NationStates Jolt Archive

Esteemed Brother & Sister Nations,
_____________________________________________________________

Please lend your support to the "Selective Defense Act", a modest proposal currently on track to become a resolution in the UN.
_____________________________________________________________

We encourage the passage of this proposal for six reasons:

1. It negates UN laws requiring mandatory military spending.
2. It cuts down the amount of munitions available to terrorists.
3. It promotes world peace.
4. It respects national sovereignty.
5. It promotes liberty.
6. It is politically sane.
_____________________________________________________________

Help us repeal the infamous "Fight the Axis of Evil" law and bring some measure of civility to our war-torn planet.

Currently, all UN member states are required to mass-produce munitions. This requirement goes against the principles of peace, national sovereignty, and human sanity.
_____________________________________________________________

We do not seek to prevent nations from building weapons.

We simply feel that countries should not be forced to make them.
_____________________________________________________________

If you are a delegate, go to the listing of proposals in the UN and type "Selective Defense Act" in the search engine. When you arrive at this proposal, please vote YES.
_____________________________________________________________

If you are a UN member, please vote YES on this act in the event that it becomes a resolution.
_____________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time.

-First Among Equals (C.O.P.)

_____________________________________________________________

Help us repeal the infamous "Fight the Axis of Evil" law and bring some measure of civility to our war-torn planet.

Currently, all UN member states are required to mass-produce munitions. This requirement goes against the principles of peace, national sovereignty, and human sanity.
_____________________________________________________________

Repeals are impossible because of game mechanics.

Giordano,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World
This was a standard response.
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Brothers & Sisters in Black,

The Confederacy of Paraskev appreciates your insight.

However, we have implemented mechanical features within the legislation that specifically offset the "Fight the Axis of Evil" law (i.e., Global Disarmament: Strong).

Furthermore, the wording of the legislation renders the "Axis" law moot.

So, technically, it is not a repeal ... but, realistically, it may as well be.

-The First

So you're leaving it up to the mods to decide?

Bretheren,

We believe that the proposal is clearly worded and its gaming ramifications are clear.

There is no reason why moderator interpretation would deviate from our intent.

-The First

Repeals are impossible because of game mechanics.

Giordano,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World
This was a standard response.
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

OOC!
Okay, perhaps I have an inadequate understanding of how the game works. however, since this game is obviously a database driven web interface. When a resolution takes effect, certain game variables are altered in a way as dictated by the options chosen by the when creating a category and strength (forget the options for the drop-down menus). As I understand it, global disarmament is pretty much opposite in principle to international security (assuming security is implying an increase in military budgets) and thus must indicate an decrease in the 'military budget' variable within NS (if there is such a simplistic variable and those working the wheels behind the UI are really changing a whole lot of other variables).

If it is more simplistic then those who set the proposals in motion can then tweak variables as they see would be necessary to acheive the ends stated within a proposal. As such, by game mechanics, it is not impossible to reverse either the *effect* of a proposal or the proposal itself (since the more RECENT proposal states a change in opinion of the collective body of UN member states).

If my assumptions about the nature of how NS works are completely wrong, please disregard my commentary.

doublepost

Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions; repeal proposals or proposals supporting the repeal of past resolutions.
Words are Enodia's (gawd bless her), italics are mine.

Edited to add: I know Enodia isn't a woman, it was a reference to a Rankin book…

1) Ah, its that time of the day folks, " I See Stoopid People ! " (TM) :D

Why ? Try pasting a copy of the proposal up, for one thing. :wink:

The Selective Defense Act

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Paraskev

Description: We hereby propose that military armament be voluntary rather than compulsory. While we appreciate the need for self-defense, peaceful republics should possess the choice on whether to devote their resources to the preparations of war or to the social betterment of their civilization.

We believe that terrorism flourishes in a world where weapons are overly abundant. Forcing societies to produce weapons is not a sound policy.

