NationStates Jolt Archive

To The United Nations:

To all who have listened, I thank you. To all opponents, most notably Enodia whom I am most grateful to for taking time and patience to answer my questions and give my ramblings there dues; you have a difficult job and I empathize on the difficult tasks that still lie ahead of you, again, I thank you. To all proponents, I thank you. It is with a most heavy heart that I must inform you that effective immediately, I resign my position in the 700th row in the once glorious halls of the United Nations. I refuse to take part in a United Nations that prohibits more rights than it grants to its People. I refuse to take part in a United Nations where the People have such little power bestowed unto them that they heedlessly neglect their inherent rights that should be granted to them by perhaps a less overbearing Organization. The only hope that rests within my broken optimism and idealism of a better world were Democracy flourishes, is that one day (NS2) we will be able to have our voices trumpeted across the sacred halls that I once thought lined the United Nations.

Regretfully,

The Independent States of Bytek

Sigh...

Oh shut up and go. If your going to leave because people disagree with you, then you only defeating yourself and your ideals.

The U.N. prospers as-is because only the "strong", or at least those willing to keep on the international stage hang about to polish the place up and make "the world a better place, one resolution at a time" or some such actually hang about...

Quite frankly, though not wanting to be (too) rude,

Go away, we're not hiring defeatist whiners... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I'd agree with Komokom to an extent, the UN has always tried to be made of sterner stuff. If the UN as a whole simply gave up on it's principals then we might as well start calling ourselves the League of Nations.

The UN is here to debate these issues, and attempt to come to an agreement to suit the widest possible spectrum of Member States. If you cannot tolerate the idea of compromise, and instead are going to cry sour grapes everytime the UN does something you might not like, then the UN as a whole is better off without you.

Having said that, you did raise valid points, but it is disappointing you could not accept those points and work within the UN.

I have worked for one month straight and have never, never had any one person attempt to compromise with my points. Not once. People just said 'yes', 'good point', a few asked how the problem could be dealt with. I answerd. I still yet to receive any "compromise" from anyone. It's very easy for you both to criticize after the fighting is done. I am not complaining either, this Organazation, that you so call see as a wonderful debating forum, is nothing but a onesided-bias-corrupt-Authoritarian. Where have you two been fighting beside me, to busy debating elsewhere? Where were the people I have needed for the past month to join me and my cause? Nowhere to be found. You say this is a place of debate? A debate between two people with nothing but spectators is not solving anything. No compromises. Nothing. I've quit on a system that has quit working way before I got here.

I agree that it is unfortunate to see Bytek go. As a friend and collegue who helped him with A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World, he presented such wonderful ideas and arguments that were later thrown back into his face by the uncompromising "moderators". I also agree that so very few people actually helped Bytek and their cause. People simply agreed yet never showed their support to get the proposal to the floor. To rise up against the "moderators" and get them to talk about a compromise. You both pity Bytek from the sidelines, but what have you done to help their cause?

I have worked for one month straight and have never, never had any one person attempt to compromise with my points.

Well, the first post I can see you made was Mar 28, 2004 1:06 am, which was a little over a week ago, since you are going to start complaining.

I still yet to receive any "compromise" from anyone.

There is no compromise on this issue. FACT. You've been told why, and how it would be a nicer place if it was possible, but you still are going to throw your rattle out of the pram like some child? :roll:

Where have you two been fighting beside me, to busy debating elsewhere?

To be perfectly honest, I'm bored of arguing with Member States who want to repeal, I don't like repeating myself. Granted, the issues you have raised bore more coherence and intelligence than the majority of posts, but boil it down, and it sounds the same as the rest of the occassional recent arrival who complains bitterly about the lack repeals.

Plus I don't see the need to debate something which, quite frankly, is a lost cause.

Moreover, I really don't see the point of debating with a nation who is going to use the United States constitution as a template....This is not RL after all and I can think of several national constitutions which I consider "better."

I've quit on a system that has quit working way before I got here.

Oh well.... :roll:

he presented such wonderful ideas and arguments that were later thrown back into his face by the uncompromising "moderators".

