NationStates Jolt Archive

*Please read the following proposal, and tell me what you think.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------START

Repeal of Resolution 245A Proper Grammar
The General Assembly,

Fully Aware that many UN proposals contain glaring grammatical and spelling errors,

Noting further that these errors may detract from the impact or validity of the proposal itself,

Emphasizing that grammatically correct proposals are indeed ideal to grammatically-incorrect ones,

Guided by the principal that the UN is a world body and therefore should function like one,

Keeping in mind that the world is made up of thousands of unique cultures, customs, and languages,

Deeply disturbed by the utter lack of tolerance shown by the resolution in question by its demand that all countries be "banned from Proposals until such time as they understand the English language and can properly convey their ideas,"

Reaffirming that many peoples of the world do not speak English as their language and should not be forced to do so,

Recognizing that many great proposals are given little thought because of petty errors in composition,

1. Requests that the UN resolution entitled "Resolution 245A Proper Grammar," implemented on Saturday, February 15, 2003, be rendered inoperative;

2. Further requests that any punitive actions levied against any member nation for infractions of the aforementioned resolution be terminated immediately, and those nations restored their full rights as members of this international body;

3. Emphasizes that care should be taken when writing a proposal, and that proposals should be as well-written as is deemed reasonable for each nation, based on each nation's individual abilities;

4. Further invites the UN to establish some sort of translation service by which proposals written in a nation's primary or favored language may be translated into one more suitable for international deliberation and implementation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------END

The Holy Empire of Gethamane disagrees with the proposal on principle, but there's a more pressing concern.

This proposal is attempting to do the impossible (repeal a resolution), and so is in obvious violation of the rules.

We direct you to Enodia's post "Before you submit a proposal." (Third from the top of the UN Forum).

Many thanks to The Holy Empire of Gethamane. I was not aware of that rule.

The Democratic Republic of Allapin Mayeer

Lucky escape there Allapin Mayeer, hopefully you didn't submit it, otherwise you'll be kicked out of the UN faster than you can say sorry :)

Ah. The finer benefits of posting to the forums before irrevocable harm is rendered upon you by a higher power. I just wish more peopel would take the same course of action.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I dont understand why some people try to play games without reading the rules.

Oh, I do, its a single case of, or combination of: stupidity, harmless ignorance, lack of respect for others, or blatant disregard for authority.

Hence why I may soon need to be handing out registered frying-pans... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

assuming that most people are stupid, harmlessly ignorant or just have blatant disregard for authority is the most asinine thing i have ever heard. a lot of people are new to this game and havent found all the rules or havent had a chance to read all the rules. this, by no means, qualifies them in one of your three categories. i guess it would be fair to say that people who make such judgements are in fact themselves stupid and harmlessly ignorant.

assuming that most people are stupid, harmlessly ignorant or just have blatant disregard for authority is the most asinine thing i have ever heard. a lot of people are new to this game and havent found all the rules or havent had a chance to read all the rules. this, by no means, qualifies them in one of your three categories. i guess it would be fair to say that people who make such judgements are in fact themselves stupid and harmlessly ignorant.
But if you look at it, the rules are plastered everywhere - proposal-making rules are even linked to from the submission screen. There are threads all over the place saying "approve my proposal", "no, it's a game mechanics changing proposal". Why, then, do people continually do it?

i am not objecting to reading the rules. i simply think its rude to assume and call someone stupid.

Point taken, Trump, but what other adjective exists for those who obstinately refuse to read the rules before they try to do something? More to the point, what lable can be applied to those who complain bitterly when they are disciplined for breaking the rules which they refused to read in the first place?

i would say the adjective, "uninformed" would be appropriate :P

Wow, Donald Trump,

(Has vision of Donald Trumps hair, a-la The Late Show With David Letterman "Is Donald Trumps Hair Getting Wierder?" segment style...)