Approvals: 26 (Toddamian, Boktavia, Free Fire Zones, Free Outer Eugenia, Tumaini, Asymptotic, Thermidore, Musk Ox, Concerted Socialists, AngryOppressedPeoples, Sinn Feins Ireland, Braaaiiiiins, ET Warrior, Simato, Fenris Ulf, ThatNationOverThere, Painful intrusion, Ocelotonia, Pancakes eaters, The land of Kara, Mr Tom, Knoppe, Camp Carpenter, Erehst, The Jovian Worlds, AstralisVir)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 123 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun May 23 2004

2) Better turns of phrase then mine have already said the rest. :wink:

3) People who refer to me or others in my hearing as "Bretheren" or "Brothers and Sister" for some reason, make my skin crawl, usually dragging me along with it to the nearest exit. Its an effect on me similar to the one when drunk / drugged people try to hug you, call you buddy, insist they know you, and try to scab change from you for a train fair.

Just thought I'd mention that for no particular reasoning ....

4) Personal opinion regarding proposal : :roll:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Citizens,
_____________________________________________________________

For those offended by our use of fraternal terms, we wholeheartedly apologize. It was never our intention to sicken anyone, especially someone with superior diplomatic skills and command of Emoticons.

We always bow down to those with razor wit and clearly we have met our match in the realm of international law.
_____________________________________________________________

For those who consider this legislation a "flagrant violation" of game mechanics, then please explain why this is so.

We do not believe the wording of the proposal calls for a specific repeal, so how could this document be in a state of violation?

-First Among Equals

Help us repeal the infamous "Fight the Axis of Evil" law and bring some measure of civility to our war-torn planet.

Well, one thinks this may have something to do with it.

Currently, all UN member states are required to mass-produce munitions. This requirement goes against the principles of peace, national sovereignty, and human sanity.

I disagree. Here is why :

Okay, I have a argument regarding the old "Axis + Evil" proposal, which is quite fitting I think to deal with it. First, lets look at it below, then, below it I'll put my argument.

Description: As the world becomes a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace. This means, of course, building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security.

1) This was only a test proposal. To make sure the U.N. System program stuff worked. That aside, actual proposal argument :

2) Buld lots of new weapons, + increase budgets in massive amounts for military spending. Easy.

:idea: Example 1

" Our national defence force constucted 10 new frying-pans today, a proven anti-personal weapon. This is twice , twice ! last years construction capacity, we have built 100 % extra then our last years military efforts. This brings us to a total of 300 % ! , 300 % ! military frying-pan capactity then last year. We can sleep soundly in our beds tonight. "

Lots of new weapons : Done. All 10 of them.

* Important to note, this proposal can be considered a "one time" boost. It does not order continued build-up / increased or increasing spending.

:idea: Example 2

" We increased our military budget for this year to 5 cents ! This is a whopping 500 % of our previous years budget. If this is not a truly massive increase in spending, then I'll eat the paper this proposal is not written on. "

* Once again, the one time argument can be used,see, this proposal is loop-holed so well I can easily wave it off as being 30 seconds of papaer work and a non existent press conferance.

Easy.

Big bad concern about lots of big guns blowing things up all gone.

Time for bed children.

:wink:

We simply feel that countries should not be forced to make them.

Welcome to the U.N. where everyone feels something on everything. :)

Citizens of Komokom,

Your logic is without equal and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to benefit from your experience.

So, let us get this straight.

You are saying that the "Fight the Axis of Evil" law had absolutely no game effect whatsoever because it was a test case?

Please forgive our ignorance. The terms "International Security" and "Strong" must have led us to believe that this legislation mattered.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of other UN resolutions and proposals that call for mandatory militarism. The "Selective Defense Act" was simply an attempt by us to combat the atmosphere of statist violence that is so prevalent these days.

Once again, we thank you for your input. Your wisdom is appreciated, but could you please cut back on the insults? That type of diplomatic behavior demeans both of us.

-The First

Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions; repeal proposals or proposals supporting the repeal of past resolutions.
Words are Enodia's (gawd bless her), italics are mine.