Sorry, but do you guys actually what has been said? It's not something the moderators get a say in, most of them are in favour of repeals, but they understand (better than you, or me, or Bytek) why it cannot be done. Enodia in particular explains why on a regular basis, more times than I've had hot dinners.

Bytek has exposed a weakness in the UN; its inability to change and adapt, and to open its process. That is not and cannot be a "strength".

Perhaps the debate could be moved to the Technical Forum? It would be good to see some real change around here and not just hot air jabber.

I have been working on this for a month, not only within the UN Forum, but from within my own region. There could very easily be a compromise on this issue, but most of you moderators stop thinking because it's to "hard" of a problem to deal with, and you call me childish--a quiter. The US Constitution was used as a grounds to argue from, I was not saying that "hey, we should be just like that". Of course this isn't the real world, no crap. The US Constitution was used to compare. That's it. It gave some subtext for which I could go by and clearly explain to people what I wanted to accomplish. It was used to show that times change. It was used for a means by which I could clearly convey my purpose. It wasn't grounds for a draft of on-line gameplay. Also, since this is on-line gameplay, why the hell do we have resolutions dealing with prostituition, euthinasia, and end to slavery (hmmm, that still exists, I think). These resolutions are simply designed to simulate real world issues, right? The whole purpose of this game? Then how the hell is using a real world constitution invalid for arguing a point? Plenty of resolutions and issues have been modled after real world issues, what else do we have to model after?

I have worked for one month straight and have never, never had any one person attempt to compromise with my points. Not once.

Did you ever ask to see such compromises, did you suggest them openly? People are usually fundamentally lazy, will type only what need be to get message to people. See? :wink:

People just said 'yes', 'good point', a few asked how the problem could be dealt with. I answerd. I still yet to receive any "compromise" from anyone.

See, at least you got support, many do not even get that, still not that they put in the well written effort that you did, I admit. Yes, they asked, yes you answered, and it is good, but if you don't go seeking compromises then you won't find them, rarely to people say here, "I like your idea, but say it like this so I'll vote yes for it" right up front.

It's very easy for you both to criticize after the fighting is done.

Ahem. I hope sir you do not refer to me. Some of us do deal with reality more then we care too and as such must prioritise our actions here. And your proposals core idea if I remember was repeal based. So you had a snow flakes chance of my support any-hoo. :wink:

I am not complaining either, this Organazation, that you so call see as a wonderful debating forum, is nothing but a onesided-bias-corrupt-Authoritarian.

Ah, so now the U.N. is the bad men rather then us, how fitting.

Where have you two been fighting beside me, to busy debating elsewhere?

Ironically yes.

Where were the people I have needed for the past month to join me and my cause? Nowhere to be found.

Now stay with me here, but, maybe no one vocal enough to do so actually supported your proposal, maybe your region friends could have turned up had you asked them nicely?

You say this is a place of debate? A debate between two people with nothing but spectators is not solving anything. No compromises. Nothing. I've quit on a system that has quit working way before I got here.

1) You make it sound like tennis with words not balls, lol.

2) Atually it does solve something, people use the arguments displayed by the two individuals debating to form their own opinions or alter them by what they see here. And that goes a long way to changing things.

3) You already mentioned you quit.

Bye bye, don't let the door hit your opinions on the way out, and don't forget to leave your credibility on the U.N. forums in the lob register before you leave... :wink:

I agree that it is unfortunate to see Bytek go. As a friend and collegue who helped him with A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World, he presented such wonderful ideas and arguments that were later thrown back into his face by the uncompromising "moderators".

Sigh, I think its time for you to leave too. It was not moderators that defeated him, it was he himself, and the fact his ideas while good, yes, were un-workable in that format, and I did not see him compromise...

I also agree that so very few people actually helped Bytek and their cause. People simply agreed yet never showed their support to get the proposal to the floor.

Their cause was maybe not aided because people realised its actual chance at just that, actuality, was slim to none. Ergo, more people hammered it for its un-workability then going on and praising it for being, "a good idea"

Also not every-one is vocal, nor do we need to be, we have that choice

( On a semi-related note: Bless T.C. and bless them again ! )

To rise up against the "moderators" and get them to talk about a compromise. You both pity Bytek from the sidelines, but what have you done to help their cause?

