NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm thinking "Social Justice" and "significant".



SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions;

NOTING the ongoing work which may result in the global decision of the sentience of the cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc);

ACCEPTING the possibility of discoveries of extraterrestrial life through the works of the UN Space Consortium (created by the resolution of similar name);

DEEPLY DISTURBED by rumors of bestiality among the various nations;

AND IN VIEW of the Resolutions “BioRights Declaration” and the “Rights of Minorities and Women”;

THE UN HEREBY RESOLVES:

Article I: The words “Human” and “Human Being” shall apply equally to all residents of any UN member nation who have demonstrated sentience.

Article II: “Sentience” shall be defined as “having demonstrated self-awareness and the capacity for abstract thought and reasoning”.

Article III: A roster of all beings having demonstrated sentience shall be kept on permanent record in the UN.

Article IV: Any member of a species upon the record shall be considered "sentient" for purposes of Article I.

Article V: No UN Member Nation may accept as “members” and/or “people” and/or “humans” and/or "citizens" any member of any race that is not recorded as sentient upon the record noted in Article III, nor may they have the rights of such conditions given to them, unless and until such time as the record is amended to include said species.

Article VI: The UN does not recognize any race as not recorded as sentient as per Article III as a "person" and/or "human" and/or "human being" for purposes of enforcement of the many UN Resolutions using those words in their verbiage.

ADDENDUM:
The UN Roster at the time of this proposal becoming a Resolution shall include
"Homo Sapiens" as a Sentient Race.


Everyone into the pool - lets hear it.

No UN Member Nation may accept as “members” and/or “people” and/or “humans” any member of any race that is not recorded as sentient upon the record noted in Article III, unless and until such time as the record is amended to include said species.

So, if my government deems a citizen of my nation as a "member" or "person" or "citizen," but is not deemed "sentient" by the UN, then, they do not have any rights in my country? That's how I understand Article IV.

About time.
Probably would have tried this myself, had I not been turned off by the 10+ attempts to bring Habeas Corpus to quorum while other, much less well-thought out proposals got through on the first time.

First edit, thanks Tuesday.

(modification of Article V)

Looks good, Vastiva. Good luck with it...

BTW, check your telegram box.

About time.
Probably would have tried this myself, had I not been turned off by the 10+ attempts to bring Habeas Corpus to quorum while other, much less well-thought out proposals got through on the first time.

Hey, watch it there bub. ;)

Some of us who got in resolutions in that time like to think that our resolutions were well-thought out too! And the only time I've seen a proposal rocket through the queue on a single try was the Epidemic Prevention Protocol. Which for the record actually did go through a draft debate / revision phase here in the UN forum as well. The two authors just did perhaps one of the best campaigning jobs I've seen (too bad one of the authors got zapped out of the UN). :(

But I am not going to pretend to know all. What proposals do you think made it to the floor in a single shot? (Open to anybody.)

Article 1 & 2: Demonstrated sentience= demonstrated "the capacity for abstract thought and reasoning" ?
By whose standards are these measured? Does an species lacking "communication" have a chance at being considered sentient or sapient? What is the accepted communication standard for any sentient or sapient species?
These are especially of concern in nations dealing with non-Earth species.

Mentally retarded persons are not always capable of these.
On the same manner, some primates have been able to meet this standard.

Now, your definition sentience is improper.
For a better understanding see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
Also see the article on Sapience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

Article 1 & 2: Demonstrated sentience= demonstrated "the capacity for abstract thought and reasoning" ?
By whose standards are these measured? Does an species lacking "communication" have a chance at being considered sentient or sapient? What is the accepted communication standard for any sentient or sapient species?
These are especially of concern in nations dealing with non-Earth species.

Mentally retarded persons are not always capable of these.
On the same manner, some primates have been able to meet this standard.

Now, your definition sentience is improper.
For a better understanding see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
Also see the article on Sapience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

First, it's a racial designation, not an individual one.