Edited to add: I know Enodia isn't a woman, it was a reference to a Rankin book…

ooc.
Is this a quote from a past resolution? or on some fundamental restriction of game mechanics. I've looked within threads in the technical section for posts on how game variables are affected that alter a nation's statistics, but I've found nothing.

the only way this could really be a serious restriction (since it would take more effort to enforce), would be if the category selections for proposals don't really do what they say they do....

g.e.
spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

Citizens of Komokom,

Actually, the speaker or representative of Komokom is "- The Rep of Komokom", my regards to you though, "- The First".

Your logic is without equal and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to benefit from your experience.

Why thank you. Uh-oh, a compliment, usually followed by some kind of complaint... :wink:

You are saying that the "Fight the Axis of Evil" law had absolutely no game effect whatsoever because it was a test case?

No, I am saying that before other, newer, players get their frilly under garments in knot, they should be aware it is not some terrible sign of the times, but was in fact simply a proposal passed to test the system. While I agree, yes, it had effects on member nations, it is probably important to note two things.

1) It only effected currrent members at that time in regards to their statistics. While es you must repect passed past international law as a member, the actual physical effects on your nation do not occur in regards to boosting military budget, raising tax, stomping on civil liberties, etc, etc, etc ...

2) I would have figured that barring being a member at the time of its passing, you could easily draw referance to my argument above in how to slip out of ts constraints. Or even make up your own. We need not repeal when loop-holes leap to provide us with adequate wriggling room I would think.

I do understand you concerns. I simply suggest a differing angle of thought.

Please forgive our ignorance. The terms "International Security" and "Strong" must have led us to believe that this legislation mattered.

Ah, blatant sarcasm, how I do so fondly remember you. :)

Nonetheless, there are plenty of other UN resolutions and proposals that call for mandatory militarism. The "Selective Defense Act" was simply an attempt by us to combat the atmosphere of statist violence that is so prevalent these days.

Thats very nice. List them if your going to draw referance to them.

Once again, we thank you for your input. Your wisdom is appreciated, but could you please cut back on the insults? That type of diplomatic behavior demeans both of us.

1) Why thank you, I hope I was able to add something constructive to all ... of this.

2) I apologise if you thought you observed insult in my earlier statement, I was simply trying to point out the affair did not seem the one of urgency and drama it was initially portrayed as.

...

And quite frankly, as for insults, you may be happy to learn it is considered quite rude, and spam, to post into other U.N. threads regarding other proposals. In fact to my memory it is spamming and something to be avoided if one wishes to be respected and heeded by your peers.

My completely respectful regards to you,

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

ooc.
Is this a quote from a past resolution? or on some fundamental restriction of game mechanics. I've looked within threads in the technical section for posts on how game variables are affected that alter a nation's statistics, but I've found nothing.

the only way this could really be a serious restriction (since it would take more effort to enforce), would be if the category selections for proposals don't really do what they say they do....

g.e.
spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

Also OOC.
It is in the big sticky at the top of the forum called 'Before you make a proposal...' It was written by a (then) moderator. It has all the rules about what a proposal should be.

Just a side note, it is generally excepted that no one likes the 'Axis of Evil' resolution it was made in a different UN, one without rules and with only two members.

And quite frankly, as for insults, you may be happy to learn it is considered quite rude, and spam, to post into other U.N. threads regarding other proposals. In fact to my memory it is spamming and something to be avoided if one wishes to be respected and heeded by your peers.


Paraskev has apologized for the spaming.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Well, then I am glad. I simply had not seen such a post. :)

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Well, then I am glad. I simply had not seen such a post. :)

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Honorable Representatives,

If any of you were offended by our recent round of aggressive lobbying, we wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologize.

As a young nation, we occasionally let our passions get the best of us.

Furthermore, we would specifically like to thank The Black New World for its tolerance and good advice.

-The First

Supporters of the Selective Defense Act,

Unfortunately, our beloved proposal never passed quorum.

However, we are eager to craft a similar piece of legislation in the future and would appreciate any assistance that you may offer.

Please feel free to contact us here at NationStates if you have any helpful suggestions.

-First Among Equals