NationStates Jolt Archive

ooc - As I have said before, the extermination of prostitutes and the mentally ill have been made possible purely by the passing of Grande's badly worded UN proposal for the legalization of Euthanasia. This proposal was passed by a very slim majority, in spite of the warnings of a number of people who pointed out that these very types of occurances could follow.

The resolution is STILL a bill of rights for any government that wants to carry out Legalized Genocide.

Future proposals MUST be examined for the possibility of this type of abuse, if the electorate can't or won't do it, the Mods must do it for us.

Proposals which impose laws on countries that may interfere with their basic tenets of cultural belief, or contravene their religious, or atheist beliefs, belong in ISSUES, not in the UN forum.

If I have made my point then, although I am rather enjoying the RP, I am content to let the thread drop, If not......

The representitive for the DSH has already expressed their concerns along these lines. Proposals must be made only after greater consultation with fellow delegates, and proposals must follow guidelines.

_________________________
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)

I have to disagree. I'm not in the UN or anything, but the fact is that obviously the majority of people approved this proposal, loopholes or not. Being in the UN can have its risks as well, for example, proposals could be passed that certain nations will disagree with. If a proposal passes in the real UN, one nation (or half minus one) cannot say "well, this proposal can clearly be abused, so therefore, a greater power should strike it down". If the majority of the nations approved it, then that is how it shall be.

I don't think the problem is the resolutions, the problem is the morons that interpret them.

I don't think the problem is the resolutions, the problem is the morons that interpret them.

the resolutions really should not need to be interpreted, it should be clear from the resolution what it's intention is, and what it is proposing to do...

But you are right, people do seem to imagine problems with resolutions that are not there....that's partially a problem with the delegates, and partially a problem with the resolution.
_________________________
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)

I have to disagree. I'm not in the UN or anything, but the fact is that obviously the majority of people approved this proposal, loopholes or not. Being in the UN can have its risks as well, for example, proposals could be passed that certain nations will disagree with. If a proposal passes in the real UN, one nation (or half minus one) cannot say "well, this proposal can clearly be abused, so therefore, a greater power should strike it down". If the majority of the nations approved it, then that is how it shall be.

Wrong!

In the real UN the "Greater Powers" - aka founder members: UK, USA, France, Russia, and China all have the power to veto any UN proposal no matter the size of majority in favour of it.

As a libertarian, the first thing I do is look at a proposal to see if there's ANY way that the government can use it to infringe upon my rights, above and beyond what is specifically named in the body of the text. I've seen too many proposals that contained verbage granting specific powers to law-enforcement or government in general, that given the context of the proposal, implied certain limits to the powers. However, upon actually READING the proposal, it was found that the verbage contained no such limits and it turned into a blanket conveyance of very broad powers to government, from the citizens, that was very damaging to civil and political freedoms.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

ooc - As I have said before, the extermination of prostitutes and the mentally ill have been made possible purely by the passing of Grande's badly worded UN proposal for the legalization of Euthanasia. This proposal was passed by a very slim majority, in spite of the warnings of a number of people who pointed out that these very types of occurances could follow.

The resolution is STILL a bill of rights for any government that wants to carry out Legalized Genocide.

Future proposals MUST be examined for the possibility of this type of abuse, if the electorate can't or won't do it, the Mods must do it for us.

Proposals which impose laws on countries that may interfere with their basic tenets of cultural belief, or contravene their religious, or atheist beliefs, belong in ISSUES, not in the UN forum.

If I have made my point then, although I am rather enjoying the RP, I am content to let the thread drop, If not......

The mistreatment of citizens by the Nation of Joccia, who has used a loophole in a U.N. resolution to commit mass murder, prompts the Republic of SilveryMinnow to allow immigration of the citizens of that nation into its country. Any Acts by the Nation of Joccia to interfere with the peaceful immigration of citizens to the Republic of SilveryMinnow will be considered a hostile act, and the Defense Forces of SilveryMinnow will respond accordingly... The national Emergency level is now at IV. The Delegates and Ambassadors of SilveryMinnow withdraw from Joccia.