Second, it's my definition, and I'll make it anything I want to, nyah (for proof, see "DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE"). When you make a resolution, you can define whatever you want, however you want. This one is mine, and that is how I define it. If you can find a better standard - as in "if you want to pick it apart, fine, but prove you've got something better in its place or you're pissing upwind".

You want to shoot out parts, or tell me more should be there, fine - but put it to words to be included, or hush yer meaningless ramble. ;)

Definition of reputable source:

WHEREAS these debates serve as enlightenment for some

RECOGNIZING that UN Member Nations engage in debate basing their knowledge on a website that can be edited by anyone and everyone

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that such a resource is often incorrect and not credible

REALIZING that this contributes to a false sense of knowledge in many instances

THEREFORE be it resolved by the UN that Wikipedia be banned as a source of information in UN discussions

Definition of reputable source:

WHEREAS these debates serve as enlightenment for some

RECOGNIZING that UN Member Nations engage in debate basing their knowledge on a website that can be edited by anyone and everyone

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that such a resource is often incorrect and not credible

REALIZING that this contributes to a false sense of knowledge in many instances

THEREFORE be it resolved by the UN that Wikipedia be banned as a source of information in UN discussions

I dares ya to submit that!

Heck, I'd vote AYE.

Well, the pagans within the Holy Empire will again be able to sacrifice infants.

I dares ya to submit that!

Heck, I'd vote AYE.

Why not. I think I will.

Hey, watch it there bub. ;)

Some of us who got in resolutions in that time like to think that our resolutions were well-thought out too! And the only time I've seen a proposal rocket through the queue on a single try was the Epidemic Prevention Protocol. Which for the record actually did go through a draft debate / revision phase here in the UN forum as well. The two authors just did perhaps one of the best campaigning jobs I've seen (too bad one of the authors got zapped out of the UN). :(

But I am not going to pretend to know all. What proposals do you think made it to the floor in a single shot? (Open to anybody.)
Ah, don't worry Mik. Just a mini-rant of mine, which probably had more to do with my not wanting to mass TG lots of people than anything else. Not intended to be insulting.

...and he will, yanno.

First, it's a racial designation, not an individual one.

Second, it's my definition, and I'll make it anything I want to, nyah (for proof, see "DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE"). When you make a resolution, you can define whatever you want, however you want. This one is mine, and that is how I define it. If you can find a better standard - as in "if you want to pick it apart, fine, but prove you've got something better in its place or you're pissing upwind".

You want to shoot out parts, or tell me more should be there, fine - but put it to words to be included, or hush yer meaningless ramble.

First off: YOU asked for feedback on the issue. I gave it to you.
Secondly: I gave you 2 terms that are highly interchanged in definitions such as yours, but according to several dictionaries... NONE are appropriate for THIS discussion.
Thirdly, you may have intended for the definition to be specific but you did not actually specify that it was such. (see specific definition, second application http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/specific )
Lastly, I pointed out HOW your definitions IS inadequate in defining your intentions... which I understand greatly. However, I am not in the mood to scour sources for better definitions to be applied. its not -my- job to do so, as I am not the one pushing through the legislation.

And btw:
I -chose- wikipedia for the sole reasoning that I thought it -might- help jumpstart your brain into finding other ways to say what you wanted to say (as well as help others understand the difference between sapience and sentience). I double-checked the definitions with those of M-W, dictionary.com, and hyper-dictionary.com to ensure that they were indeed a correct article.

Irrelevant.

Within the proposal itself is the definition to be used in the proposal, for purposes of enforcement.

What the rest of the world calls it is not relevant.

However, thank you for the feedback.

The definition argument still applies.

How is a species termed to be sentient by your standards?
What protocols do you suggest we use to determine a species ability for such things?
And in the case of "racial" determination, what if some countries define the mentally retarded (as a racial whole) as being inhuman because they are not sentient based on your terms? What about species that are still 'bestial' in nature, but are 'sentient' based on your definition?

This just in, Mentally disabled may be new source of legal Slave Labor in UN Nations!

