in oppressive regimes read him".
Social Justice?
Nope. It's not going to reduce income inequality - except in the direction of the booksellers who'll be selling more of his work.
Free Trade?
Again, no. At no point were you after the removal of embargoes on his books.
Furtherment of Democracy?
See under "Human Rights" but with the caveat that these sorts of proposals tend to relate to politics - rather than books.
International Security?
Nope. Not a single word about boosting police/military budgets.
Gambling?
Nope.
Global Disarmament?
Nope. No words about reducing police/military budgets either.
Recreational Drug Use?
Not unless you propose we do something very odd with the books.
Moral Decency?
If "Fight Club"'s anything to go on, you're looking at the exact opposite of moral decency here. Besides, you're not after a restriction of civil freedoms.
Political Stability?
Nope.
Gun Control?
Absolutely not.
Given that those are the categories you can propose in, you can't really make this proposal particularly well-classified. Of course, the fact that it's slightly more on the real-world side of the fence is never going to help.