NationStates Jolt Archive

Baudrillard has humbily submitted the following draft resolution, and requests your attention and favor of it:

***

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Legislation that is introduced to the United Nations cannot be a duplicate of or similar to the "issues" that are presented to nations to vote on. To do so constitutes the imposition of the United Nations over the rights of nations to their own sovereignty and individual destinies.

Legislation that duplicates or resembles the issues of nations will be removed from the United Nations proposals list.

***

While Baudrillard is a delegate of the United Nations and has faith in it as an institution, we also believe that individual nations should have rights over their own issues and that the issues we are presented with should not be decided for all in the chambers of the U.N. We believe it is possible to have a U.N. alongside the prerogative of nations!

While this would make the disrepancy between issues and UN resolutions a lot tidier (so that you wouldn't get things like the gay marriage thing, which is mandated by the UN but banned by many of its individual members), we can't support it. 'Anything that crops up in Issues' is too arbitrary, and certainly covers matters of international importance. Environmental issues, for instance, crop up a lot in Issues, but they are nonetheless a matter of international significance - if your acid rain's destroying your neighbour's forests, I don't think you can get away with shouting 'NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY' and pretending it's not an international issue.

The Grand Duchy of Laio endorses this draft resolution. The Duke himself, instructed me to convey his best wishes and support to Delegate Baudrillard.

Unfortunately, Grand Duke Hendrik does feel that it is doomed to failure. Any resolution or proposition that does not strengthen the UN's grip on peaceful, freedom-loving nations will never be passed. This resolution will send the One-Worlders into a maniacal frenzy. They will never be satisfied, until the One-Worlders are the masters and we are their slaves.

Diego MacBernstein
Envoy to the UN
Grand Duchy of Laio

The Grand Duchy of Laio endorses this draft resolution. The Duke himself, instructed me to convey his best wishes and support to Delegate Baudrillard.

Unfortunately, Grand Duke Hendrik does feel that it is doomed to failure. Any resolution or proposition that does not strengthen the UN's grip on peaceful, freedom-loving nations will never be passed. This resolution will send the One-Worlders into a maniacal frenzy. They will never be satisfied, until the One-Worlders are the masters and we are their slaves.

Diego MacBernstein
Envoy to the UN
Grand Duchy of Laio

Of this pessimism I would not be so sure, my friend. We have already received 10% of the votes necessary for the draft to become voted on. Let us encourage others to endorse this resolution and keep our rights intact!

Grand Duke Hendrik is committed to supporting this draft resolution to the maximum. Experience has made him cynical on present attempts to contain the UN Beast.

A blank cheque has been signed by my Liege Lord... our bongs are your bongs.

Diego MacBernstein
Envoy to the UN
Grand Duchy of Laio

I must confess to being a bit confused by this 'One World' malarkey. As a fairly active UN member, at least in terms of forum discussions, I guess Ecopoeia is part of this 'One World' elite riding the UN beast.

The 'Rights & Duties' resolution affirmed the parameters of UN influence within the context of the world we have. In the many discussions concerning the drafting of the resolution, it became very clear that many nations are wary of the UN having too much influence in issues that do not concern it. Hence the resolution.

Ecopoeia and most other regular contributors appear to be in broad agreement with this position, understanding that the nature of our world and the organisation is that any resolution passed is irrevocably binding and therefore proposals need to be carefully drafted and scrutinised.

We also understand that there are many issues where the UN is fully entitled to stick its oar in and long may it do so.

So what's the problem? Where are the One Worlders? Is it possible to be an unwitting One Worlder?

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

If by "One-Worlders" you mean people who believe that this one world should be full of people who respect national sovereignty and only bring up resolutions that are of a truly international scope, then yes, we would agree that the UN forums are filled with them. Unfortunately, it seems this proposal is directed at a completely different sub group: idiots.

Yes, we understand that everyone is angry about the recent scope of United Nations resolutions, and yes, we appreciate that everyone is in a big stink about the proper way to get things done, but resolutions like this aren't the way to bring about change.

First and foremost, understand that a (more professionally written) resolution encompassing this topic has already been adopted. Just as we don't want the United Nations tied down with banal, make-my-world-like-yours proposals, we also don't want it tied down with business that has already been dealt with.

Furthermore, realize that it is far better for the United Nations to solve problems here in the forum, as opposed to making legislation for a world of people who will never bother to read it. If you want to improve the UN, use your voice in these halls to stand up against nations that would impede the progress that happens within your borders. Believe it or not, a coalition of nations opposed to those kind of proposals has a bigger effect than you think.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Unfortunately, it seems this proposal is directed at a completely different sub group: idiots.

Typical One-Worlder rebuttal... insult anyone who is not in lock-step with their so-called "lofty" dreams.

I could of easily said that One-Worlders were incestuous, mind-less, bugger-eating cretins... but I did not. How can anyone have respect for someone... that does not do the same with others.

Laio, I'm genuinely very interested in what you have to say in response to my posting. I'm not trying to insult or patronise you.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

I don't... but, the hell? :shock:

Go figure, I work this one out for amonth, spend a week contemplating it heavily, work out a strategy for getting endorsements, check with a mod for legality, right a draft, modify it, wait for the mods opinion on legality (Which will be within a few hours I would think)...

