NationStates Jolt Archive

As a nation we refuse to follow the recently passed resolution regarding Prostitution it is against our constitution and the basic moral of our people. Thus we challenge the U.N. through a vote of No Confidence.

I don't think such tactics are allowed. Besides, your nations already recieved the consequenses of the issue.

We are still in a democracy unless the U.N. is a dictatorial form of organization. After the current events we have seen abuse of power with the United Nations.. we still believe in this body but we call on reforms that is why we are calling for such a vote.

*Illarian Representative stands*

Illaria is drastically opposed to this vote of no confidence as a hasty and reactionary move by the Islas del filipinas. Despite the UN's resolution (which we joined after) and our own oppositions to it, we feel that this vote of no confidence is very out of place and innapropriate.

Change may be needed, but this is not the appropriate method!

We ask that the representative from Islas del Filipinas's grievances be expressed as discontent leading, perhaps, to such a vote, but not as one now.

One nation's opposition to a vote that was almost not passed is not enough for this issue. As the resolution passed by only 1000 votes, we cannot assume that the UN as a whole is either for or against this issue.

Discussion, not accusation.

There is no method of change :!:

Why should it be iunappropriate... we already have a group opposing the United Nations and for our nation we would not like to be in it that is why we are asking U.N. members and those who are not if they have confidence or not with the U.N. after the rescent events. Our nation have not called for any resignation of the Secretary General but only to know who trusts the U.N. and who does not.

Having only recently joined this world and the UN, Illaira is confident that change can be implemented through better discussion of proposals, as a large part of UN votes are decided through large delegates and vetrans to the UN. With proper influence and view, things can be accomplished.

The instrument of change is people's mindsets.

This is by far the stupidest thing ive yet heard in this forum. If you dont have confidence in the un THEN RESIGN!

Why should it be iunappropriate... we already have a group opposing the United Nations and for our nation we would not like to be in it that is why we are asking U.N. members and those who are not if they have confidence or not with the U.N. after the rescent events. Our nation have not called for any resignation of the Secretary General but only to know who trusts the U.N. and who does not.
Ask the men and women in green. :idea:

we already have a group opposing the United Nations

What group?

we already have a group opposing the United Nations

What group?

I think he means the group that is opposing the last approved resolutions.

Or any of the several rogue regions that are set up specifically not to be in the UN

well any political body that passes votes designed to pacify the masses is a failure in my book. whats the deal legalizing prostitution? weak weak weak.... all those in favor of actual progressive political discourse should join the "Philth" region immediately!

OOC: not sure what region recruiting around here will do...

There is no secretary general, :)

There is no method of change :!:

Certainly there is. Propose and have voted through a resolution that retracts the previosu resolution. Similar to Teetotaling in the United States, the appropriate amendment remains on the books, but is now no longer in effect.

Its quite simple. You don't like the UN and its stand on things, you don't join the UN. You take your stand, be whatever it is.

There is no method of change :!:

Certainly there is. Propose and have voted through a resolution that retracts the previosu resolution. Similar to Teetotaling in the United States, the appropriate amendment remains on the books, but is now no longer in effect.
Sorry, there isn't. This is not the USA, and the game rules do not permit a repeal. The mods have spoken repeatedly on this subject, and even a casual search of the Technical forum will bear this out.

The 18th and 21st Amendments have been raised before, and that precedent will not be followed. Repeal is NOT ALLOWED in NationStates.

Its quite simple. You don't like the UN and its stand on things, you don't join the UN. You take your stand, be whatever it is.

Or you reform it from within. Why do my brothers and sisters all forget this pivotal methodology?

There is no method of change :!:

Certainly there is. Propose and have voted through a resolution that retracts the previosu resolution. Similar to Teetotaling in the United States, the appropriate amendment remains on the books, but is now no longer in effect.
Sorry, there isn't. This is not the USA, and the game rules do not permit a repeal. The mods have spoken repeatedly on this subject, and even a casual search of the Technical forum will bear this out.

The 18th and 21st Amendments have been raised before, and that precedent will not be followed. Repeal is NOT ALLOWED in NationStates.