I have to disagree. I'm not in the UN or anything, but the fact is that obviously the majority of people approved this proposal, loopholes or not. Being in the UN can have its risks as well, for example, proposals could be passed that certain nations will disagree with. If a proposal passes in the real UN, one nation (or half minus one) cannot say "well, this proposal can clearly be abused, so therefore, a greater power should strike it down". If the majority of the nations approved it, then that is how it shall be.

Wrong!

In the real UN the "Greater Powers" - aka founder members: UK, USA, France, Russia, and China all have the power to veto any UN proposal no matter the size of majority in favour of it.

(ooc)
Take a political science course. They only have veto power on matters taken up in the Security Council.

As if your country were better.
And those who aren't tend to be dragged off the streets by men in dark suits and hustled into cars with tinted windows :roll:

The Delegates point out that these effects come without a thread of logic presented in the issues.

I don't think the problem is the resolutions, the problem is the morons that interpret them.
You're forgetting who and what you are, Centropolis. We're presumably politicans and diplomats, and words are the tools of our trade. It's important that we use them correctly and precisely if we are to accurately represent the intent of this game.

Look around the site and see what is going on. Ask yourself if Francos Spain is rules-lawyering with his dictatorial control of the Pacific. Ask whether Danakar is rules-lawyering with his anti-religion "UN Proposals". Joccia and Galdania are role-playing the loopholes in the Euthanasia proposal quite cleverly, in my opinion. It's a controversial issue, and they've done an excellent job or arousing strong opinion.

There are some who use the English language well on this site, and others who don't. The ones who write well tend to get the most responses because they're entertaining and/or informative. The poor writers get flamed or ignored. If that encourages a poor writer to work on his style, then I'd say NationStates has accomplished a worthy goal right there.

As a libertarian, the first thing I do is look at a proposal to see if there's ANY way that the government can use it to infringe upon my rights

As a libertarian communist, I see if capitalists could use it to infringe on my rights, too.

----------------------
Anarchism!

[quote=Centropolis]If that encourages a poor writer to work on his style, then I'd say NationStates has accomplished a worthy goal right there.

Well said.

First of all to SILVERY MINNOW:

This is the OOC discussion of the IC thread - "BBC - Joccia terminates over 200,000 Prostitutes" over on Nation States forum. However, please note that none of our citizens are leaving - they've never had it so good! all of the voices of dissention seem to have gone quiet... We are sorry to see your ambassador leave, he threw some great parties, and the Silvery Minnow hostess girls - well I don't have to tell you... :twisted:

TO IUTHANIA:

I stand corrected, and bow to your wisdom

TO FRISBEETERIA

Wow, thanks!

Finally, I guess Joccia had better get the blackout curtains out of mothballs and give some thought to defence - this could be a bumpy ride!

[quote=Centropolis]If that encourages a poor writer to work on his style, then I'd say NationStates has accomplished a worthy goal right there.

Well said.

You are both making the assumption that everyone on the site has English as their first language.

Here you are using NationStates to display your prejudices, will the next UN proposal be to elimate all citizens testing positive for dyslexia ?

You are both making the assumption that everyone on the site has English as their first language.
Not at all. I quite specifically stated that "There are some who use the English language well on this site" This IS an English language site, though there are most certainly regions and forums in other languages. I won't embarass myself trying my poor Dutch and German on those boards, though I do enjoy trying to read them. The Slavic languages I can't begin to decipher, but they look purty.

My father is a native Nederlander. The Netherlands is a small country and not many outsiders speak the native language well. In acknowledgement of that fact, the Dutch are among the finest linguists on the planet. They know that to communicate with the world beyond their borders, it is they who need to adapt, not the world. And they've done so damned well.

The international language of diplomacy in NationStates is English. That's a fact. If you want to be understood by the vast majority of members on this board, you will post in the UN forum in English. If your native language is French or German or Spanish, you're certainly welcome to practice your language skills here. If you're not understood, it's a clear message that you need to work on your English skills.

