NationStates Jolt Archive

WHEREAS most drug producing nations are not memebers of the United Nations and
WHEREAS those same nations fail to comply with the United Nations standards of decency and
WHEREAS rouge nations are a security threat to all United Nations member states

We propose that all United Nations members undermine the economies of rouge states by creating death sentences to tafficers working from rouge states and harsh penalties to citizens using drugs from rouge nations and marketing anti-rouge state propaganda in all forms of media and providing public money to subsidise local recreational drug manufactures.
I resubmitted my original proposal after fixing my few typing errors that seem to be a really big deal here, so now we might talk about the proposal and how an economic war on drugs will work much better than a military course of action.

after fixing my few typing errors that seem to be a really big deal here
Well, since the only typing error you fixed was the title, I guess we'll have to make fun of this one too.

Actually, we're making fun of this proposal because it doesn't do anything at all about drug use, you've coded a BAN proposal as PROMOTE, and you've designed it to affect only non-UN members. In short, there are no redeeming qualities to this proposal at all.

That's why we make fun of such proposals, LLJK.

Damn! You didn't leave anything for me to make fun of the proposal for, Frisbee. :(

Also, it lacks a definition of "rouge [rogue] states", so I could declare all other nations rogue nations as a protectionist move for my own drug producers.

Well, since the only typing error you fixed was the title, I guess we'll have to make fun of this one too.

Actually, we're making fun of this proposal because it doesn't do anything at all about drug use, you've coded a BAN proposal as PROMOTE, and you've designed it to affect only non-UN members. In short, there are no redeeming qualities to this proposal at all.

That's why we make fun of such proposals, LLJK.
Ok, next time read the proposal before getting your panties in a bundle because if I remember correctly I did talk about promoting drug use in UN member nations. If you want to make fun of the proposal, do so because it's hurting rogue states by mandating funding from drug manufacturing in UN member states, not because I made a typo of "rouge" instead of "rogue."

Also, it lacks a definition of "rouge [rogue] states", so I could declare all other nations rogue nations as a protectionist move for my own drug producers.
and?

Ok, next time read the proposal before getting your panties in a bundle because if I remember correctly I did talk about promoting drug use in UN member nations. If you want to make fun of the proposal, do so because it's hurting rogue states by mandating funding from drug manufacturing in UN member states, not because I made a typo of "rouge" instead of "rogue."
I have no idea what you're talking about. Not here, not in the proposal, not anywhere. Nothing you have stated so far makes sense. I don't knkow if it's your lack of commas and semicolons, or if in fact it's a lack of underlying clarity in your post, but I really have no idea what it is you are proposing here.

It's not clear.
There is nothing refering to 'mandates'
It's coded wrong (I think - how is this going to PROMOTE drug use?)

I'm delighted when somebody new comes here to defend their proposals and is willing to respond to critics, but so far all you've done is say that all the criticism is without merit, except for the typos. This proposal has much more serious issues than typos. When are you going to answer the questions that have been asked?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Not here, not in the proposal, not anywhere. Nothing you have stated so far makes sense. I don't knkow if it's your lack of commas and semicolons, or if in fact it's a lack of underlying clarity in your post, but I really have no idea what it is you are proposing here.

It's not clear.
There is nothing refering to 'mandates'
It's coded wrong (I think - how is this going to PROMOTE drug use?)

I'm delighted when somebody new comes here to defend their proposals and is willing to respond to critics, but so far all you've done is say that all the criticism is without merit, except for the typos. This proposal has much more serious issues than typos. When are you going to answer the questions that have been asked?
Here is an easy to read list of all the things this proposal is going to do. I know paragraphs can be confusing sometimes so I'm going to break it up for you:

create death sentences to tafficers working from rouge states

create harsh penalties to citizens using drugs from rouge nations

market anti-rouge state propaganda in all forms of media

provide public money to subsidise local recreational drug manufactures.


