NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest UN resolution could have used a proof-reader. Perhaps we need a resolution that would require semi-literates to be whipped to death with wet noodles.

Of course, we Artificial Intelligences of Silicoid Valley never make mistaeks.

I swear that there was a proposal on this passed. :?

I completely agree, and would certainly support any resolution to that effect.

Because I never make mistakes.

Ever.

ATTENTION: A new UN proposal has been filed by myself which fixes several of the flaws mentioned for the Internet Advertising Popups resolution.

Please take a minute to read over the "Internet Popup-Ad Reduction" proposal. It fixes grammatical errors, explains the purpose and background for the resolution, defines more specific actions required on the part of member UN nations, and does NOT ban popup-ads; it simply requires companies to allow the blocking of such advertisements in order to boost efficiency of the user and to reduce inappropriate content.

And please, vote NO to the current resolution, as the integrity of the UN resolution proposal process is at stake.

it simply requires companies to allow the blocking of such advertisements in order to boost efficiency of the user and to reduce inappropriate content.

What's the point in a resolution for this? Companies don't allow or disallow the blocking of pop-ups, isn't it impossible to disallow it because pop-up blockers are widely available?

A browser company is very able to create a browser that circumvents popup blocking technology. A widely-used browser may do this so that the browser company can gain sponsorship by other companies that rely on popups to harass the user in advertisement.

A browser company is very able to create a browser that circumvents popup blocking technology. A widely-used browser may do this so that the browser company can gain sponsorship by other companies that rely on popups to harass the user in advertisement.

What about things like google toolbar?

A browser company can easily block such things as the Google Toolbar if it so wishes. Try downloading a non-popular browser and installing Google Toolbar; I'm sure you can easily find one that currently does not allow the toolbar to be installed (although I have not actually researched it myself).

In fact, it's not so much that the toolbar is blocked. It's more like the company actually makes its browser capable of accepting it. The resolution forces companies to make their browser capable of accepting such popup-blocking software.

Brandonion

A browser company can easily block such things as the Google Toolbar if it so wishes. Try downloading a non-popular browser and installing Google Toolbar; I'm sure you can easily find one that currently does not allow the toolbar to be installed (although I have not actually researched it myself).

In fact, it's not so much that the toolbar is blocked. It's more like the company actually makes its browser capable of accepting it. The resolution forces companies to make their browser capable of accepting such popup-blocking software.

Brandonion

But the consumer has the choice of buying a browser that accepts pop-up blockers or one that doesn't.

We strongly advise that the UN start(s) a worldwide language education program for proposers, which (that) will (shall) thereafter (afterwards) be made compulsory reading for local Kindergarten clients and journalists.

Our kindest regards,
on behalf of the Starum Government:
X (his mark)
Minister of Spelling and Internal Affairs,
wetted and spellchecked by Mycrodaft.

There was a proposal that blocked spam and junk mail, this one blocks pop-ups.

<laughing> This resolution has recieved the most attention of any resolution I have seen based on its spelling and grammar.

What "band" pop-ups would be come and where is "there internet" are questions I wish to address to writer.

There are devices which block pop-ups. Or you can just not go to that website if it annoys you so much. Banning such things in my opinion hinders free speech and free trade.

I have voted against it and will resign if it looks like it is going to pass on the last day of voting.

Most of the UN proposals don't seem to be very well written or thought out. So sad.

These proposals never get far.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

(OOC: Even if current resolution was a valid UN proposal, I would vote against it. Call me old-fashioned or a slave to out-dated grammar, but I think that if English is your native language, there is absolutely no reason you can't at least use a bloody dictionary or spell-check button. And I'll stand by that claim.)

A Message from the Republic of Teakland

On behalf of the humble people of Teakland, I am afraid we must vote against this resolution on the grounds that:
a) it is nearly illegible;
b) it violates the right to free enterprise in countries that adopt such a principle;
c) it is hardly a matter of international importance; and
d) if a band wants to put pop-ups advertising their music, they should be allowed to do so...hold on. My assistant has informed me that the writer of the resolution probably meant "banned", not "band'. In that case, please see reason a).

We thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Quincy Chiang
United Nations Delegate

I agree, the proposal is stupid in the first place, and how do you misspell banned, band?!
The proposal is stupid because:
1. That sort of descision should be made in ones own nation, not by the UN
2. It is a way of gaining revenue on the world wide web, you could sink the internet
3. Get a pop up blocker! Google has one for free! Mine has blocked 748 pop ups.

wetted and spellchecked by Mycrodaft.

Yuck.. you wetted it ? with what ? :P

Do I even want to know ? :P

wetted and spellchecked by Mycrodaft.

Yuck.. you wetted it ? with what ? :P

Do I even want to know ? :P

No, you don't want to know. Trust me.

ATTENTION: A new UN proposal has been filed by myself which fixes several of the flaws mentioned for the Internet Advertising Popups resolution.