As a nation virulently opposed to the recent acts enacted by the UN, my country was forced to withdraw from this august body. However, it is clear that there are some members who do intend to reform it and bring it back to its glory days.

The English language is a pain in the butt. I hereby demand that all nations speak the language of Itakeitall in all further UN discussions for my personal ease. We speak @!%$ *&^

Feel free to ask for translation guides :lol:

Regardless of the nature of the original language of the site, there is no need to craft a resolution forcing, FORCING , all other nations to abide by it. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if this body does wish to force me to do anything of the sort, I will henceforth converse only in French (a language I personally do not favor, but can still manage) in protest. It is no right of yours to demand any such thing, nor is it your jurisdiction to overturn that most sacred of rights, Free Speech. If you cannot figure out a post in the language it is written in, feel free to improve your language skills. :roll:

That is all for this rant :wink:

Aeon the 221st
Chairman of the Board

I have responded to the Language post here:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121786

Can we move further Language discussion to that topic, please, and give this one back to Joccia ?

Regardless of the nature of the original language of the site, there is no need to craft a resolution forcing, FORCING , all other nations to abide by it.

Where do you see anyone suggesting that? What I read was people saying that if you are going to speak English, speak it well (or something to that extent).
This is a concept I support wholeheartedly. If you happen to be geeky enough to want to see some humor in people who think they can write when they are actually entirely incompetent, I recommend visiting http://www.fanfiction.net ;) and if you're feeling really brave, try http://www.livejournal.com/users/merrysue/

Wrong!

In the real UN the "Greater Powers" - aka founder members: UK, USA, France, Russia, and China all have the power to veto any UN proposal no matter the size of majority in favour of it.

(ooc)
Take a political science course. They only have veto power on matters taken up in the Security Council.


While International Affairs PolySci courses might get into this distinction, a *better* place would be to just read the UN Charter. It is small and a copy of it is in most college libraries. Specifically, the Security Council is described in Article V.

But the reason I bring this up, is that what we have here is so *not* the RL UN. However, if people would take the time to read the UN Charter and perhaps a few resolutions (again most libraries will probably have the older UN treaty and resolution series lying around). In particular, I'd suggest a series of books published by the United Nations Association - USA back in the early 1990s called "A Guide to Delegate Preparation". I'm not sure if the UNA-USA is still printing updated copies of the book, but they are EXACTLY the type of thing that anybody seriously wanting to play diplomat *and* see where our political experiment goes should have on hand.

With that in mind, I also think the people drafting proposals should really look at RL UN resolutions and try to sneak in a few RL ones. If somebody gets snarky about the grammar, let it pass until *after* the vote and then you can post, "Well, it worked in 1992 in the real UN." Then let things fly where they may ...

[Man I hate it when the server / provider burp!]

First of all to SILVERY MINNOW:

This is the OOC discussion of the IC thread - "BBC - Joccia terminates over 200,000 Prostitutes" over on Nation States forum. However, please note that none of our citizens are leaving - they've never had it so good! all of the voices of dissention seem to have gone quiet... We are sorry to see your ambassador leave, he threw some great parties, and the Silvery Minnow hostess girls - well I don't have to tell you... :twisted:

Communique From the Republic of SilveryMinnow

[code:1:973a697a11]To: The Tyrant seated upon the throne of skulls (Joccia)

Regarding your message concerning, "all of the voices of dissention have gone quiet," leads this nation to believe that since there is no nation without a voice of dissent, that yours have gone quiet because you are killing them. The way is still open to for immigrants to The Republic of SilveryMinnow who promises sanctuary to all defectors from the nation of Joccia.[/code:1:973a697a11]

I have to disagree. I'm not in the UN or anything, but the fact is that obviously the majority of people approved this proposal, loopholes or not. Being in the UN can have its risks as well, for example, proposals could be passed that certain nations will disagree with. If a proposal passes in the real UN, one nation (or half minus one) cannot say "well, this proposal can clearly be abused, so therefore, a greater power should strike it down". If the majority of the nations approved it, then that is how it shall be.

