NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious why that got voted down. Personally, I voted against it by virtue of the lack of touch with reality the author showed, the clear flippancy unbecoming of a UN representative and the bizarre measures and results suggested.

I've been of the persuasion that a lot of other UN members shared similar characteristics to that though. I voted quite early on before any real difference was evident. I was quite surprised to find the resolution defeated in the end.

Perhaps it's only the vocal minority who share the negative characteristics? Perhaps the proposer was merely unpopular. Either way, I'm curious why did you vote against the proposal?

Other than the fact that I like my laws to be spelled correctly, the main issue is that it limits free speech and capitalism.

There are programs to limit pop-ups, just as there is TIVO to limit commercials (or fast forward on a tape), or flipping over ads in a magazine.

If you ban pop-ups, you are taking away one source of revenue from companies that do business on the internet. That's like saying ban TV commercials. The internet is great . . . BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT. nobody likes seeing ads, but ads generate money, because companies aren't putting out content and services for us to use of the kindness of their heart. They do it to make money. They make money from selling ads. Enough said.

The proposer was in violation of Resolution 245A Proper Grammar in the first place. I think all other reasons have already been stated. My thanks to everyone who voted against the proposal.

Other than the fact that I like my laws to be spelled correctly, the main issue is that it limits free speech

Agreed with the former, though I am not much of a capitalist. The ideals of socialism are dominant in my country, however we do support free trade as we do not believe in autarky. This resolution would have hindered free trade.

My thanks to everyone who voted against the proposal.

Amen.

There has long been a law in the States of Stephenson that restricts - though not bans, the use of pop up adds. The costs are much to great for compaines to consider pop-up adds as a source of revenue, but the internet is never add free - it can't be. But since the populace has decided that they are annoying, they are not used as a succesful tool in our country. But the other nations have a point too. Free speech does come into play somewhere.

The States of Stephenson

LOOK, if we can IMPROVE HUMAN RIGHTS just by banning those silly pop-ups and using on-site-advertisements instead, why WE WOULDNT DO THAT?

Banning pop-up ads isnt really about limiting the freedom of speech, if I understanded proposal's idea correctly.

This thing is so simple that anyone can got it! There r those programs whiches removes pop-ups and I use it too so SHOULD WE MAKE USAGE OF PROGRAMS WHICH REMOVES POP-UPS ILLEGAL? If you vote NO you much likely would like that-one too! I'm using that goddamn thing volunteerly and because I dont want to close those million pop-up i got on too many sites!

SO: Those who voted NO, are the biggest enemy to the humans. They don't want to improve our rights! This action was silent DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST ALL THOSE CIVILIZED COUNTRIES WHO stands for FREEDOM and PEACE! Look, we are in war now.

Office of the President of The Democratic Republic of Balilaba

Just cause we don't ban something doesn't mean we should make things that prevent it illegal. That is really bad, stupid logic. That's like saying since we don't outlaw TV commercials, anyone who fast forwards through commercials is a criminal. Or since we allow smoking, anyone who doesn't smoke is a criminal. That's just stupid.

Also, I have no idea how it would "improve human rights". You are just limiting a medium of advertising for companies. Remember, if you don't like the internet pop up ads, don't use the internet. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THE INTERNET and pop ups are one method.

Just cause you don't like something or find something annoying, doesn't mean we should ban it. Everything is always going to be annoying to somebody. We can't ban everything. So sit down, shut up, and stop your complaining. Either that, or stop using the internet and this forum, . . . something I'm sure lots of people other than me would be grateful of.

LOOK, if we can IMPROVE HUMAN RIGHTS just by banning those silly pop-ups and using on-site-advertisements instead, why WE WOULDNT DO THAT?

Banning pop-up ads isnt really about limiting the freedom of speech, if I understanded proposal's idea correctly.

This thing is so simple that anyone can got it! There r those programs whiches removes pop-ups and I use it too so SHOULD WE MAKE USAGE OF PROGRAMS WHICH REMOVES POP-UPS ILLEGAL? If you vote NO you much likely would like that-one too! I'm using that goddamn thing volunteerly and because I dont want to close those million pop-up i got on too many sites!