That is something of an outrage, I'm afraid. What if the composition of the Nation States changes over time and the large majority of its population finds itself in disagreement with current policy? Must they follow laws from a time before them that they view as unjust?

(Impassioned debate aside, I assume that this is simply to limit the number of resolutions adopted and save space/headaches. Frankly, it isn't democratic, and if it is the case, then I don't really want to hear anyone say this is a democratic vote. Democracy permits repeal.

You will have to excuse me, but I will need to join the throngs of people arguing against no repeal. I would also note that, as this is not stated in UN rules, the moderators really should include it. I looked over the guidelines on resolutions and didn't find it. If you know where it is officially stated in regular forums and such, let me know.

This changes not one whit our position. Reform can occur even without the ability to repeal. Clever phrasing can alter the course of international politics quite well.)

Its quite simple. You don't like the UN and its stand on things, you don't join the UN. You take your stand, be whatever it is.

I do like the U.N. but as you can see as far as the present vote is going the NO CONFIDENCE VOTE is winning. I know that maybe we cannot repeal the just recently passed resolution but we can propose a change in the voting procedure.

The U.N. can adopt a priority for resolutions such as HIGH, AVERAGE and LOW and set the voting standards for each of them.. The just concluded resolution is over the board, it is beyond the U.N. boundaries! It is a fould play of the honored and respected body.

as you can see as far as the present vote is going the NO CONFIDENCE VOTE is winning.
Silly, silly nation.

At post time, there were 11 votes expressing confidence and 19 votes expressing NO confidence. Still outstanding were the 37,000 members who hadn't bothered to vote in this silly poll, and who generally vote to approve any proposition that gets dropped in their plate.

A majority of 8 votes cast does not a mandate make, IdF.

oops

oops

That is something of an outrage, I'm afraid. What if the composition of the Nation States changes over time and the large majority of its population finds itself in disagreement with current policy? Must they follow laws from a time before them that they view as unjust?

(Impassioned debate aside, I assume that this is simply to limit the number of resolutions adopted and save space/headaches. Frankly, it isn't democratic, and if it is the case, then I don't really want to hear anyone say this is a democratic vote. Democracy permits repeal.

You will have to excuse me, but I will need to join the throngs of people arguing against no repeal. I would also note that, as this is not stated in UN rules, the moderators really should include it. I looked over the guidelines on resolutions and didn't find it. If you know where it is officially stated in regular forums and such, let me know.

This changes not one whit our position. Reform can occur even without the ability to repeal. Clever phrasing can alter the course of international politics quite well.)

The ban on repeals AND ON AMEDMENTS (so no reform, sorry) is unfortunate but here to stay.

The mods have stated this repeatedly, and here is what I think is the official explanation.

- The effect of a resolution is to alter the statistics of each nation in the UN at that time as the category determines (e.g. human rights increases all members' civil rights) - anything else is pure role-play
- Whilst the intention of a repeal or amendment is to change the role-pay bit, to be consistent it would have to reverse or alter the statistical effect of the original - i.e. a repeal of a human rights resolution would have to decrease civil rights by the same amount.
- The game keeps no record of what nations were in the UN at the time of passing different resolutions, therefore you hit this problem:

Say nation A joined the UN on monday, and on tuesday a human rights resolution passed which increased A's civil rights. On Wednesday, B joined the UN and so its civil rights were unaffected by the resolution, and on Thursday a repeal of the resolution passed - if its effect was the opposite of the first resolution, it would work on A (the civil rights would be decreased as if it had never happened), but it wouldn't work on B (there would just be a decrease in civil rights). Conversely, if it did nothing to stats, then it would be pointless because it wouldn't actually reverse the changes to A.

SO PLEASE PEOPLE, FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP SUGGESTING REPEALS OR AMENDMENTS!!

Silly, silly nation.

At post time, there were 11 votes expressing confidence and 19 votes expressing NO confidence. Still outstanding were the 37,000 members who hadn't bothered to vote in this silly poll, and who generally vote to approve any proposition that gets dropped in their plate.

A majority of 8 votes cast does not a mandate make, IdF.

Just the same when the resolution was passed, those who voted constitute a minority. So what is the same with that and we are not a silly nation..this is just role play and nothing personal. As in the real U.N. you would encounter such call.