A proposal suggestion was presented recently that will allow...

The definition argument still applies.

How is a species termed to be sentient by your standards?
What protocols do you suggest we use to determine a species ability for such things?
And in the case of "racial" determination, what if some countries define the mentally retarded (as a racial whole) as being inhuman because they are not sentient based on your terms? What about species that are still 'bestial' in nature, but are 'sentient' based on your definition?

How about we let ourselves keep the loopholes...

Whited Fields: the mentally ill are already protected under the 'Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill' resolution.

IC: The Councillors of Enn are especially pleased that they will finally be officially able to have access to the vast list of human rights, and that they will be able to reveal their only part-human nature. They also make clear that, should this fail to become resolution, this message never happened.

The definition argument still applies.

How is a species termed to be sentient by your standards?

Make a suggestion to be placed into the draft.



What protocols do you suggest we use to determine a species ability for such things?

Ibid.



And in the case of "racial" determination, what if some countries define the mentally retarded (as a racial whole) as being inhuman because they are not sentient based on your terms? What about species that are still 'bestial' in nature, but are 'sentient' based on your definition?

Difficult, as the UN could decide its one race, mentally retarded inclusive. However, you point out a worthy point - so what would you add?

And we have Kzinti visit our nation on occasion, and would not dare call them "nonsentient", even though their table manners make goats look civilized.

This brings up "what is beastiality?", which we see as "the act of sexual congress with a nonsentient animal". How does that work for you.

Whited Fields: the mentally ill are already protected under the 'Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill' resolution.

IC: The Councillors of Enn are especially pleased that they will finally be officially able to have access to the vast list of human rights, and that they will be able to reveal their only part-human nature. They also make clear that, should this fail to become resolution, this message never happened.

Good, so Vastiva can put you down for support and aid in the TG barrages?

--nvmd this post--

More to come upon further examination of the changes suggested

Keep the loopholes then.
I agree with the intention of this proposal, but not as it is currently written.

And unless it is presented in a clearer manner, I will not support it. Additionally, my arguments will be presented to in an attempt to defeat said legislation until such time as the intention of the proposal is met with proper definition or is yanked from the table.

Put down some clauses, Whited Fields. If you can make it better, demonstrate. If they do make it better, I'll add them.

The definitional, however, must remain as is. If you can find a better word for what I'm attempting, I'll change it. But the definition itself stays as is.

It is our hope a compromise point can be reached.

With this definition, the mentally ill can still serve as a slave labor force so long as they are treated humanely:clothed, sheltered, fed, and not forced to do inhumane work.

Whited Fields: Vastiva quite specifically asked for you to suggest additions to the draft. I don't understand why you are opposing it without first trying to do so.

Vastiva: Err... don't put me down too soon. I won't be around much on the weekend, won't be able to take part in mass TGs until Monday at least. But if you want I can provide a list of delegates who supported Habeas Corpus in several different attempts. Hope that helps. (I won't put the list up here as it is massive, but I can put it onto my board)

With this definition, the mentally ill can still serve as a slave labor force so long as they are treated humanely:clothed, sheltered, fed, and not forced to do inhumane work.

The race is defined as sentient or not. Not the individuals. See Article IV.

Whited Fields: Vastiva quite specifically asked for you to suggest additions to the draft. I don't understand why you are opposing it without first trying to do so.

Vastiva: Err... don't put me down too soon. I won't be around much on the weekend, won't be able to take part in mass TGs until Monday at least. But if you want I can provide a list of delegates who supported Habeas Corpus in several different attempts. Hope that helps. (I won't put the list up here as it is massive, but I can put it onto my board)

I'm going to let this go for awhile in Draft, make a formal "Final Draft", then submit it. Give everyone lots of time to chew it around.

2nd Edit - added Article VI.

And don't TG me, demmit - Post Here.

That's the last TG I'm accepting about this and not reposting here in entirety.

As I have said, Im not wanting to write someone else's resolution. Thats why I havent taken a crack at adding articles to it.

