NationStates Jolt Archive

What is up with all of the stupid proposals lately.

SURE they mean well...

But they are worded poorly....
Take the Proposal to ban torture.....worded horribly...and I resigned my position temporarily due to it.

I do not wish to watch poorly worded articles passed in the UN, that is not why I signed up for the UN.

This resolution is horrible and needs to be voted against, taken out, reworded, maybe resubmitted, and then voted on again..if worded correctly....

The Regional Delegates need to pay closer attention to the proposals they bring forth to the UN, as there is no need for such utter pieces of, for lack of a better term, crap....

I urge you all to vote no.

Vote no, not whether you agree or disagree, but for the mere fact the bill is worded horribly and needs to be revised before it even can think of getting passed.

Thank you,

Dictator William Throckmorton
The United Socialist States of Czechoslobillya

Not only is it ridiculous to give fines of 5000 dollars in ALL CASES, so also for companies like M$... they would just laugh and pay, and keep doing what they are doing.

Voting on this subject as a UN matter is indeed an example of how dumb some of these suggested topics are. Besides, do you have any idea how many people would lose their jobs if this little overhead of SPAM is totally banned !!

This resolution is just one more in a very long (and tiresome) series of proposals that treat the U.N. as if it were a national legislature, and not a world body. It will impose still another huge tax burden on our people, and require us to institute a huge, intrusive bureaucracy if we want to stay in the U.N. To make matters worse, the resolution specifies that fines are to be in dollars--totally ignoring the fact that the dollar isn't the currency of every nation. In the "real world" U.N., a proposal like this would be laughed out of existence. Yet in NS, it's being passed overwhelmingly, (we guess) because many people are tired of being spammed and want to make a "statment".

If this really is a "nation simulation game", then why aren't individual nations allowed to make their own laws to deal with problems that their own citizens find most troublesome, and to set their own spending priorities? We have to provide things like decent healthcare for our people, and still keep our economy from imploding. The U.N. isn't making the job any easier.

I know we could use a "puppet", but that isn't how things work in the real world either.

The best way to eliminate spam is to tax it--the specific internet providers, that is... more of a fine, really

Create a system of emails which would charge the sender one cent if the receiver did not have the sender's email address on her list.

Email addresses would be attached to credit cards (as many are already, such as when you pay for yahoo or hotmail.) It would be a tiny amount, and it could even be resolved so that if a person received an email from a long-lost friend, he could add that person to his list, and remove the charge.

Spammers, who send out millions upon millions of spams... get the picture? Simple, non-intrusive way of dealing with things.

Of course, dealing with viruses and hackers would always be a problem, but this is not what we are talking about specifically.

I suppose we could support the proposed issue, but this would be a much better way of dealing with it. If the resolution passes, this must be added later... In fact, this should be the only one proposed.

Not only am I concerned with the wording, but wouldn't there be a concern of the UN infringing on sovereignty as well? I have to take stance, being new to this, and being new to these forums, behind someone established. I have taken note that the opinions here thus far are coming from people who are aware of what they're doing.

This *does* seem like something that individual countries should legislate and enforce on their own. Some aren't going to want to do that, because their economies may depend on it.

It's going to cut into human rights, as well as political freedoms to just let the UN come in and fine whoever is perceived to have sent SPAM. Not to mention, since the UN is made up of representative countries, who is going to fund the enforcement of this said proposal? I don't know about others, but my economy is only so strong, and I have to concentrate on the wellbeing of my peoples. Protecting the best interests of my country comes before someone who wants to do away with unwanted email. It's not a serious social or economical issue.

I have voted against this resolution, I have also moved to asking my regional UN representative to do so as well. This will not benefit anyone. I would have to tax my people more, and I feel they're already overtaxed.

This poorly thought, and badly worded (thank you Czechoslobillya) proposition should have been thrown out before it was ever placed for debate.

Wrong category. This isn't a human rights proposal. There is no recognized "Right to an Inbox." There is a right to free speech, but no one seems to care about that. This is a Moral Decency proposal -- keeping the unruly, annoying groups out of people's inboxes.

This problem is causing minutes a day in irritation...