Sigh...

1) Get over the moderators, they do only their jobs for all our benefit.

2) Personally at this rate I hope you break a golden rule and get booted for it, since I cannot do it physically. Ergo just another reason to applaud moderators.

3) Maybe Bytek should have tried some "compromise".

4) "Pity" does not equal "agreement". Get it?

5) I did nothing, I did not agree with it. Hence my general silence.

Bytek has exposed a weakness in the UN; its inability to change and adapt, and to open its process. That is not and cannot be a "strength".

Ah, but "strength" is subjective always to view point is it not? :)

Perhaps the debate could be moved to the Technical Forum? It would be good to see some real change around here and not just hot air jabber.

True, but if it were not for hot air and jabber, some of us would swell up and explode... Well, our ego's any-way. Ahem. More tea? Also Ia gree with this being dallied over to the Tech Sect.

I have been working on this for a month, not only within the UN Forum, but from within my own region.

Been there, done that, got the bloody (Or more be it blood covered :wink: ) t-shirt... I feel thy pain I do...

There could very easily be a compromise on this issue, but most of you moderators stop thinking because it's to "hard" of a problem to deal with, and you call me childish--a quiter.

1) Compromise, compromise, compromise, by us only it seems you propose, ha, a pun, you proposed, thats twice now you see, and we still disagree, and see!

A pun AND ryhme, meeep, okay, I need to sit a spell...

2) Who does thee call a "mod" that sacred creature of truth and justice, hallowed be thy name? More likely we be those mere mortal folk who trudge the forum with our mere wordly powers of frying-pan and too much spare time. :wink:

3) I never said childish, just a quitter, now pay attention in class !

The US Constitution was used as a grounds to argue from, I was not saying that "hey, we should be just like that". Of course this isn't the real world, no crap. The US Constitution was used to compare. That's it. It gave some subtext for which I could go by and clearly explain to people what I wanted to accomplish. It was used to show that times change. It was used for a means by which I could clearly convey my purpose.

In some small part I say sorry, leaping and ripping apart anything mentioning the U.S. constitution is a reflex action these days...

It wasn't grounds for a draft of on-line gameplay.

No, it is not is it.

Also, since this is on-line gameplay, why the hell do we have resolutions dealing with prostituition, euthinasia, and end to slavery (hmmm, that still exists, I think). These resolutions are simply designed to simulate real world issues, right?

To your question, Yep.

The whole purpose of this game? Then how the hell is using a real world constitution invalid for arguing a point? Plenty of resolutions and issues have been modled after real world issues, what else do we have to model after?

Ahem, I draw the defendants attention to ex-zipp-it ! A, the line one finds on this site that says "Making the world a better place, one resolution at a time".

Well folks, its been great, love to converse with yee all further, but a slim margin of band-width is about to drag me kicking and screaming back to reality...

Till the 9th then we shall meet again !

- The Rep of Komokom. :)

The UN's a joke..... we just come here for a good place to get high and listen to foreigners argue ;)

Bishops Cheech and Chong, Ministers of Agriculture for all Psychotropics

Unfortunatly, the problem is that alot of people liken this UN to the Federal Government. The Feds have power that the UN can't have. Right for gay marrages? End Racism? Promote Democracy? Those are all National Issues yet people blindly vote them in because it sounds good.

This past resolution passed with just over a thousand vote difference. the ones before that, the gaps were wider. People read the proposals and debate them here (if the author puts them here for Debate) but there are ALOT of proposals to go through. I, unfortunately, don't have the time to go through each one. If your proposal didn't make it, RESUBIT IT! put it on these boards and see what bites... make changes if deem necessary, clarify points but keep trying. If you give up, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Here is a wicked Idea. If resolutions passed that you don't agree with... shove it back into their faces. Press them that their proposals break past resolutions and should they pass, keep pressing them.