* Shudder

:)

No need to go agressive, I figured "harmlessly ignorant" was the *nice* adjective, and it was meant to cover those who simply did not know the rules, such as your average *harmless* newbie.

But, please, if you feel the need to jump down my throat, go for it, I'll only cough you straight up again along with your argument! :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

i would say the adjective, "uninformed" would be appropriate :P
Count yourself lucky that you don't have to deal with a pile of these "uninformed" people every day. You'd reach for a Roget's rather quickly if you did.

cough me up and spit me out??? :lol:

i guess thats better than what i would do to you, which would be sh*t you out and flush you down. :)

Hi honey, getting violent are we>? Calm down although Komo is kinda slow, you dont have to be so mean. Love you

Well, since I started this by harmlessly suggesting what I though was a very good proposal, I suppose I should get back in it.

First of all, Donald Trump: I appreciate your support. It is reassuring to know that there are still some people out there who remember the days when they did not know everything, and were right about everything.

Hirota: I'm sure you've made mistakes, too. By the way, the only reason I posted my proposal on the forum first was because I read the rules. Unfortunately, that point about repeals is not in the rules, but some later reply. I figured that made it less valid. Also, if you really think about it, my proposal does not violate any of those sacred rules which result in immediate rejection (I care not to list them again, for my own health).

Which brings me to a very important point. Why are repeals not allowed? The moderator would not have to delete anything from the UN resolutions. A repeal would simply rule out a previous one.

Ah, Jacques, but this could never happen in real life, you say?

Read the Constitution; namely, the 18th and 21st amendments. The 21st repeals the 18th, yet the 18th is still in there--on every single copy.

So tell me again why repeals aren't allowed?

To put it differently, consider the following. Isn't any resolution no more than a repeal of the status quo, or if not that, a repeal of an unwritten rule allowing a certain action. For example, isn't the Resolution on allowing prostitution really no more than a repeal of the unwritten (or in some nations, written) ban on prostitution. When you really think about it, repeals are no different than any other resolution.

Yet, big bad Enodia and his cohorts make it another big issue for some reason.

Anyway, I don't want to write a book (I'll leave that to Max Barry, since he's so good at it :wink: ), so I'll be finished for now.

Joe Pawlowski

Well, since I started this by harmlessly suggesting what I though was a very good proposal, I suppose I should get back in it.

First of all, Donald Trump: I appreciate your support. It is reassuring to know that there are still some people out there who remember the days when they did not know everything, and were right about everything.

Hirota: I'm sure you've made mistakes, too. By the way, the only reason I posted my proposal on the forum first was because I read the rules. Unfortunately, that point about repeals is not in the rules, but some later reply. I figured that made it less valid. Also, if you really think about it, my proposal does not violate any of those sacred rules which result in immediate rejection (I care not to list them again, for my own health).

Which brings me to a very important point. Why are repeals not allowed? The moderator would not have to delete anything from the UN resolutions. A repeal would simply rule out a previous one.

Ah, Jacques, but this could never happen in real life, you say?

Read the Constitution; namely, the 18th and 21st amendments. The 21st repeals the 18th, yet the 18th is still in there--on every single copy.

So tell me again why repeals aren't allowed?

To put it differently, consider the following. Isn't any resolution no more than a repeal of the status quo, or if not that, a repeal of an unwritten rule allowing a certain action. For example, isn't the Resolution on allowing prostitution really no more than a repeal of the unwritten (or in some nations, written) ban on prostitution. When you really think about it, repeals are no different than any other resolution.

Yet, big bad Enodia and his cohorts make it another big issue for some reason.

Anyway, I don't want to write a book (I'll leave that to Max Barry, since he's so good at it :wink: ), so I'll be finished for now.

Ileum D. Patton
Sec'y of State, The Democratic Republic of Allapin Mayeer

Well, since I started this by harmlessly suggesting what I though was a very good proposal, I suppose I should get back in it.