SO: Those who voted NO, are the biggest enemy to the humans. They don't want to improve our rights! This action was silent DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST ALL THOSE CIVILIZED COUNTRIES WHO stands for FREEDOM and PEACE! Look, we are in war now.

Office of the President of The Democratic Republic of BalilabaRiiight... If you are through with your rant...

There are a number of problems with the content.

First, this is hardly a problem worthy of the UN. This is something best left to individual countries, if addressed at all.

Secondly, many countries here have this thing called "freedom of speech" which is a basic principle of their society. This resolution violates that.

Thirdly, there is no way to enforce it in any effective manner.

Fourthly, this doesn't even propose anything. It essentially says, "We think pop-ups are bad." That's great, but what are we going to do about it? This proposal doesn't say.

And finally, there are a great many tools available to combat pop-ups that are widely available and require no government intervention.

In my view there are no less than five valid complaints with this resolution that have nothing to with how it is worded. On that issue however, I do believe resolutions should have some level of professionalism put into their development. When you butcher grammar and spelling that badly, it looks unprofessional and it reflects poorly on us.

Okay, lets assume that this is somebody with a lower educational level or not a native English speaker. There are ways to solve this. For instance, they could work with another nation run by somebody with more education or simply better language skills to draft a resolution that is correctly worded and professional in appearance. They could post a message on the board requesting assistance in drafting a resolution or post a rough draft for others to correct on their behalf. If they have one of several programs they could run it through a grammar check.

I may not be a master at spelling and grammar but if I propose a resolution I would make absolutely sure it had proper grammar and spelling before posting it.

SO: Those who voted NO, are the biggest enemy to the humans. They don't want to improve our rights! This action was silent DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST ALL THOSE CIVILIZED COUNTRIES WHO stands for FREEDOM and PEACE! Look, we are in war now.


Did you see the atrocious spelling on the proposal? That alone was enough for the Oppressed Peoples of Klanggadar to vote against it. Our fearless leader nearly decapitated me when he saw what was set before him. And you can't believe that nonsense about this being about freedom and peace when it's about freaking popups. And if you want to know what the true enemy for mankind is, I'll tell you. It's stupidity...and you're filled to the brim with it.

Prime Minister Joram Humphrey
Oppressed Peoples of Klanggadar

I voted against it simply because it abridges my nation's policy of freedom of speech. Not to mention people can just download Firebird if they don't like pop-ups.

I, like many people, voted on the basis of why vote for something when its worded and spelled poorly. I don't like pop-ups, but I don't like bad grammer either. Even I may make mistakes sometimes, but when making a proposal proof reading is essential.

-Emperor Crossman, ruler of the Holy Empire of Crossman and sovereign of Crossman Prime

I suppose it's not worth repeating what has already been said a dozen times about this resolution violating free speech and such, so I will just point out one teensy thing that amused me in reading this: the only person here who *defended* this proposition was (a)shouting, ranting and insulting people rather than being calm and logical, and (b)apparently taught english by either the person who made this proposal or the same person who attempted to teach *them* english, which (c)is only making your cause look worse. :roll:

I, like many people, voted on the basis of why vote for something when its worded and spelled poorly. I don't like pop-ups, but I don't like bad grammer either. Even I may make mistakes sometimes, but when making a proposal proof reading is essential.

-Emperor Crossman, ruler of the Holy Empire of Crossman and sovereign of Crossman Prime

You and the others who feel the same have restored my faith in humanity and the institution that is the UN :)

I suppose it's not worth repeating what has already been said a dozen times about this resolution violating free speech and such, so I will just point out one teensy thing that amused me in reading this: the only person here who *defended* this proposition was (a)shouting, ranting and insulting people rather than being calm and logical, and (b)apparently taught english by either the person who made this proposal or the same person who attempted to teach *them* english, which (c)is only making your cause look worse. :roll:

Sweet sweet irony.