As you can see there are really 4 proposals rolled into one, however I coded the proposal as the last one on the list since I believe it will have the most drastic effect.

The Armed Republic of Dirtyfrank legalized recreational drugs and manufactures them just as well. I am quite sure other countries do the same....as to believe they didn't would be ignorant.

I know paragraphs can be confusing sometimes .
Totally unpunctuated paragraphs are pretty much considered confusing all the time. Thank you for breaking it into actual concepts. Now I can actually see it to tear it apart.
Ignoring the fact that we still don't know what rouge states and tafficers actually are, and ignoring the fact that many nations in the UN abhor the very concept of the death penalty, what exactly does it mean when you say 'working from rouge states'?
Does it mean if a trafficer sends me a package of ... (uhh, yet another thing you failed to define) ... from another nation, we get to go in and kill him? Does the other country have any say in the matter? Or does he have to be in MY country to get the death penalty, in which case he's not exactly 'working from rouge states'?
Having killed the 'tafficer', we have to now track down and imprison or kill all the people who would have bought his product?
Now we're going to advertise via 'propaganda' (defined as: information, allegations, or opinions that are deliberately and methodically disseminated to promote or attack a particular doctrine, movement, nation, or the like.), without regard to truth, to a non-existent customer base, for a product (still undefined) whose very possession can carry the death sentence?
And incidentally, the first three points quite specifically qualify as a BAN of drugs, not PROMOTION of drugs ... assuming it is drugs we're talking about still.
Until we get to the last point, where it encourages the puchase of homegrown products, which unlike the identical foreign product, are a GOOD thing.
Finally, since this proposal actually violates UN proposal rules by being both FOR and AGAINST an issue in one horribly phrased paragraph, there's a very good chance you'll have this proposal deleted ... and quite possibly find yourself without a UN tag from which to promote more of the same.
Dos that adequately answer your questions, sir?

Totally unpunctuated paragraphs are pretty much considered confusing all the time. Thank you for breaking it into actual concepts. Now I can actually see it to tear it apart.
Ignoring the fact that we still don't know what rouge states and tafficers actually are, and ignoring the fact that many nations in the UN abhor the very concept of the death penalty, what exactly does it mean when you say 'working from rouge states'?
Does it mean if a trafficer sends me a package of ... (uhh, yet another thing you failed to define) ... from another nation, we get to go in and kill him? Does the other country have any say in the matter? Or does he have to be in MY country to get the death penalty, in which case he's not exactly 'working from rouge states'?
Having killed the 'tafficer', we have to now track down and imprison or kill all the people who would have bought his product?
Now we're going to advertise via 'propaganda' (defined as: information, allegations, or opinions that are deliberately and methodically disseminated to promote or attack a particular doctrine, movement, nation, or the like.), without regard to truth, to a non-existent customer base, for a product (still undefined) whose very possession can carry the death sentence?
And incidentally, the first three points quite specifically qualify as a BAN of drugs, not PROMOTION of drugs ... assuming it is drugs we're talking about still.
Until we get to the last point, where it encourages the puchase of homegrown products, which unlike the identical foreign product, are a GOOD thing.
Finally, since this proposal actually violates UN proposal rules by being both FOR and AGAINST an issue in one horribly phrased paragraph, there's a very good chance you'll have this proposal deleted ... and quite possibly find yourself without a UN tag from which to promote more of the same.
Dos that adequately answer your questions, sir?

I thought this was a game. :confused: I know that if this was a piece of legislation in a real government body it would have every point spelled out but you can't seriously expect that in an online game; you can't even read and comprend a short paragraph how do you think you'd react to a 15 page document?

I thought this proposal was fairly straight forward; work to eliminate the economic backbone of rogue states(drugs) by executing trafficers from those states(AS IN SOMEONE BRINGING DRUGS FROM THE ROGUE STATE TO YOUR COUNTRY); punish citizens that use drugs that come from rogue states; inform users that using drugs from rogue nations is bad; and subsidize drug manufacturers in UN member nations.