Wrong!

In the real UN the "Greater Powers" - aka founder members: UK, USA, France, Russia, and China all have the power to veto any UN proposal no matter the size of majority in favour of it.

(ooc)
Take a political science course. They only have veto power on matters taken up in the Security Council.

OOC:

Well, if you think about it, those nations indirectly control things...they have the power and money, and as such the U.N. can't do anything without them.

Although- to run to Joccia's side (I know I blasted his thread in the RP thread, but he does have a point)- the real U.N. makes ammendments to "fix" loopholes in resolutions. Since we can't really do that here (as that would change game mechanics), we can at least thoroughly examine the proposals to ensure they're as loop-hole free as possible.

Our thanks and felicitations to the discerning Emperor of Rome,

You got the point! 8)

May Your Legions Crush the barbarian, drive them before you, hear the lament of their women.

Oops :oops: misquoting AGAIN!

Our thanks and felicitations to the discerning Emperor of Rome,

You got the point! 8)

May Your Legions Crush the barbarian, drive them before you, hear the lament of their women.

Oops :oops: misquoting AGAIN!

It's okay, you can say all that. I'm not offended :wink: .

I was complimenting you! :D

Today, King Mac the Third of Joccia made an historic public announcement to the People of Joccia

“Whereas the United Nations has seen fit to legalise Euthanasia in International Law, and, whereas Joccia is a member of the United Nations and is bound by the resolution. We have today issued legislation pursuant to the above. This legislation supersedes and revokes any precedent legislation on the subject of Euthanasia.

Every individual person in Joccia has the right to make their choice with regard to resuscitation, or attempted resuscitation of their body should death occur, or receiving life prolonging treatment where little or no hope of recovery is in evidence or the prolonging of life in a comatose state where the condition of the brain is deteriorated or unknown. This is to be signified in a “Living Will”, which must be witnessed by two persons, and registered with a notary or solicitor.

No person or persons shall have the right to make any such decision concerning the life or death of another.

Any person suffering from a chronic or terminal illness, who believes that their suffering is beyond their capacity to endure may request such treatment as will alleviate that suffering, even if such treatment results in death.

In the case of a person who is unaware of their state by either mental debility or coma, the relatives or other concerned persons shall have no rights to request termination of life.



The preceding law is effective immediately.

Regardless of the nature of the original language of the site, there is no need to craft a resolution forcing, FORCING , all other nations to abide by it.

Where do you see anyone suggesting that? What I read was people saying that if you are going to speak English, speak it well (or something to that extent).
This is a concept I support wholeheartedly. If you happen to be geeky enough to want to see some humor in people who think they can write when they are actually entirely incompetent, I recommend visiting http://www.fanfiction.net ;) and if you're feeling really brave, try http://www.livejournal.com/users/merrysue/

Owe mie Hedd! Aye thorte aye wis reelie bruv and aye luked att thit siet Aye duddnnt noe eniwan wis tht baad hoo culd yews a cmpeterer lett allowne rigt onn a wubsigt fur utha peepil two sea and tel thm tht thay wuld luve whit aye wis goning too rwight nixt

Back to the original thread...

Should the mods be able to modify/veto a UN proposal?

Is there a way that we, the nation states and users, can actually do anything about this?

1. Does it matter to any of the players who don't regularly use the Forum? - If the answer is no, then it also means that they won't care if the mods DO occasionally modify or Veto a UN proposal.

2. Do the Mods want the extra work this entails, do they have the time and do they have the will

3. It seems that there is an awful lot of gameplay involved in the discussion of proposals, and in protests after bad ones have been passed.
Do we really want to lose this, even if it does mean that we are forced (within the game) to go along with something we abhor?