Repeals or Amendments will make this game politically real because such exist in the real world... well those are only suggestion for improvement and for game play...

We shall stand firm.. and stand IN PROTEST! :evil:

Repeals or Amendments will make this game politically real because such exist in the real world... well those are only suggestion for improvement and for game play...

Did you not read my post? I just explained why, although it would be nice, we can't have repeals or amendments.

Repeals or Amendments will make this game politically real because such exist in the real world... well those are only suggestion for improvement and for game play...

Did you not read my post? I just explained why, although it would be nice, we can't have repeals or amendments.


Okay this is true so please stop make repeals, and then posting them on the U.N forum! :x

*dryd representative rises*i can understand why some nations have lost faith over this debate on prostitution in the UN but i will not vote for a vote of no confidence because i believe that it is not the UN that is corrupt or at fault but that it is many nations in the UN that make it seem that way
that is all i have to say

~Senator Kynes

If that is the case... then the poor nations like us will just suffer the consequences of those bureucrats in the U.N. who have less concern for policies that really need their attention! WE ARE IN PROTEST!

We shall stand firm.. and stand IN PROTEST!

You do that then, we imagine your legs will give way long before the UN does :lol:

We appreciate why fellow delegates are disenchanted with the UN right now, but we think that a few member states throwing their rattle out of their pram is going to do nothing to change matters.

We call upon the Delegate for the Islas del Filipinas to show a little common sense to balance their youthful enthusiasm.

Furthermore, we endorse the opinion expressed by Senator Kynes on behalf of the Dryd - it is the fault of member states that such a resolution was passed, not the UN itself.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

When one chooses to participate in the UN process, one has to accept the current procedures and current resolutions.

However, while these are basic principles, it should not become an obstacle to the refinement of and improvements to current resolutions. This gathering does not support an out-right repeal of formerly approved resolutions, but would strongly suggest the possibility of allowing new resolution to supercede former ones, if refinements and improvements are made over any current resolution.

As an example, the current debate on the 'definition' of fair trail while seemingly unstoppable, is one that contains many flaws which cannot however be rectified based on the current procedures. Unlike in reality, where there is a debate before a resolution is put to a vote, this simulation only allows us to vote on a resolution which is already written. While it is acceptable to vote on general concepts, resolutions are increasingly becoming detailed, and with the lack of procedures to amend these details, it is neccessary and justified to allow refinements and improvements to be made at a later time, and then placed to a vote at the assembly. It makes no sense to approve a new resolution which contradicts with a former one, and would only make sense, if a refined resolution is able to supercede the current relevant ones.

The Honourable
Knights of the Elm Table

The government of the Serpent Mound will gain confidence in the UN once the UN shows that it actually has the ability to vote down a resolution. As it stands, it appears that most countries read the resolution and vote without reading opposing views, and thus the dictatorial power of the UN over sovereign nations increases over time without bound. This is a flaw in the United Nations, as pro- arguments are posted right above the ballot box, while delegates must carry out independent searches to find opposing views. The end result of this laziness is continually slouching toward fewer freedoms.

Of course, any country is free to resign from the UN, meaning that nations which value their own sovereignty are weeded out, and the remaining nations are in principle willing to turn over all of their internal affairs to a world government.

The UN has not done much to regulate international diplomacy, and in fact seems to exist only to increase its own invincible power over member nations.

The government of the Serpent Mound will gain confidence in the UN once the UN shows that it actually has the ability to vote down a resolution.
The UN has in fact voted down several proposals in our short stay here. You merely haven't been here long enough to see that happen.

We agree that there is a natural proclivity from the massed nations of the UN (or as we prefer to call them, the Sheep) to blindly vote Yes to anything presented before them. It is therefore our duty to work as hard as possible to prevent bad resolutions from reaching the floor.

The best method would be to vet the proposals here on the floor before submiting them. Frisbeeteria has one proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121212) currently under consideration that followed this model, and another one (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121786) undergoing the forum review process as we speak. Other nations such as Sydia and Anward have also followed this method, and their proposals were better for it.

To The Serpent Mound we say, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." How about making some constructive suggestions instead of just complaining? You're a member here too. Oh wait, turns out you're not.