Which brings me to a very important point. Why are repeals not allowed? The moderator would not have to delete anything from the UN resolutions. A repeal would simply rule out a previous one.

So tell me again why repeals aren't allowed?

Yet, big bad Enodia and his cohorts make it another big issue for some reason.


I thought your idea had merit, even if it is against the current rules. Allapin Mayeer still is a nation in good standing at least according to my nation.

First, I want to say that in all my time here in the UN forum, Enodia has performed wonderfully in what is a thankless and difficult taste. How many times has each of us wanted to walk away from an arguement? We can do that, a moderator can't ... and trust me, there are some representatives that get hostile pretty fast.

The reason Enodia and others have made your case a big issue may be to set an example. The subject of repealing resolutions has come up every other week in the past month. I couldn't say if it was as frequent in the past, but I'm guessing it may have been.

A reason I think we don't want to open the door to repeals yet is this body is still young. So young that if we did, we'd see every losing side to any debate flooding the proposal queue with repeal resolutions.

We'd still be talking about prostitutes, gay rights, and privatization of the moon. In fact, that is all we'd ever talk about, because other issues like protecting children and the environment would probably take a back seat.

I just don't see people ever coming to an agreement about religion. And yet, I see zealots on both sides, using the UN to push religious based laws all the time. I'm actually glad we have a flood gate in place, though I do share your opinion that someday we should revisit the no repeals ruling. Afterall, we should have a chance to improve things or change our "international" mind.

10kMichael

It works a little something like this:

The servers don't keep a record of what resolution passed when and who was a member. All it knows is that its supposed to adjust the points in certain categories when certain types of resolutions pass. Because it doesn't take into account who was in the UN when, a repeal would wrongfully affect people who weren't around for the original resolution.

Nation A and Nation B join the UN on day one. On day two, Nation A proposes a resolution to increase liberty. The resolution passes on day three, so the server adjusts the points accordingly, giving more liberty to Nation A and Nation B. Nation C joins the UN on day four, and thus doesn't get the benefit of the previous resolution. On day five, Nation B offers a repeal of the resolution. Day six rolls around, and the resolution is repealed, thus subtracting liberty. The server deducts points from all UN members.

Except, Nation C didn't get his bonus liberty, so now he's got negative liberty just because he joined at a different date. Since its not fair to punish Nation C for being reluctant to join and its pretty damn impossible to persuade someone to rewrite the code, we don't allow repeals.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Additionally, as I've said before, I'm all for allowing proposals to be repealed. It's a great idea, it makes the game much more realistic and - even if nothing else - it'll cut down on my workload and stop people from complaining about it.
That said, until the game is re-coded to allow it, I'm compelled to shoot any repeal proposals on sight. It's like playing Monopoly (or at least what usually happens when I play it) - it'd be great to be able to convert all your houses to hotels and playing it that way could make life a lot more interesting. But, in the absence of a rule actually saying that you can do it, then you can't.

Errr, okay, in the space of a few posts I've been called stupid, my post was according to one, errr, person (EVIL GLARE OF DOOM :wink: ) "asinine" and a mildly humorous comment on coughing up an argument suddenly "rammed down my throat" has resulted in me being told I would in fact myself be shat out and flushed.

Normally I would *almost* take offence, but, eh, if really your Donald Trump, then I must pity you still for your hair.

Further more, Ukroatia, I may be, ahem, (smirk) "slow" according to you, but whose the one claiming to be marrying some one whocalls themself Donald Trump?

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Hirota: I'm sure you've made mistakes, too.
Not yet, at least not that I can remember, my continued membership of the UN goes some way towards proving that...or perhaps I'm just lucky enough to have not been caught :)

By the way, the only reason I posted my proposal on the forum first was because I read the rules.

Well...good for you, at least you managed to avoid an unfortunate end to your participation within the UN :)

The perfect word for the concept of continually not reading the rules:

Willfully Ignorant.

So it is written, so it is.