So far all of those goals have been either a) anti-drugs from ROUGE STATES or b) pro-drugs from UN MEMBER NATIONS

Since you said yourself that proposals only effect UN member nations, it would be stupid to call this a ban on drugs, since the ban only effects states outside of the UN; however it does PROMOTE drug manufacturers inside the UN nations.

Since there's no point in trying to apply logic to utter illogic, I'll just end with this: Go read these two essential Stickys.

United Nations Resolution Writing Guide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360)

Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176)

Since there's no point in trying to apply logic to utter illogic, I'll just end with this: Go read these two essential Stickys.

United Nations Resolution Writing Guide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360)

Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176)
What's your point? That I DARED to write a proposal before asking the forums permission first?

This message is hidden because LLJK is on your ignore list..

If only it were possible to mask the U.N. proposal list from the eyes of the public in a similar fashion when it comes to certain " proposals " Fris, ;)

What's your point? That I DARED to write a proposal before asking the forums permission first?

I believe Frisbeeteria's point is that you're more likly to get support for your proposal if you submit it here on the forum as a draft before submitting it to the delegates.

Now as for my opnion on your proposal, as a rogue nation, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites cannot support this proposal, and firmly believes that all drug laws should remain as they are now, the sole discretion of the individual nations.

The DSH rejects this proposal. It is our opinion that the death penalty should not be forced upon UN member states.

Incidentally, what about nations within the UN which happen to have a booming drugs trade?

Maybe we should draft a UN proposal to filter goontopia* from the NS universe

I believe Frisbeeteria's point is that you're more likly to get support for your proposal if you submit it here on the forum as a draft before submitting it to the delegates.

Now as for my opnion on your proposal, as a rogue nation, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites cannot support this proposal, and firmly believes that all drug laws should remain as they are now, the sole discretion of the individual nations.

I gotta call BS on this one. There are any number of bogus/useless/crap UN proposals that have been passed without ever seeing the light of day in here.

I gotta call BS on this one. There are any number of bogus/useless/crap UN proposals that have been passed without ever seeing the light of day in here.
I said that it was more likely not that it was necessary.

I saw Frisbeetaria's post as dealing with more than the grammatical issues of this proposal. First attempt was to pick away at some of the logical arguments made by Frisbeeteria. I would like to add these.

1. I still see no resolution to the issue of the death penalty. While the UN has made laws prohibiting actions, it does not make a habit of dictating punishment for such actions. When it does, it does NOT dictate the use of punishment that is as debatable as the death penalty. I was under the impression that it is STILL the right of UN member nations to dictate punishment for broken laws.

2. This proposal seeks to impose on non-member nations. That is actually catagorizable as 2 ways that it fails to meet UN standards.
Since you said yourself that proposals only effect UN member nations, it would be stupid to call this a ban on drugs, since the ban only effects states outside of the UN; however it does PROMOTE drug manufacturers inside the UN nations.

This seems to deem law applied to non-members, which is outside the jurisdiction of the UN. Therefore, this proposal is illegal in its general scope.

It also selectively targets nations, being that they are not members, and imposes punishment against only their citizens. Therefore, this proposal is illegal in its specific scope.

By those standards, I would say that this proposal has no hope of ever being considered proper or acceptable in its current standards.

I believe Frisbeeteria's point is that you're more likly to get support for your proposal if you submit it here on the forum as a draft before submitting it to the delegates.
That was part of it, for sure. Other parts included including proper definitions for what was being proposed, laying it out in a clear and readable format, and abiding by the rules of the UN. Since one of my concerns was that it appeared to only penalize non-UN nations, it was clearly illegal in scope and stature.

Fact is, LLJK learned from his first two proposals and his latter one on child pornography has metamorphed into something resembling a proper resolution. We still don't support it, but now we'll argue about it based on our national beliefs, rather than tearing apart its structure.