The best method would be to vet the proposals here on the floor before submiting them. Frisbeeteria has one proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121212) currently under consideration that followed this model, and another one (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121786) undergoing the forum review process as we speak. Other nations such as Sydia and Anward have also followed this method, and their proposals were better for it.

To The Serpent Mound we say, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." How about making some constructive suggestions instead of just complaining? You're a member here too. Oh wait, turns out you're not.

First, it is our position that nations that are not members of the UN, should be encouraged to participate in these discussions. While our decisions may not always directly impact them, if this body were to come to an agreement on something like natural resource consumption, they are parties to the same problems as well. They just choose not to vote.

I am under the impression that many more nations would join the UN, if this body would better draw the line between international problems and national problems. The prostitution resolution was IMHO a noble idea, but damaging to this body. In the long-term, its passage may have hurt the people it was seeking to help.

It often seems that human nature is for governments to manage by crisis. This very forum does the same thing. Nations tend to draft proposals with little input from other member states, and since our forum's rules prevent motions to "Amend" or "Divide the Question", we are forced to either vote in favour of a weak resolution or one carrying pork based on one principle or we are forced to vote against the same resolution for another principle.

It creates a very chaotic and ill-posed government, and in time I can see my own nation feeling a need to leave this body.

The key is to plan ahead. To work with interested parties. And to effectively communicate what your position is.

Some of us are doing this, but need to continue to lead by example. Then maybe more nations will rejoin this forum.

To The Serpent Mound we say, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." How about making some constructive suggestions instead of just complaining? You're a member here too. Oh wait, turns out you're not.

The Serpent Mound will never turn over its sovereignty to a world government, especially one that takes such joy in legislating that it even stipulates that all nations must establish 3 non-profit environmental agencies per town, appoint unbiased mediators to resolve strikes after 60 days, ban single-hulled tankers, recognize gay marriages, and use the metric system.

While the Serpent Mound agrees with some of these measures, it believes that each nation should be able to decide these issues for themselves. In fact, if the Serpent Mound were to join the UN, it would come at the cost of billions of dollars to our government, just to come into compliance with the mountain of new regulations.

The Serpent Mound chooses to remain an independent and sovereign nation, rather than a puppet state of a world government beyond its control.

The Serpent Mound chooses to remain an independent and sovereign nation, rather than a puppet state of a world government beyond its control.
We in the UN have no problem at all with The Serpent Mound or any of its 70,000+ brother nations who have chosen not to join the UN. ( Apart from the occasional war and/or regional invasion, that is.)

We don't telegram non-members and insist that they join, so why would you come to these chambers and insist that WE change? You don't want to be a member. Fine. Good luck in the world, and we mean that most sincerely. We just don't see what this topic, the Call to a Vote of No Confidence, has to do with you.

We just don't see what this topic, the Call to a Vote of No Confidence, has to do with you.

That is a simple measure to address. The creator of this thread stated:

that is why we are asking U.N. members and those who are not if they have confidence or not with the U.N. after the rescent events.

Thus, I gave my answer.

that is why we are asking U.N. members and those who are not if they have confidence or not with the U.N. after the rescent events.
Somehow I missed that. Fair enough.


Now that you've spoken your piece, allow me to show you that UN membership isn't ALL bad. Seems there's this case of Ecopoeian Single Malt floating around, and ...

*... The Serpent Mound Representative and the Frisbeeteria Delegate exit the door nearest the 'Hospitality Suite' *

holy mary mother of god... FRISBEETERIA MISSED SOMETHING

your slipping up, fellow nation. You should try harder to read EVERY WORD of every post.

In good cheer,
Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore
1 National Way
Constantinopolis

The Incorporated States of Bavania expresses agreement and regret: Most of the voting United Nations members are sheep, as Frisbeeteria so aptly phrased it, or sexually deprived 13 year old boys. As the game creators have repeatedly expressed, there is no way to change any of this. Figures

The issue of prostitution itself should be left to individual nations. The resolution would have been better off to say that
"Prostitutes are entitled to fair treatment whether or not they are legal. They should be cared for with special attention, given that their situations are often desperate and inescapable. They should be rehabilitated, reintroduced to society and given the opportunity for honorable and decent work."