Please take a minute to read over the "Internet Popup-Ad Reduction" proposal. It fixes grammatical errors, explains the purpose and background for the resolution, defines more specific actions required on the part of member UN nations, and does NOT ban popup-ads; it simply requires companies to allow the blocking of such advertisements in order to boost efficiency of the user and to reduce inappropriate content.

And please, vote NO to the current resolution, as the integrity of the UN resolution proposal process is at stake.

Why bother submitting a new one - the current one gets ignored anyway:

Resolution 245A Proper Grammar
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Scrotalia

Description: Too long have UN Proposals been filled with improper grammar. One can scarcely move between two pages of proposals without seeing some sort of grammar or spelling error. People need to realize that "your" and "you're" are NOT the same word. People also need to realize that "to" and "too" are also not the same word, and that the "Vaticant" does not exist. Any country that files a proposal with such language shall henceforth be banned from proposals until such time as they understand the English language and can properly convey their ideas.

Votes For: 8597

Votes Against: 6885

Implemented: Sat Feb 15 2003

I must protest most strongly at the resolution (passed before my state became a member). English is not the first language of many states in the UN, it is unreasonable to expect non-native speakers to have completely perfect written English. In fact it is a shame that the UN only communicates in one language.

I agree that resolutions should be proof-read by a mod before posting, but to penalise nations for poor English is institutionalised discrimination and effectively reduces the democratic process in the UN.

I propose a resolution that overturns the above resolution and replaces it with the following:

Proof-reading of resolutions.
Exploration of other official languages (commission?).
Minimum word limit for resolutions (to ensure resolutions are thought-out and have good substance).

I must protest most strongly at the resolution (passed before my state became a member). English is not the first language of many states in the UN, it is unreasonable to expect non-native speakers to have completely perfect written English. In fact it is a shame that the UN only communicates in one language.

I agree that resolutions should be proof-read by a mod before posting, but to penalise nations for poor English is institutionalised discrimination and effectively reduces the democratic process in the UN.

I propose a resolution that overturns the above resolution and replaces it with the following:

Proof-reading of resolutions.
Exploration of other official languages (commission?).
Minimum word limit for resolutions (to ensure resolutions are thought-out and have good substance).

That's a game mechanics resolution. To enforce it, the mods would have to either change the coding so that the game wouldn't accept short proposals, or they would have to change their practices - when they start deciding what to allow, are they going to delete all proposals with even a single spelling mistake? Where would they draw the line to get the best balance? It's too difficult to judge, so it's easier for them to ignore spelling (I presume). If you want to suggest any of these things, I suggest putting your ideas forward in the tech forum, not as a UN proposal.

That's a game mechanics resolution. To enforce it, the mods would have to either change the coding so that the game wouldn't accept short proposals, or they would have to change their practices - when they start deciding what to allow, are they going to delete all proposals with even a single spelling mistake? Where would they draw the line to get the best balance? It's too difficult to judge, so it's easier for them to ignore spelling (I presume). If you want to suggest any of these things, I suggest putting your ideas forward in the tech forum, not as a UN proposal.

Don't want to flame you, but can't you read??? There has already been a resolution passed for greater controls on spelling and grammar, which I believe to be restrictive on the practice of democracy in the UN. The main thrust of my argument is that we should resolve to renege that resolution in favour of one that takes into account the fact that many nations (ie users) may not have English as their first language and hence cannot be expected to write perfect English.

I certainly don't suggest deleting ANY resolutions because of poor spelling and bad grammar, but what I suggest is a method of allowing corrections to resolutions that have been tabled (the easiest would be of course just to resubmit the corrected resolution).

This UN only works in one language, so we should be tolerant of those nations that do not natively use it.

Don't want to flame you, but can't you read??? There has already been a resolution passed for greater controls on spelling and grammar, which I believe to be restrictive on the practice of democracy in the UN. The main thrust of my argument is that we should resolve to renege that resolution...

Sorry, I should have made this clear - as far as I know, that other resolution is also considered a game mechanics proposal (passed before the mods started purging inappropriate resolutions, I think) and therefore does not apply to anyone and you're free to ignore it. Therefore, I think it's better if we continue to leave it like that (i.e. no applicable UN legislation) and if people dislike badly-spelled proposals, then they'll (usually - this one's a rare exception) vote them down.

However, having for instance a spell-checker on the submit proposal page that nations can use to check over their texts is a good idea, and one that merits being suggested on the technical forum, but not as a un proposal.

Speeling and important are grammer.

Speeling and important are grammer.

Sorry had to edit my post to make this clear - I don't mean ignore spelling and grammar, but don't try and pass proposals about them. Instead, ask the mods for a spellchecker

wetted and spellchecked by Mycrodaft.

Yuck.. you wetted it ? with what ? :P

Do I even want to know ? :P

1. Drowned in 60% proof and thereafter
2. Credentials and history checked by SIS (Starum Intelligence Service).

On behalf of SIS
G. Smiley
(Proofreader)

Speeling and important are grammer.

Secunded
Starum Tea, Spelling and Intelligence Service
(STSIS)

H00 n33d5 gr4m3r, 4n3w4y? 3y3 d0n'7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.