But since it seems I am being asked to do so... repeatedly... I wanted to clarify something about the intentions of this resolution. After that clarification, I will submit some time to attempting to better define sentience.

What 'sentient', yet still animalistic 'species' are you wanting to include as a possibility of marriage?
You specifically mentioned whales and dolphins as possibly being considered sentient and there is also work in this field with primates. Are you foreseeing and agreeing that "humans" should be allowed to marry/mate with any of these earthly creatures or their counterparts from non-earth cultures?

We have a Space Consortium.

We accept the possibility of aliens.

We already know there are clones, we accept there may be cyborgs.

IF - broad if - Whales are Sentient, are they not deserving of the same protections?

[Quote]Article I: The words “Human” and “Human Being” shall apply equally to all residents of any UN member nation who have demonstrated sentience.

Article III: A roster of all beings having demonstrated sentience shall be kept on permanent record in the UN.

Article IV: Any member of a species upon the record shall be considered "sentient" for purposes of Article I.

Articles I and III give an ora of it applying at the individual level.
But, if applies to the species, as Article IV stipulates, that is doubleplusgood and AP will vote for the resolution.

We have a Space Consortium.

We accept the possibility of aliens.

We already know there are clones, we accept there may be cyborgs.

IF - broad if - Whales are Sentient, are they not deserving of the same protections?

It would be a duty of care until they are capable of excercising their rights without a representative.

[Quote]Article I: The words “Human” and “Human Being” shall apply equally to all residents of any UN member nation who have demonstrated sentience.

Article III: A roster of all beings having demonstrated sentience shall be kept on permanent record in the UN.

Article IV: Any member of a species upon the record shall be considered "sentient" for purposes of Article I.

Articles I and III give an ora of it applying at the individual level.
But, if applies to the species, as Article IV stipulates, that is doubleplusgood and AP will vote for the resolution.

IV sticks it at racial level.

And you're welcome. :D

It would be a duty of care until they are capable of excercising their rights without a representative.

Go ahead and write up the article, skippy.

Go ahead and write up the article, skippy.
Out of character: I am... I am... target is three years.

Above remark on exercising rights was taken from Roe v Wade.
An interesting comment that annoys animal rights activists in the states.

Ok: In a brief search for information on sentience, I discovered a thread on another site. I will post a bit of -one- person's attempted definition and we can go from there.

Sentient beings are evolving creatures: able to adapt to their environment, shaping it purposefully to manifest their internal desires, searching for a dream and fullfilling a destiny.
http://deoxy.org/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=2&Board=hyperspace&Number=11543&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5%E2%88%82=2

Now, I know that this isnt a "reputable" source definition, but I do believe that it is a nice attempt at a summary definition of sentience that is applicable to all manner of species.


I can not offer ANYTHING in regards to my question of standards.
This is simply because I do not have enough knowledge about non-earth species to even hazard a guess. And in my own little world, primates and cetereans are not human and do not deserve the same classifications as humans.
In fact, to me, I believe that if a human (my limited definition, not yours) must use science to alter the natural DNA structures in order to produce offspring with another species, then they shouldnt be having kids anyway.

Don't worry whited fields, there are persons who have spent their entire lives trying to define what a person is.

it has my support! ^_^

Ok: In a brief search for information on sentience, I discovered a thread on another site. I will post a bit of -one- person's attempted definition and we can go from there.

Sentient beings are evolving creatures: able to adapt to their environment, shaping it purposefully to manifest their internal desires, searching for a dream and fullfilling a destiny.
http://deoxy.org/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=2&Board=hyperspace&Number=11543&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5%E2%88%82=2

Now, I know that this isnt a "reputable" source definition, but I do believe that it is a nice attempt at a summary definition of sentience that is applicable to all manner of species.


I can not offer ANYTHING in regards to my question of standards.
This is simply because I do not have enough knowledge about non-earth species to even hazard a guess. And in my own little world, primates and cetereans are not human and do not deserve the same classifications as humans.
In fact, to me, I believe that if a human (my limited definition, not yours) must use science to alter the natural DNA structures in order to produce offspring with another species, then they shouldnt be having kids anyway.