It is regretable that this resolution passed, and that it cannot be altered. The UN is somewhat dissapointing in itself, but the simplicity of the game mechanics are holding it back at present. Maybe someday....

Now maybe if we were to go to war with the U.N we could change this, but on the other hand this would be unreasonable to some nations who would defend the U.N
I personally do not like the U.N and have the population to just not listen to them.
Also the nukes gotta love the nukes.
But if there is to be a declaration of war i pledge alliegence to the Coalition.
Ide vote but i got kicked out.
USA2
OUT

The issue of prostitution itself should be left to individual nations. The resolution would have been better off to say that
"Prostitutes are entitled to fair treatment whether or not they are legal. They should be cared for with special attention, given that their situations are often desperate and inescapable. They should be rehabilitated, reintroduced to society and given the opportunity for honorable and decent work."

It is regretable that this resolution passed, and that it cannot be altered. The UN is somewhat dissapointing in itself, but the simplicity of the game mechanics are holding it back at present. Maybe someday....

Is it possible to REPEAL a resolution?

If you were to put your above proposal to words and also repeal the stronger resolution on the grounds that it will violate (a hopefully passed Rights and Duties Resolution), maybe things can be turned around.

Sadly, it is not possible to repeal resolutions. We are sure that EVERYONE wishes it were possible, but game mechanics make it impossible. A reasonable explanation is given on the page preceding this one, by Myopia(?). It is also not allowed to override a resolution with a more current one, for the same reason. It is regretable, but the truth (for now).

Joseph Peters, UN Representative
Department of Foreign Relations
562 National Avenue, Constantinopolis
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore.

Sadly, it is not possible to repeal resolutions. We are sure that EVERYONE wishes it were possible, but game mechanics make it impossible. A reasonable explanation is given on the page preceding this one, by Myopia(?). It is also not allowed to override a resolution with a more current one, for the same reason. It is regretable, but the truth (for now).

Joseph Peters, UN Representative
Department of Foreign Relations
562 National Avenue, Constantinopolis
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore.

Thanks to all those who have expressed their opinion and those who have strived to make the U.N. better. We hope that despite of rescent events the United Nations can still be improved. I believe that with the unity of responsible and dedicated nations we can reform the U.N.

So does that mean you accept the moral stance but can do nothing about it? What if we discreetly imprison our nation's protituates... will you notice and / or care?

NationStates was never envisioned to become this popular, hence the sometimes inadequate server and lack of ability to repeal resolutions. This has been stated by his greatness, the undersecretary of Enodia.

I'm probably going to be blasted for my American stance here. The United Nations is not a governing body, and does not have any authority.

The purpose of the United Nations is a forum for discourse, to promote multilaterial negotiation, help humanity, blah blah blah.

For example, in the United States. The UN can pass whatever they want. However, for the resolutions of the UN to become law within the United States it must be agreed to by the executive branch (right to sign treaties) whose action must then confirmed by the legislative bodies. For the United Nations to impose action upon an individual countries is a threat to soveignity of that nation.

International law is a misnomer. International law only has power because a system of bilateral and multilateral treaties have been agreed to and approved by each government, and thus binds the citizens, governmental bodies to that treaty. However, even with treaties agreed to only the power of the sovereign can enforce those laws, unless you plan to remove me from power by military force. (e.g. i doubt a war over prostitution will ever happen).

Yes, the rest of the world uses the metric system. American uses the Imperial measurement system. Yes, the Imperial measurement system is completely arbitrary and doesn't make sense. However, that is the choice of government. International bodies can provide standards, but it is still the requirement of the government of that nation to actually implement them. Otherwise, the UN can pay my country for all problems that it legislation.

I'm probably going to be blasted for my American stance here. The United Nations is not a governing body, and does not have any authority.
This is not America. This is not the same world as America. This UN does have powers, because that's how it was designed and built. If you want to talk politics in that other world and the role of the weak UN, General would be your best choice. Here the UN has power, no matter how hard people argue about it.

Yes, exactly. People have to realise that this isn't a simulation of the real world UN. It has different powers and different purposes - there's a limit to how much you can do about purely international matters in this game, seeing as how war isn't officially recognised by the game.