4. Could we not just institute a rule that no UN resolution may interfere with a Nation's right to self determination - much like the real thing as I understand it (Ithuania will no doubt prove me wrong).
There could and possibly should be taboo subjects such as: Religion, Moral and Cultural values, Politcal doctrines, to name a few.

Mac

bump :oops:

The mods have enough to do without making them vet all these proposals.

They already weed out ones which violate game mechanics;.

Let the delegates and members decide what to pass and what to reject.

Loopholes may be desireable to allow for flexibility of enforcement, or to prevent unintended Draconian results.

Back to the original thread...

Should the mods be able to modify/veto a UN proposal?

Is there a way that we, the nation states and users, can actually do anything about this?

1. Does it matter to any of the players who don't regularly use the Forum? - If the answer is no, then it also means that they won't care if the mods DO occasionally modify or Veto a UN proposal.

Mac

[OOC:

These are all very good questions, and I suspect in the coming weeks we may force the issue.

I've been advocating for several days now that most NationStates players are voting on UN resolutions, but aren't visiting the UN forums. Nobody can really say with certainty why this is the case, but my opinion is that the option to "debate" is located in a smaller font after the VOTE buttons.

While I'm not going to suggest that NSv1.7 change that, I think this opinion gives us a bit of room to justify changes to how proposals are accepted. Frisbeeteria already brought back up an idea to TABLE proposals.

Instead of making game changes, we need to just get better about using the UN forum to post DRAFT proposals. Maybe if more good proposals make their way to the queue the people who don't come here will see first hand improvements in resolution quality.

Back to the original thread...


4. Could we not just institute a rule that no UN resolution may interfere with a Nation's right to self determination - much like the real thing as I understand it (Ithuania will no doubt prove me wrong).
There could and possibly should be taboo subjects such as: Religion, Moral and Cultural values, Politcal doctrines, to name a few.

Mac

[OOC:

Well, to a much lesser degree such a thing will soon come to a vote. But I don't want a strong languaged version protecting self determination either.

Your current crisis is an awesome flash point, and will force the issue. Like the real UN, the NationStates UN is actually very poor at responding to threats of the peace or things like a genocide campaign. A real shame too.

But the reason I don't want a whole-sale enforcement of sovereignty protections is for the exact situation you've created here. The UN IMHO should be flexible (NationStates and real world) to prevent a government from murdering 1000s, no 100,000s of people in the matter of days. While we all will agree that sovereignty is what makes the UN work, just like the debate on more vs. less detail, absolute rules are always binding.

Hell, I'm not happy, not happy at all, that UN resolutions can't be repealed. That is just as foresighted as making any absolute statement on sovereignty.

But here is a positive suggestion. Before nations vote on UN resolutions, it would be nice if NationStates had a reminder to nations: (1) asking them if they've read the debate to get a feel for what the legal interpetation of the resolution may be, and (2) the nature of the UN resolution will change their government stats.

It goes back to your point 1, not everybody is really playing the same game. For most people, NationStates is where you come and click on an issue, and once a week vote on a UN resolution, then sign off. That is it. Nothing more. Hopefully a pay version of NationStates will change that.

[quote="Itakeitall"] "The English language is a pain in the butt. I hereby demand that all nations speak the language of Itakeitall in all further UN discussions for my personal ease. We speak @!%$ *&^

Feel free to ask for translation guides :lol:"



The English language is so widely used anyway, so what is the big deal? When in Rome, do as the Romans. If you want to change a language, get everyone to speak it. Then we'll talk. 8)

Also, on the UN issue. Those who really care should be the only ones who vote. If they don't care, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"The right to self determination" was probably a poor choice of words in this instance. It would just seem that this is the very thing that is being taken away from us. Could it be that the "Nanny State" mental attitude has now become prevalent amongst the population in General? :shock:

We seem to be becoming increasingly 'controlled' by UN resolutions that leave us without choices.

It would seem that the original site of this thread has become a rather testosterone laced environment. Joccia is happy to leave the boys to play.