Uhm, nothing is said about having offspring.

Ok: In a brief search for information on sentience, I discovered a thread on another site. I will post a bit of -one- person's attempted definition and we can go from there.

Sentient beings are evolving creatures: able to adapt to their environment, shaping it purposefully to manifest their internal desires, searching for a dream and fullfilling a destiny.
http://deoxy.org/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=2&Board=hyperspace&Number=11543&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5%E2%88%82=2

Now, I know that this isnt a "reputable" source definition, but I do believe that it is a nice attempt at a summary definition of sentience that is applicable to all manner of species.


I can not offer ANYTHING in regards to my question of standards.
This is simply because I do not have enough knowledge about non-earth species to even hazard a guess. And in my own little world, primates and cetereans are not human and do not deserve the same classifications as humans.
In fact, to me, I believe that if a human (my limited definition, not yours) must use science to alter the natural DNA structures in order to produce offspring with another species, then they shouldnt be having kids anyway.

Well, you could defend that sort of mucking around under Resolution #2... but the offspring would not be "human", and could be made the subject of angry mobs easily enough.

And if someone wants to get into the "but its genetically close" arguement, put up exactly at what point the separation of DNA makes a different species.

No, but I make an assumption that this resolution is an attempt to better define certain aspects of the definition of marriage resolution that already passed.

And while I do not wholly equate marriage with the production of off-spring, I do think that in the case if inter-species marriages, that such abilities should be considered. If one of my humans did want to get married to a non-human species, I would want to consider whether they (being my citizens and the species they wanted to marry) were capable of having offspring without cellular scientific assistance. Again, this is in my limited view of what constitutes humans. The world of non-earth species does not enter the scope, since they dont exist within my borders. (Perhaps yours, but not mine.)

I have no qualms with 'humans' marrying non-earth species.
I have significant qualms about humans marrying (and attempting to mate with) Earthly non-human species. (That goes back to my limited definition of human)

How about changing human and human beings to sentient beings, then define sentience?

No, but I make an assumption that this resolution is an attempt to better define certain aspects of the definition of marriage resolution that already passed.

And while I do not wholly equate marriage with the production of off-spring, I do think that in the case if inter-species marriages, that such abilities should be considered. If one of my humans did want to get married to a non-human species, I would want to consider whether they (being my citizens and the species they wanted to marry) were capable of having offspring without cellular scientific assistance. Again, this is in my limited view of what constitutes humans. The world of non-earth species does not enter the scope, since they dont exist within my borders. (Perhaps yours, but not mine.)

I have no qualms with 'humans' marrying non-earth species.
I have significant qualms about humans marrying (and attempting to mate with) Earthly non-human species. (That goes back to my limited definition of human)

How about changing human and human beings to sentient beings, then define sentience?

Then it does not expand the Human Rights Resolution, which is the purpose of the whole thing.

No, but I make an assumption that this resolution is an attempt to better define certain aspects of the definition of marriage resolution that already passed.

No, this this an attempt to ward off certain possibilities.



And while I do not wholly equate marriage with the production of off-spring, I do think that in the case if inter-species marriages, that such abilities should be considered. If one of my humans did want to get married to a non-human species, I would want to consider whether they (being my citizens and the species they wanted to marry) were capable of having offspring without cellular scientific assistance. Again, this is in my limited view of what constitutes humans. The world of non-earth species does not enter the scope, since they dont exist within my borders. (Perhaps yours, but not mine.)

I have no qualms with 'humans' marrying non-earth species.
I have significant qualms about humans marrying (and attempting to mate with) Earthly non-human species. (That goes back to my limited definition of human)

How about changing human and human beings to sentient beings, then define sentience?

Because of what the bill seeks to do.

In UN Resolutions, the words "human" and "human being" appear. If you don't want Fido added to being acceptable - and therefore protected - by those resolutions, such a manifesting would appear necessary, no?

