NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Whereas English has been accepted as the language of choice within the United Nations.

It has been noted that many UN members are forced to sort through an inordinate amount of communication that is poorly spelled and grammatically incorrect. It has been further noted that having to do so is very annoying, as poorly spelled or grammatically erroneous submissions show a lack of thought and care by the proposer, to say nothing of poor proof reading.

We therefore submit a proposal that all proposals must be correctly spelled and make grammatical sense as defined by either the Oxford Dictionary or Websters Dictionary. Further that any proposal with more than 1% of the words incorrectly spelled should be automatically rejected as not being worthy of the member states consideration.

We Urge that all delegates back this proposal on the grounds that it enhances education and reduces the stress caused by trying to second guess what some morons are trying to say!

PS the definition of Stress "The situation that arises when ones mind overides ones bodies basic desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately deserves it!"

I agree with you, but the proposal won't pass because it's a 'game mechanics' proposal - you'd have to change the way NS operates to get it to work.

I was tempted to put myself forward as a proof-reader for proposals in return for trade concessions, but it didn't get off the ground, mainly coz I haven't got into the RP side of things yet...

SC

I agree with you, but the proposal won't pass because it's a 'game mechanics' proposal - you'd have to change the way NS operates to get it to work.

I was tempted to put myself forward as a proof-reader for proposals in return for trade concessions, but it didn't get off the ground, mainly coz I haven't got into the RP side of things yet...

SC

This might just be the type of thing that the admins can do with relatively little effort and without changing the actual mechanics of the game.

First, the truly abhorrent resolutions tend to be very short and easily found.

Second, the longer ones can easily be copied and pasted into a document program to get the word count. Then, the threshold is easily set. A 200-word proposal with three or more typos gets the boot.

In any event, I can't imagine that it is too hard to delete proposals before they might sit before the delegates for about three days.

Allstonland proudly supports this proposal and takes the position that it survives the game mechanics pitfall.

It's an interesting idea, but I think reforming the English spelling system is better.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

It doesn't "survive the game mechanics pitfall" in the slightest. Any proposal which seeks to tell mods/admin what to do will be zapped - no matter how easy it is to carry out the wording of the proposal. There are two reasons for this:

1. Proposals, when passed, have an effect. In a game mechanics-based proposal, the effect is clearly designed to be the implementation of whatever it is that's being proposed, not a "significant" increase of "the furtherment of democracy" or whatever.

2. In situations like this, the mods tend to use their discretion. A proposal with 3 minor typos may still be completely intelligible and thus remains in the queue - while if someone makes the one mistake of leaving out the word "not" it can destroy the sense of the proposal entirely. The only "thresh hold" to which I hold proposals is "do they make sense on being read?", not "do they contain more than X mistakes?"

I offer my support for this righteous assault on poor grammar and those who practice it. However, there should be some sort of safety net for people who usually practice excellent grammar. Let me give an example, say Bill uses extraordinary grammar and is an incredibly knowledgeable individual, yet he accidentally misspells "the" via typo and it comes out as "hte" Bill should not have his entire post disregarded because of a single typo. Aside from this slight oversight, your propossal is without imperfection.
P.S. When submitting a post, you should refrain from expressing an idea in a profane or obscene manner, I am to assume your are an intellectual (as I am) and therefore have an elaborate vocabulary. Use your elaborate vocabulary in substitution of profanity. Thank you.

P.S. When submitting a post, you should refrain from expressing an idea in a profane or obscene manner, I am to assume your are an intellectual (as I am) and therefore have an elaborate vocabulary. Use your elaborate vocabulary in substitution of profanity. Thank you.
To whom is this directed, Rebeland? Nobody has used profanity under the guise of argument on this thread.

I d0n'7 n3d3 gr4m3r. Im4 1337 h4x0r! H3r3 m33? D0n'7 t31 m33 h0w t0 ri73.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Sometime in the past two years, communication ceased having anything to do with being understood, it seems.

What about alternative spellings? Humor or humour, color or colour, combating or combatting; Teddy Roosevelt wrecked everything! Anyway, I agree that the proposal needs some work regarding typos and overall intelligibility. By the way, proofread is one word.

Besides, stop legislating conformity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

We thank all nations for their comments, it would appear that this proposal will not get past the mods as it seems to fall foul of the 'Game Mechanics' principle.

For Pax however the difference between Humor and Humour, i.e. the difference between English (USA) and English (UK) would have been covered by the line that requires a proposal to pass the grammatical and spelling rules of either Websters (USA) or Oxford (UK) dictionaries. In essence the use of either language would have been acceptable.

For all nations that agree with the general principle, I will expand my original thoughts. Basically what I was attempting to bring about was a reduction in the amount of proposals that are so poorly worded or spelled that time has to be taken to try and figure out what the originator meant. I wished to do this for two reasons, one, it is extremely bad manners to submit a poorly worded proposal, it is disrespectful to the UN and shows a lack of care on the behalf of the originator, and two, it causes me personal stress to have to read something that requires constant aggravation in the attempt to translate.

As to the use of profanity I think that comment was aimed at my original post when I quoted one of my favourite statements. In my view profanity is not in all cases unwarranted, it must be taken in case. If you are in a bar full of marines the use of higher English may get you unwanted attention, 'When in Rome'.

Once again we of 'We are all Humanoids' thanks all delegates and nations for their thoughts, and promises that if any nation can think of a proposal that fills the requirements stated, without falling foul of the 'Game Mechanics' principle we will happily endorse the proposal, or at least request my delegate does so!