NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi, I just made a new proposal and I'm not sure if it's allowed cause maybe it's concerning game mechanics. Any criticism is appreciated so I can possibly change the proposal.

Anti-discrimination Proposal Law

Seeing a lot of proposals made to ban the rights of certain people based on their species, believe or generic nature.

Being of the opinion that every person physically recognized as a human being should be treated equal to other human beings.

Therefore I propose that:
- No discrimination in proposals is allowed based on species, believe, gender, skin colour and generic nature to discriminate or favour people with any feature mentioned.

- By what the definition of believe is honouring God(s)

- This will not include proposals when people are included with the features mentioned are threatening the safety of citizens.

The Democratic Republic of Oukratia.

Any proposal that limits the definition of belief to religions that involve a God doesn't have our support. There are many religions which don't have any God or gods whatsoever.

In principle this is good - a lot of UN resolutions prevent discrimination of this type in specific areas, but there's no universal ruling I can recall.

It has been my experience that any proposal that limits future proposals is in violation of Game Mechanics.

Um, only if it completely rules out one or more proposal categories. By definition, every proposal rules out some future proposals, because you can't have anything that counts as repeals.

Any proposal that limits the definition of belief to religions that involve a God doesn't have our support. There are many religions which don't have any God or gods whatsoever.

In principle this is good - a lot of UN resolutions prevent discrimination of this type in specific areas, but there's no universal ruling I can recall.

With that definition I was trying to prevent that people make a believe of everything they do. But maybe I can let it out. If I can't, what definition would you prefer?

Um, only if it completely rules out one or more proposal categories. By definition, every proposal rules out some future proposals, because you can't have anything that counts as repeals.

So it's not concerning game mechanics? To my opinion it only has to do with social issues.

With that definition I was trying to prevent that people make a believe of everything they do. But maybe I can let it out. If I can't, what definition would you prefer?
I'd leave it out personally, who are we to say what is right to believe. What's to stop people from worshiping football if they want? Once you say 'you can't worship that because it's not a god.' you get 'you can't worship that because it doesn’t exist' and the rep of Komokom would be made redundant…

This will not include proposals when people are included with the features mentioned are threatening the safety of citizens.


Now I really don't like this, there is far too much potential for abuse. Only in very rare cases would every citizen from a specific group would be causing trouble.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

This will not include proposals when people are included with the features mentioned are threatening the safety of citizens.


Now I really don't like this, there is far too much potential for abuse. Only in very rare cases would every citizen from a specific group would be causing trouble.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Abuse in what way? That's the whole point behind it, it's very rare when people from a specific group cause trouble. But it excists.

Well say there are two sets of people living in my country the purple island people (pip) and the blue river people (brp). Now the brp hate the pip and the pip hate the brp. When the pip get into power one member of the brp decides to plant a car bomb. The pip government use this, and your proposal to eradicate the brp.

The brp die.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Actually, I do think it could be considered game mechanics: if we can't discriminate in proposals based on species, then we can't have a 'Human Rights' proposal, can we?

Also, doesn't it contradict the Universal Bill of Rights, which gives certain rights to human beings?

:?

I'm not sure about prohibiting discrimination by species since there are substantial differences between different species, especially considering that there is no distinction being made between, say, a species of mold and a species of ape as the resolution is currently worded. (Of course, in my opinion, there are substantial enough differences even between humans and apes...) This bill seems to really blur the line between human and non-human with the mentioning of species...

Also, doesn't the Universal Bill of Rights prevent discrimination in future resolutions anyways? I might be wrong; perhaps it is best to reaffirm the content of that resolution, though I have heard other nations in the past refer to the Universal Bill of Rights when rejecting resolutions in the past...

I'm not sure about prohibiting discrimination by species since there are substantial differences between different species, especially considering that there is no distinction being made between, say, a species of mold and a species of ape as the resolution is currently worded. (Of course, in my opinion, there are substantial enough differences even between humans and apes...) This bill seems to really blur the line between human and non-human with the mentioning of species...

Also, doesn't the Universal Bill of Rights prevent discrimination in future resolutions anyways? I might be wrong; perhaps it is best to reaffirm the content of that resolution, though I have heard other nations in the past refer to the Universal Bill of Rights when rejecting resolutions in the past... If I get what you're saying, which I'm probably not, you think species shouldn't be in it cause it would be referring to animals? In that case, the whole proposal is about humans and not about animals and species is ment as in race(altough I don't know if that word excists in english). Race= where you come from with about the same external features.

I think the Universal Bill of Rights prevent discrimination in nations but not in future proposals, seeing all the 'ban gay marriages'-proposals. The Universal Bill of Rights also doesn't include species, gender, skin colour and generic nature.

Well say there are two sets of people living in my country the purple island people (pip) and the blue river people (brp). Now the brp hate the pip and the pip hate the brp. When the pip get into power one member of the brp decides to plant a car bomb. The pip government use this, and your proposal to eradicate the brp.

The brp die.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?Then I should also mention in my proposal that 'All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation', which was allready mentioned in the Universal Bill of Rights. And maybe a line to prevent the gouvernment from prosecuting a whole group for a one-man-deed.

I think the Universal Bill of Rights prevent discrimination in nations but not in future proposals, seeing all the 'ban gay marriages'-proposals. The Universal Bill of Rights also doesn't include species, gender, skin colour and generic nature.

Well, the 'ban gay marriages' proposals are all illegal anyway, since two UN resolutions protect gay marriage; the mods delete them as quickly as they crop up. Most people who write proposals haven't read the past proposals, or aren't aware that you can't have repeals.

Actually, I do think it could be considered game mechanics: if we can't discriminate in proposals based on species, then we can't have a 'Human Rights' proposal, can we?

Also, doesn't it contradict the Universal Bill of Rights, which gives certain rights to human beings?

:?

In my proposal I suggest a right for human beings to be treated equal to other human beings, not only under the law. To do that you don't have to restrict any human rights, since I don't consider discriminating people as a human right. With my proposal the people still have a change to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference but they won't be allowed to do anything with discriminating views.

I think the Universal Bill of Rights prevent discrimination in nations but not in future proposals, seeing all the 'ban gay marriages'-proposals. The Universal Bill of Rights also doesn't include species, gender, skin colour and generic nature.

Well, the 'ban gay marriages' proposals are all illegal anyway, since two UN resolutions protect gay marriage; the mods delete them as quickly as they crop up. Most people who write proposals haven't read the past proposals, or aren't aware that you can't have repeals. Yes, but my proposal also prevents future proposals made to discriminate people with other features aswell.

With that definition I was trying to prevent that people make a believe of everything they do. But maybe I can let it out. If I can't, what definition would you prefer?
I'd leave it out personally, who are we to say what is right to believe. What's to stop people from worshiping football if they want? Once you say 'you can't worship that because it's not a god.' you get 'you can't worship that because it doesn’t exist' and the rep of Komokom would be made redundant…

This will not include proposals when people are included with the features mentioned are threatening the safety of citizens.


Now I really don't like this, there is far too much potential for abuse. Only in very rare cases would every citizen from a specific group would be causing trouble.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?If I'd leave it out, laws to ban nudist appearences in public wouldn't be allowed. Considering they don't physically threaten the safety of citizens it still wouldn't be allowed to ban nudist apprearences, also considering they could call it their believe. Worshiping is something different from believing and honouring I think. Worshiping can also be defined as adoring, loving something.