Oh, sweet heaven, minutes a day. Out of 1440 minutes every day, that one minute can make all the difference. People are dying everywhere because of spam, in fact.

Never mind that I don't know a single person who even averages a minute a day dealing with spam. I'm sure that type of person exists, but they are, I believe, in the minority.

...millions of kilobytes of bandwith waste...

Ohhh, millions of kilobytes! That's alot! Tonight, by myself (ie: one single user out of quite, quite many), I have transmitted and received several million kilobytes of data -- that means that, assuming the number isn't a wild guess, which I rather suspect that it is, spam email is not a threat to the bandwidth of the Internet.

...millions of dollars of corporate money...

Millions of dollars, eh? A nice, precise figure. Sounds like there sure was a lot of research on this proposal, with nice numbers like "MILLIONS! RAR!" Does anyone even have any data to back this statement up?

The problem is and has been growing at a nearly exponential rate for years now.

Right. Is there any data to back THAT up? I can say I get less spam today than I did four years ago.

All people have the right to be free from barrages of obscenity and unwanted sales offers...

Where is this "right" recognized at an international level?

...and these serve only to worsen the general mood and lifestyle of civilization

Really? I somehow doubt that, if you put up a poll to ask people what they thought the number one problem facing society is today, that any significant number of people would say "Spam emails are worsening the general mood of civilization!" Again, they "worsen the general mood?" How do spam emails even alter the lifestyle?

...any company found to be in posession of a list of emails for the usage of SPAM be fined the equivilent to five hundred thousand dollars and any company found to be sending unsolicitated email be fined the equivilent of five thousand dollars per email.

A bit excessive, perhaps?

Besides all that, I've already found an easy loophole in this proposal -- export the spam industry outside of the United Nations. This proposal only states that companies in possession of lists or sending spam email to personal addresses can be fined, so the companies will simply have third parties assemble these same lists outside of the member nations. Once these lists are moved out, all the company would have to do is email the third party and instruct them to do the spamming. So even if you do support the cause of stopping spam, this proposal isn't going to do it at all.

The best solution is to get a spam blocker. They really do work wonders. Anyone too lazy to get one (or even several, perhaps) has no grounds for complaint, in my view. A proposal regarding spam blockers would be more likely to gain my support.

The best way to eliminate spam is to tax it--the specific internet providers, that is... more of a fine, really

Create a system of emails which would charge the sender one cent if the receiver did not have the sender's email address on her list.

Email addresses would be attached to credit cards (as many are already, such as when you pay for yahoo or hotmail.) It would be a tiny amount, and it could even be resolved so that if a person received an email from a long-lost friend, he could add that person to his list, and remove the charge.

Spammers, who send out millions upon millions of spams... get the picture? Simple, non-intrusive way of dealing with things.

Of course, dealing with viruses and hackers would always be a problem, but this is not what we are talking about specifically.

I suppose we could support the proposed issue, but this would be a much better way of dealing with it. If the resolution passes, this must be added later... In fact, this should be the only one proposed.

This approach is appealing if done in moderation. Service providers have little motivation to protect users now, but money talks.

Just remember that the power to tac is the power to destroy.

I was not aware, mon amis, that this function of patrolling the internet was a UN Function? Why didn't I know this? Because it's not! Nor is it a Function of the NSUN to establish Hippo awareness days!! I'm am sorry, ladies and gentleman, but one more proposal like this from the UN, and I will tender my resignation indefintely. The growing rate of idiocy to which we seem exposed currently seems to be growing, and I will not dedicate anymore time or effort to such worthwhile tasks. I most certainly was not idealistic enough to believe when I joined that I would agree with every proposal, but then again, I never thought something as comdemnably stupid as that Hippo Awareness Proposal would pass, either. This is simply my advance warning.

We feel while SPAM is not a good thing (Our region in fact has a zero tolerance stance in the region's message board) it is not an activity that is black and white. Since the resolution does not have a clear definition of infractions it applies to, we feel it has the potential to hinder free speech and levy excessive fines. It is also our stance that the UN should assist with global macro issues. Resolutions of this nature are doomed to be rejected since they micromanage the internal affairs of nations. This resolution would have been helpful had it assisted nations with the international aspect of controlling spammers outside their borders.