It works a little something like this:

The servers don't keep a record of what resolution passed when and who was a member. All it knows is that its supposed to adjust the points in certain categories when certain types of resolutions pass. Because it doesn't take into account who was in the UN when, a repeal would wrongfully affect people who weren't around for the original resolution.

Nation A and Nation B join the UN on day one. On day two, Nation A proposes a resolution to increase liberty. The resolution passes on day three, so the server adjusts the points accordingly, giving more liberty to Nation A and Nation B. Nation C joins the UN on day four, and thus doesn't get the benefit of the previous resolution. On day five, Nation B offers a repeal of the resolution. Day six rolls around, and the resolution is repealed, thus subtracting liberty. The server deducts points from all UN members.

Except, Nation C didn't get his bonus liberty, so now he's got negative liberty just because he joined at a different date. Since its not fair to punish Nation C for being reluctant to join and its pretty damn impossible to persuade someone to rewrite the code, we don't allow repeals.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I see. Thanks for the explanation. That would have solved all the trouble if I would have gotten this technical explanation. It is so much more convincing when you are told why you can't do something, rather than just that you can't.

Enodia: My apologies. I didn't mean to minimize the importance of your job or criticize you for it. I was just a little angry because my unfamiliarity with all the rules was misinterpreted as:

1. stupidity
2. lack of respect for others
3. blatant disregard for authority
4. obstinacy

I believe I fit into none of the above.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. At least now there is no doubt whatsoever that I can't submit repeals.

Thanks again,

Ileum D. Powell,
Sec'y of State, The Democratic Republic of Allapin Mayeer

I can't speak for everyone, but I wasn't criticising you personally, Allapin Mayeer. Quite the contrary, because you posted your proposal here and took on board the circumscriptions, you're automatically given a tick in my book. It's the nations who decide "Cool, I'm in the UN. Now, let's go and do something without reading the rules" that I have a problem with.

1. stupidity
2. lack of respect for others
3. blatant disregard for authority
4. obstinacy

...

I've a feeling these are vague referals to my original list of terms applied to the, errr, "less well regulation educated" amoung us.

There, happy now?

Though I stand by my term, "harmlessly ignorant". Its in my opinion a perfectly apt way to describe those here who do not obey the rules, simply becuase they are un-aware of there being any which apply, and as such are not to be counted amoung the "stupid" people, pfffrt, who deliberately fudge things simply to aggravate and try to get one up on the system for their own ends.

Get it now people, I was not labelling everyone stupid, ignorant and purposeful fudgers of the rules, those terms were to be applied to seperate groupings.

I *thought* that would be obvious, if I go off near constantly at people who flame with things like "Your all stupid gay noobs" then I am hardly to do it myself am I? :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I guess you're more fair-minded because you've sorted 'em into groups?

"terms were to be applied to separate groupings"

Stupid ones over here.

Gay ones over there.

n00bs over by the exit.

I guess you're more fair-minded because you've sorted 'em into groups?

"terms were to be applied to separate groupings"

Stupid ones over here.

Gay ones over there.

n00bs over by the exit.

I give my full support to Allapin Mayeer because I believe if the American Constitution (arguably the most succesful government ever created) can have amendments, why can't there be some here. I understand that if one law is changed, others will try to take advantage but there are such things as mistakes; ex. slavery, prohibition, women's rights.

I give my full support to Allapin Mayeer because I believe if the American Constitution (arguably the most succesful government ever created) can have amendments, why can't there be some here. I understand that if one law is changed, others will try to take advantage but there are such things as mistakes; ex. slavery, prohibition, women's rights.
Read thread first. Then post.

I give my full support to Allapin Mayeer because I believe if the American Constitution (arguably the most succesful government ever created) can have amendments, why can't there be some here. I understand that if one law is changed, others will try to take advantage but there are such things as mistakes; ex. slavery, prohibition, women's rights.