We still don't support it, but now we'll argue about it based on our national beliefs, rather than tearing apart its structure.

You don't support it because you fail to see that the implimintation of the act still lies with each member nation, giving freedom to each state to determine age and punishment is acceptable to them. The proposal only mandates ACTION on the issue, not the specific details. It mandates UN States cannot stand without implimenting some ban on child pornography, whether that breaking that ban results in crusifiction of a slap on the wrist is up to the Nation to decide.

Maybe we should draft a UN proposal to filter goontopia* from the NS universe

tekania, we should. i already created several goontopia regions, by going ahead of them and continuing their number count. for example, i created goontopia22. please visit. if it is not against the rules, which i think it is, maybe we should write such a proposal, but not be so specific. but these goonies are getting serious.

tekania, we should. i already created several goontopia regions, by going ahead of them and continuing their number count. for example, i created goontopia22. please visit. if it is not against the rules, which i think it is, maybe we should write such a proposal, but not be so specific. but these goonies are getting serious.

:rolleyes:

WHEREAS most drug producing nations are not memebers of the United Nations and

Well... okay, since most nations aren't UN members, it follows that most drug producers aren't UN members. But we produce drugs, and we're UN members. So what?

WHEREAS those same nations fail to comply with the United Nations standards of decency and

What, the UN has standards of decency? What about that guy who always runs into the voting hall naked? Sorry, but when I heard the word "standards of decency", I always think of those idiots who got so mad about Janet Jackson's right tit.

WHEREAS rouge nations are a security threat to all United Nations member states

Yes, if they stop exporting, some women will be uglier. Couldn't agree more.

We propose that all United Nations members undermine the economies of rouge states by creating death sentences

Oh no, you don't.

to tafficers working from rouge states and harsh penalties to citizens using drugs from rouge nations

So drugs are bad if they come from nations which manufacture cosmetics?

and marketing anti-rouge state propaganda in all forms of media

Why should we be against rouge states? Or rogue states, for that matter. How are you going to decide who's a rogue state? You're going to need a better reason for us to start inserting obnoxious propaganda ads into our local media.

and providing public money to subsidise local recreational drug manufactures.

For what? How does that help? More likely those guys will take the subsidy money and buy a new Learjet.

words
OH boy aren't you king komedy talking about a proposal that's been dead for days!

Well I just saw it today, and I apologise unreservedly for any distress I caused you.

Ok, this is my 2 cents. First of all, you mention drugs coming from rogue states. How is this gonna be determined? You just ask the druggie, and he tells you the dealer's name, who tells you his dealer's name and so on and so forth up the chain? If everyone was so willing to cooperate, seems like there wouldn't be much of a drug problem in the 1st place. Not to metion it would create a huge bureaucracy to research the origin of the drugs. And what about cases when domestic and foreign drugs are mixed together?

The second issue is that you seem to be going after non-UN member drug-producing nations. So if the drugs come from a UN member nation it's ok?? Sounds like making the UN into a huge drug cartel then. And the whole idea of a UN resolution to deal with non-UN members seems pointless.

WHEREAS most drug producing nations are not memebers of the United Nations and
WHEREAS those same nations fail to comply with the United Nations standards of decency and
WHEREAS rouge nations are a security threat to all United Nations member states

Either illegal or suicidal. The UN has no power over nonmembers. And those "rouge" states number 2/3 of the nations on NS.

We propose that all United Nations members undermine the economies of rouge states by creating death sentences to tafficers working from rouge states and harsh penalties to citizens using drugs from rouge nations and marketing anti-rouge state propaganda in all forms of media and providing public money to subsidise local recreational drug manufactures.

So, in effect, you're going to undermine them by selling drugs in your own nation? Riiight. It doesn't fix the problem, only shift it.