Wrong category. This isn't a human rights proposal. There is no recognized "Right to an Inbox." There is a right to free speech, but no one seems to care about that. This is a Moral Decency proposal -- keeping the unruly, annoying groups out of people's inboxes.


I'll have to be more specific.

Being that the proposal is vaguely worded, and does not allow for sovereign nations to decide for themselves the best way to go about investigating and penalizing those who would violate others with SPAM. It will allow an international community to deal with those who are accused of violating this legislation, and the country in which the accused are in will have no say in how this person is punished.

Of course, with a resignation from the UN, I would not have to concern myself with outside forces coming in and imposing their will upon my populations. They would not have any more jurisdiction over the people than a neighboring country would.

I am following suit in stating that if the UN keeps coming forth with these childish outcry statements against problems that are not of a global governing body's concern, then I shall turn in my resignation as well.

I am hoping, that, as my neighbors are all new here, and don't want to create waves just yet, they will present a thought out, less vague proposal for presentation before UN members, and something worthy of a group this size. I can only hope the few intelligent people I've read here thus far will stick around long enough to see it. If it happens.

Going with the nauseating 'me too' vote... this is not something that should have been put in as any form of international legislation.

Am I the only one who noticed that this severely hampers political speech as well? I mean, at the very least, the wording of the resolution ought to define spam as unsolicited commercial advertising and provide for some sort of an opt-in system, where if you receive the ads only after providing permission to the sender.

I was not aware, mon amis, that this function of patrolling the internet was a UN Function
No, it isn't. But perhaps it could be the responsibility of the NationStates UN to have an Internal Organization that managed Domain Registration. The Allied States of Frisbeeteria have no desire to see punishment doled out, we just want our email accounts back.

Surely some way could be devised to punish spamming domains by having their registrations revoked, and by not permitting registrants to sign up for any more domains. This puts the policing against spam back where it belongs, in the hands of those who stand to gain financially by permitting it. The domain would be responsible for shutting down spammers using their resources, or risk losing their ability to survive in the marketplace. If the spammer then forms his own domain, he will find himself out of the domain registration business in short order.

An obvious repercussion of this would be the death of the "free" email account. Services like Hotmail and Yahoo would have to regain control of their own networks at the risk of being denied access to the internet. I'm sure there are other repercussions that have evaded me - perhaps some of you would care to offer suggestions.

This should be coded as a Free Trade issus, and the strength should be Mild. Spam is an annoyance. It ain't no big thing.

The fine is rediculous. What ever happened to public flogging? Let's just drag the spammers into the town square, lock them in stocks, and wait for the birds to devour their rotting flesh.

The fine is rediculous. What ever happened to public flogging? Let's just drag the spammers into the town square, lock them in stocks, and wait for the birds to devour their rotting flesh.

hear hear!!! :D

The fine is rediculous. What ever happened to public flogging? Let's just drag the spammers into the town square, lock them in stocks, and wait for the birds to devour their rotting flesh.

hear hear!!! :D

I do not this that spam mail is really a government matter. It is up to the people who bear e-mail addresses. Anyway, spam mail can be simply blocked or deleted so there's nothing to worry.

Spam mail is not worth our time. And if these fines did come into place, what would these hefty fines be used for, other than government revenue? It's just another feeble way of milking cash out of citizens.

Therefore Booyard will vote NO to this resoultion.

This proposal should be struck down. This will do nothing to prevent SPAM from reaching member nations, and will only prevent member nations from advertising via email. Although The Grand Duchy of Smokem Big Hoo-Ra does agree that SPAM is a drag in general, it would be our opinion that banning SPAM would be an unreasonable limitation on private commerce. Email account holders must be responsible for dealing with any messages sent to the address.

Ideas are more important than language.

As long as we understand the gist of a proposal, we can make suggestions for refinements.

I agree with you, Collaboration, as long as we're debating. But when it comes to passing a resolution, then the language is the most important thing, because it's the letter of the law, at least symbolically, we're binding ourselves to, not the spirit.

That said, I've voted against this proposal and am opposed to it unless it specifically bans unasked for commercial email and requires advertisers to allow consumers to opt in rather than forcing the consumers to opt out.