For instance, this education reform, forces takes away the citizens right to choose to be ignorant (yes, some people might want to not recieve foreign education.) It also takes away their right to choose to preserve their culture and heretage. It also forces other nations to support a third world's educational system. keep hammering this point and the fact that anyone supporting it is in direct violation of the Right to Choose Resolution and thus should be sanctioned. All of the Ban this or Rights for that gets this response from me and I am serious. Should any of those pass, I will press the mods to sanction all those who voted to remove citizens rights to choose under the recently passed resolution.

Harsh but it might get some to think about what they vote for.

Agreed once, no twice, with the reasonable delegate from Ichi Ni

i would not call freedom from propiganda ignorance

persuasion is one thing
and useful or at least interesting information
very much of another

personaly i have never understood this fixation humans seem to have
with destroying things including each other

like anything else join or leave as you see fit

i see neither positive nor negative merrit in streingth itself

but only in the creating of sustainable and mutualy gratifying
beauty

freedom is what we have when everyone stops swinging their
arms before they even look like they might come in contact with
our nose.
it can only exist as long as we are willing to do so ourselves

there is no hierarchy that is not in some sense tyrannical, whatever
idiology it pays lip service to

nor is it impossible to live and live well without them

a united nations can serve a higher purpose then any national
soverignty, can, could, aught and might.

dissapointment is the price of expectation

i expect only that there will continue to exist some sort of
universe with or without my presence in it

i do however have clear an unambiguous preferences

that i do not expect others to share
and would not ever wish anyone feel they were being forced
upon them
but would be greatly delighted
if more people did

=^^=
.../\...

Oh good... A poet... we need more poets here :)
I hate to break up a beautifully written post... so I do this with tears in my eyes. ;_;

"i would not call freedom from propiganda ignorance "
Who defines Propiganda... I force you to accept my definition of Propiganda, while (IMHO) I am removing your ignorance, am I not forcing my way of thinking on you... my philiosophies thus removing some of your freedom?

"persuasion is one thing and useful or at least interesting information very much of another "

Ahh but in Persuasion, While I am trying to persuade you, you can also persuade me. Children will accept what the teachers teach thus it's called teaching and not Perusading. Lies and "propiganda" can be taught to children alot easier than persuading adults.

"personaly i have never understood this fixation humans seem to have
with destroying things including each other "

someone was quoted (unfortunatly I don't know who or where) "tis easier by far to destroy than to create" or something like that... err... here's one. "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutly."

"like anything else join or leave as you see fit"

I agree... however, some of the proposals waiting for support actually called for action against NON-UN members. and since all resolutions MUST be obeyed by UN Charter, if those who do not like do run, there may not be anyplace to run to. Besides, the nature of this august body is to see everyone's point of view. even if it's contrary to mine or yours.

"i see neither positive nor negative merrit in streingth itself
but only in the creating of sustainable and mutualy gratifying
beauty "

True... but what do you see in the use of that strength. and beware - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

"freedom is what we have when everyone stops swinging their
arms before they even look like they might come in contact with
our nose. it can only exist as long as we are willing to do so ourselves "

Freedom is the choice. Responsibility is to accept what happens when we do come in contact with our nose. and while freedom exists as you say, it can also be taken away. Freedom isn't free... it's price... eternal vigilance.

"there is no hierarchy that is not in some sense tyrannical, whatever
idiology it pays lip service to nor is it impossible to live and live well without them "

Yep, there is one... Pure, Unadultered, Unfettered, Anarchy.

"a united nations can serve a higher purpose then any national
soverignty, can, could, aught and might."

But should it loose sight of that purpose...

"dissapointment is the price of expectation "

Turn that around and Satsifaction is also the price of Expectation.

"i expect only that there will continue to exist some sort of
universe with or without my presence in it"

While that is true... I feel sorry for them after reading your post.

"i do however have clear an unambiguous preferences that i do not expect others to share and would not ever wish anyone feel they were being forced upon them but would be greatly delighted if more people did"

That's what Diplomacy, Tact, and Disscussions are for... the sharing of ideas, philosophies and preferences. For without those three (and others I fail to mentioned) I would not have had the pleasure of reading your post.

Beautifully done, Carlemnaria.
:D

I'm coming to the conclusion that there are voices that the UN needs to pay more attention to. I've long believed that Berkylvania is one. I would now add Carlemnaria.