I resubmitted my original proposal after fixing my few typing errors that seem to be a really big deal here, so now we might talk about the proposal and how an economic war on drugs will work much better than a military course of action.

Rouge is a color. Most nations are not red.

Ok, next time read the proposal before getting your panties in a bundle because if I remember correctly I did talk about promoting drug use in UN member nations. If you want to make fun of the proposal, do so because it's hurting rogue states by mandating funding from drug manufacturing in UN member states, not because I made a typo of "rouge" instead of "rogue."

It's not hurting them at all. Most of them sell to fellow "rogue" nations anyway and the loss of the UN wouldn't be that big of a deal. Besides, there are many nations in the UN, including one of my puppets, where recreational drug use is allowed far beyond anything an outside source can produce. Hell, I have drugs you haven't even invented yet being sold in my territory.

Here is an easy to read list of all the things this proposal is going to do. I know paragraphs can be confusing sometimes so I'm going to break it up for you:
create death sentences to tafficers working from rouge states

create harsh penalties to citizens using drugs from rouge nations

market anti-rouge state propaganda in all forms of media

provide public money to subsidise local recreational drug manufactures.

As you can see there are really 4 proposals rolled into one, however I coded the proposal as the last one on the list since I believe it will have the most drastic effect.

This is why I'm responding so harshly.

1) That brings questions of civil rights violations up.
2) Rogue, not rouge. Also, this creates plenty of problems, as how are you going to identify whether or not it came from another nation?
3) Sarkarasetan word for "propaganda" is Tekanto. It literally means "orbital bombardment with weapons of mass destruction." I'll let you guess why. BTW, you mind if I distribute propaganda against your nation just for the hell of it?
4) This only increases the problem, not decreasing it.

I thought this was a game. I know that if this was a piece of legislation in a real government body it would have every point spelled out but you can't seriously expect that in an online game; you can't even read and comprend a short paragraph how do you think you'd react to a 15 page document?

Actually, yes, we can. We can read and comprehend. If there is an actual meaning beyond trying to get the UN nuked or get it hit with economic and drug problems enough to sink it, you should have put it in there.

I thought this proposal was fairly straight forward; work to eliminate the economic backbone of rogue states(drugs) by executing trafficers from those states(AS IN SOMEONE BRINGING DRUGS FROM THE ROGUE STATE TO YOUR COUNTRY); punish citizens that use drugs that come from rogue states; inform users that using drugs from rogue nations is bad; and subsidize drug manufacturers in UN member nations.

It is. It just doesn't actually do a damn thing to most rogue states. Most of them don't traffic in drugs. Most of them traffic in weapons. In fact, I was going to buy some lovely biological agents from one, but couldn't find any I liked.

So far all of those goals have been either a) anti-drugs from ROUGE STATES or b) pro-drugs from UN MEMBER NATIONS

Meh. I've beaten this dead horse enough. See above.

Since you said yourself that proposals only effect UN member nations, it would be stupid to call this a ban on drugs, since the ban only effects states outside of the UN; however it does PROMOTE drug manufacturers inside the UN nations.

By affecting those outside the UN it moves beyond the powers of what the UN is supposed to do. That's the problem.

What's your point? That I DARED to write a proposal before asking the forums permission first?

No, that you obviously hadn't read the rules.

You don't support it because you fail to see that the implimintation of the act still lies with each member nation, giving freedom to each state to determine age and punishment is acceptable to them. The proposal only mandates ACTION on the issue, not the specific details. It mandates UN States cannot stand without implimenting some ban on child pornography, whether that breaking that ban results in crusifiction of a slap on the wrist is up to the Nation to decide.

You don't call "death sentences" a specific detail? Or the propaganda item? Maybe we need a ban on drugs instead.

OH boy aren't you king komedy talking about a proposal that's been dead for days!

People are still talking about the Gay Rights resolution, and it was passed over a year ago.

Well, at least they ran out of rouge....