<sigh> I honestly don't remember being quite this dumb when I was a newbie....well, not quite so dumb. :D

What are we, a Nazi state? peoples of the free world should be allowed the freedom to misspell occasionaly, and not be punished for a lack of proper education. we should instead help them by correcting their spelling and grammar, until which time they are able to do this themselves.

Better spelling and grammar is only a short trip to Word away, with a little bit of cut and a little bit of past. But, because I'm a nice guy, I'll go ahead and provide everyone with a few basic rules of grammar.

::drum roll::

Creative Writing for Dummies
Lesson 1: Capital Letters
You will often notice a strange phenomenon at the beginning of a sentence: a bigger letter! Where do these big letters come from, you ask? Santa Clause? No, silly, there is no Santa Claus. These are capitals! They go at the beginning of a sentence, and names, like "Retard."
Bad example: "u r a homo"
Good example: "I think I hate you, Jim."

Lesson 2: The Period
A lot of people think periods only happen to girls, but don't fooled; a lot of girls don't know punctuation either! A period is only one of many fun things that go at the end of a sentence. Sometimes you'll see three in a row, but don't use more than that! Like fire, the period should only be used when it's needed.
Bad example: "i like u........................................"
Good example: "I think I hate you, Jim."

Lesson 3: Insults
Insults are the most important thing on the Internet, because some people you'll communicate with don't know how to do anything else. An insult is something bad you say to someone upset them when you don't like them, or they frag you in Counter-Strike. Be careful not to call someone something that isn't really an insult!
Bad example: "u r such a Jew"
Good example: "Jew isn't an insult, you blind goat-licker."

Lesson 4: Apostrophes
Some people think an apostrophe is something incredibly bad that happens to a bunch of people. That's why they never use them. In truth, an apostrophe is used to say something belongs to someone, or combines two words into one.
Bad example: "thats mine"
Good example: "No, the Internet isn't yours, you're retarded."

Lesson 5: Abbreviations
An abbreviation is a shortened word or phrase that conveys a complex meaning in an easy manner. Many people think it is an excuse to be lazy, and shorten every word in the English language. This is not true, because these people are social rejects.
Bad example: "u thnk u r kewl"
Good example: "No, I'm just smarter than you, i.e. smarter than the average rock."

Lesson 6: Spelling
In the English language, there are some words that are often misspelled, especially by idiots. Here is a list of commonly misspelled words:
Absurd, are, belief, child, definitely, develop, disappear, embarrassed, existence, evidently, gently, interesting, Japanese, license, love, remember, ridiculous, run, shrug, the, tomorrow, truly, which, wine, you, you're/your
Bad example: "u r definately intresting when u have wyne"
Good example: "I believe that you truly are ridiculous."

Putting it All Together
Bad example: "u r stupid cuz u pick on peepz that dont spel rihgt & u cant say whats right or wrong so stop being meen to peepz w/problemz speling, OK???????"
Good example: "I'm sorry, I was busy screaming in agony at the travesty that is your attempt at English. Maybe you shouldn't spent all that time staring vacantly into space in grade school, so you would have learned a thing or two about your native language. I can only hope you don't try to learn any other languages, or it might cause an international incident."

The Council of Enn wishes to congratulate Sophista for a thoroughly enjoyable and educational post.

ROFL !!!

Thank you, Sophista, for the, er, enlightening post on grammar.

While I understand the occasional slip up in typing posts, in regards to grammar I see nothing wrong with the resolution for proper grammar, nor any reason to repeal it. If we wish our esteemed colleagues to take the time to read any proposals we may offer, the least we can do is not insult their intelligence by offering poorly written proposals. If one wishes to be taken seriously, the least one can do is to appear serious.

Again, Sophista, thanks for the post and resulting laughter.

We'll be cross-posting this as an addendum to the Sophistan resolution writing guide, where it can stay forever as a testament to the good-humored nature of these forums. Thank you for your support.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I wish to request a copy of Sopista's Grammar For Dummies the moment it appears on the market :)