And some other brilliant freek'in bastard comes up with it. :roll:

Mate, the problem is, yours involves game mechanics changes, as well as repellations, which are a huge no no and will end up with Enodia moving your mass from its current position, into a area and location moving steadily away past the new U.N. moon base. :wink:

Also your bare up-holding of soverignty will probably get you bitch slapped (text based of coarse :wink: ) by those who are sick of hearing about it, pretty much every one, including me who had an idea like yours too! :)

Other wise, good show old boy... or is it my fair lady? I don't know, anyway, great minds think alike, eh? :D

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

all ideas for this should be scraped and rethought so that i will rule supreme

The Federation of Germaly does not endorse this resolution.

Clear away! This is probably Game Mechanics.

Seeing some dissent on such a resolution, I display to you all a brief version of what I remember mine to have been before accidental cycle-bining it... :oops:

Ahem,

With the passing of this proposal, let it be resolved that legislation would thus be enacted which would make the following terms and conditions valid International and hence U.N. law.

1) Regardless of the issue, should an N.S. issue already exist for an issue of debate, then let it be that no U.N. resolution may be passed that would therefore inflict a member nation of the U.N. to being limited to the choice decreed within the U.N. proposal ‘lest otherwise they face violation of the U.N. and thus international law.

* This for example was in the case of the U.N. bill allowing Euthanasia in member countries, while some nations continued to get the N.S. general issue regarding whether or not to allow Euthanasia for some time. This left them in the dilemma of possibly violating U.N. law.

2) Let it be understood this would be a recognition of the power of precedent held by N.S. issues which demonstrate that individual member nations are more then capable of dealing with said N.S. issues themselves, as self governing sovereign states.

* It is the hope of this proposals author that this would help lower the cry of “Invasion of Sovereignty” cried by many dissatisfied nations, while in actual fact attempting to resolve such problems in part.

3) Let it be recognised this proposal if it becomes a resolution will only effect future U.N. proposals before they are submitted to the general U.N. floor for the final vote, and should they infringe on the first article above, would be deleted by Moderation and/or Administration staff as already done to combat faulty proposals as defined by Moderation and/or Administration staff.

* This means it would not so much be a case of Game Mechanics changes, not at all, rather it would mean the Moderation and/or Administration staff would be given better powers to validly dismiss proposals which would otherwise be allowed via the technicality this proposal hopes to eliminate.

4) And let it be known at this time this is simply a draft by The Rep of Komokom.

* So as to be able to take on any positive constructive criticisms. :wink:

Any opinions on my old dear here?

- The Rep of Komokom.

As the delegate from Alrindor, I would like to personally remind you that this still falls under a change of game mechanics. This system would require the moderation team to constantly check the consistency of proposals. Although the idea is intruiging, Alrindor personally believes that the method currently proposed for finding a solution is faulty.

Kibeth Celebrindal
Empire of Alrindor
Regional UN Delegate, The World Nexus

As the delegate from Alrindor, I would like to personally remind you that this still falls under a change of game mechanics. This system would require the moderation team to constantly check the consistency of proposals. Although the idea is intruiging, Alrindor personally believes that the method currently proposed for finding a solution is faulty.

Kibeth Celebrindal
Empire of Alrindor
Regional UN Delegate, The World Nexus

Let me say this, I believe in individuals nations governing themselves, but the fact is some nations dont want to comply with say envirnmental laws and it is the only way unless they decide to leave the UN, but some wont do that because it ruins their international relations with other UN countries. i will not support this because some issues should be international resolutions.

As a note to all interested parties, the proposal which forms the basis for this debate has been ruled illegal as it was a game-mechanics-altering proposal.
Both Baudrillard (apologies for any unintentionaly misspelling) and Komokom are encouraged to run any proposals they have on this issue past me in order to confirm their legality or lack thereof. In spite of Komokom's impatience over previous weeks, I do tend to deal with telegrammed requests (or even Emailed, if you feel it would be easier to have me run through it in that way rather than by telegram) for help quite rapidly.

Wasn't this already covered by Rights & Duties of UN States (which reaffirmed the UN's authority to make law for the NationStates)?
If so,then this is a Game Mechanics issue attempt to repeal R&D.

Hmmm, :wink:

1) Fear not Enodia, I am in no way impatient regarding your replies via telegram, though granted I do lately seem to check them almost compulsively... :)

If anything, going by the work loads I would assume Mods/Admin to have, I would think it is actually rather swift how quickly you get back to me.

2) I don't yet see how my own verrsion violates game mechanics, and in no way should it contra the R&D of U.N. States either, as it will, once I polish it, clearly make its case, that it does not involve any conflict, rather it is hoped it would help eliminate it to a degree, though that would be conflict of another kind.

I was trying to say its not game mechanics as in no way does it change the game, its simply like giving the mods the rights... and duty? ( :) ) to eliminate U.N. proposals that directly, and that is at mods discreation, conflict with N.S. issues, which means,

... while U.N. law and thus international law over-rules state laws, it is simply a matter of not making laws (international) which would thus conflict with the state law in the first place. thus stopping my head from hurting.

Is that *any* clearer... :?

Enodia? I'll ask you to telegram me your email for this, I think I need to sit down later with my head on straight, and polish up my version a tad, and then proof it with you... :)

Need... pain-killers... :roll:

(Go figure, I get over nasty evil severe flu
bug, and get another after it, of coarse I fin my drug coarse, so all I have in the house are panadol... :wink: )

- The Rep... of... Komokom... :wink:

I believe that a valid debate on whether or not this proposal changes the game mechanics should take place. Should this thread not be moved to the GamePlay board... at this time?

I disagree, its not really game mechanics, least mine is not, not really, its just my head is so con-fuffled I cannot seem to explain it clearly... perhaps what we need first is a clear definition from a mods regarding exactly what G.M.'s issues/problems/changes are?

- The Rep of Komokom.