From a technical standpoint, pop ups are quite easily dealt with on an individuals pc. That's purely a matter of choice though, wether they wish to deal with them or not. My citizens are required to undertake some basic lessons in computing and the internet before allowed use in an effort to reduce the chance of them being exploited by things such as misleading advertising. Their education includes information regarding dealing with pop-ups.

However, there's no need to ban them. I feel my citizens would see it as a slight against their intelligence, as well as some groups protesting civili liberties were that unnecesary action taken.

Gigg, I voted "nay" for the same reasons you did.

I had the impression that the presenter was acting more interested in seeming clever and "flip" than in seriously soliciting support.

SO: Those who voted NO, are the biggest enemy to the humans. They don't want to improve our rights! This action was silent DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST ALL THOSE CIVILIZED COUNTRIES WHO stands for FREEDOM and PEACE! Look, we are in war now.


Did you see the atrocious spelling on the proposal? That alone was enough for the Oppressed Peoples of Klanggadar to vote against it. Our fearless leader nearly decapitated me when he saw what was set before him. And you can't believe that nonsense about this being about freedom and peace when it's about freaking popups. And if you want to know what the true enemy for mankind is, I'll tell you. It's stupidity...and you're filled to the brim with it.

Prime Minister Joram Humphrey
Oppressed Peoples of Klanggadar

The Empire of Zonrania agrees with your statement and recites this quote:

"This country's problem is that everyone is too stupid; I'm not saying that there should be a capital punnishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take off all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself?"

Goddamn with u!

Theseus51: You DONT have to know how does it improve human rights but since it is improving them is it that bad?? It is stupd to say to stop using "internet" just because you dont like pop-ups.. there r those tools i mentioned. You tell us to stop using internet and this forum? you r clearly limiting my freemo of speech.

Xhadam: It is good enough for un since it is about improving human rights. as nation leader you dont have to know how does it excatly works. And i dont see that that resolution violates that freedom of peace-thingy anyhow.

Dot vote no just because there are some errors which makes you not to understand the content and stop whinign about "poor spelling" and "errors". english is just a tool and some use it better than others. i already wroted about this thingy somewehere so IF YOU STILL VOTE NO TO ALL PROPOSALS WHERE YOU SEE "ERRORS" BALILABA WILL CRUCH U AND UR NATION WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. muahahaha.

My thanks to everyone who voted against the proposal.

You are welcome, thanks to you too.

My main reasons was that it destroys the english language, it didn't say how it would be implemented and the effects it would have in the economy (even if my nation is socialist).

Eli being a capitalist state voted against the pop up ban. Elians sell pop up blocking software and don't want to lose the valuable revenue stream. :wink:

Goddamn with u!

Theseus51: You DONT have to know how does it improve human rights but since it is improving them is it that bad?? It is stupd to say to stop using "internet" just because you dont like pop-ups.. there r those tools i mentioned. You tell us to stop using internet and this forum? you r clearly limiting my freemo of speech.


So you are saying I don't have to know how it improves human rights, just "assume" that the badly worded pop up ban resolution that limits freedom of speech will help human rights? No way. That's like saying banning TV commercials will help human rights. I don't buy it.

The stupid resolution to ban pop-ups would just take away one form of advertising. That's all. I voted against it, and I would vote against it again. Let me say, I don't like pop-up ads, and I have a pop-up blocker myself. But I don't think pop-ups should be banned, no matter how much you are annoyed by it. Again, that's like banning TV commercials, or banning magazine ads.

Remember, SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THE INTERNET. Can you understand that? Companies do not put up content and materials online out of the kindness of their heart. They do it to make money. ADVERTISING = MONEY. Pretty much all companies would just charge people money to use their webpage if they couldn't put advertising on it. Just like how certain TV channels charge you just to watch their channels. I know nobody wants that for the internet.

Let me repeat this, one more time since you missed it in my last two posts. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THE INTERNET. You got it Balilaba? SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THE INTERNET. And pop-ups are one form of revenue.