And why does offspring have to be such priority? Consider - scientists discover dolphins are sentient, along with other cetaceans.

It is ridiculous to assume man would want to have children with dolphins. It would indeed require genetic manipulation.

Does that "too distant from humans DNA" mean you define them as nonsentient? In other words, are you saying "only that which is genetically close to humans can be sentient"?

Ok, I was offering that last part based on your previous argument that real world definitions of sentience and sapience dont matter. We are defining sentience for the purposes of this resolution.

If it concerns you that "too far from human" argument may be applied, the how about you:
1. Recognize that humans and human beings are sentient beings
2. Define sentient beings

Then with your other articles that include that other species may be considered sentient, you have already made provisions for their inclusion in the definition as sentient beings. Therefore all you would have to do is define sentient beings.

Then the last sticky task is to determine a set of protocols applicable to measure sentience so that non-human species may be considered sentient (thereby allowing non-earth species to be better protected under this resolution).

Ok, I was offering that last part based on your previous argument that real world definitions of sentience and sapience dont matter. We are defining sentience for the purposes of this resolution.

If it concerns you that "too far from human" argument may be applied, the how about you:
1. Recognize that humans and human beings are sentient beings
2. Define sentient beings

Then with your other articles that include that other species may be considered sentient, you have already made provisions for their inclusion in the definition as sentient beings. Therefore all you would have to do is define sentient beings.

Then the last sticky task is to determine a set of protocols applicable to measure sentience so that non-human species may be considered sentient (thereby allowing non-earth species to be better protected under this resolution).

...and right after that, a perpetual motion machine AND cold fusion! :rolleyes:

I defined "Sentience" in Article II.

However, you get the third edit kudos.

(Added ADDENDUM. I'm sure theres a better way to put it, but I'm a tad tired, and he didn't suggest anything specific).

Well, I think that with a well-defined parameter of what constitutes sentience in the resolution, you may lose the need to define protocols.

Such as the definition I showed you, where it goes beyond the 'capable of...' that you previously used. It would be easier to classifiy, and more importantly exclude, some species from the sentience list.

Well, I think that with a well-defined parameter of what constitutes sentience in the resolution, you may lose the need to define protocols.

Such as the definition I showed you, where it goes beyond the 'capable of...' that you previously used. It would be easier to classifiy, and more importantly exclude, some species from the sentience list.

Once you demonstrate how, say, a whale could demonstrate that, I'll consider it. They do not alter their environment - or were thought not to. Turns out, they "domesticate" fish, as in encourage the growth of schools for later consumption. This was not immediately apparent.

And yes, you will have to demonstrate how a dog and a cat will fail the same definition a whale passes. As yet, the demonstration of abstract thought is the only definition I can come up with.

So I open the floor. Demonstrate.

Ok, you want a demonstration... lets take a stab, shall we?

How can a whale demonstrate sentience, based on the long definition that the author wrote on that other site, and not a dog or cat....

1. They do have abstract thought. I didnt think that your definition should be excluded, just amended to include more information.
2. The fact that they domesticate fish means they are shaping their environment. This shows thought processes that are long-term and aware of 'future' events.
3. That makes them cognizant of time.
4. They posses the ability to communicate internal thoughts to others.
5. (I assume) that scientists have been able to marcate certain behaviors in them that go beyond that of basic survival.
6. Whales, as well as dolphins and certain primates, are no doubt highly-intelligent and evolved. They know how to manipulate their environment and how to transfer their collective learning to a new environment.


Cats and dogs are not cognizant of time as we know it.
Cats and dogs do not plan their meals based on future possibilities. They dont ration food, noticing that their owners arent there or that supplies are low.
They dont purposefully shape their environment.
They havent been shown to think creatively for the purpose of thinking creatively. They do think creatively to obtain certain goals related to the fulfillment of their basic needs (food, water, shelter).
While we know that cats and dogs have the capacity for emotions, their emotions are often based on direct cause and effect.
Cats and dogs are not significantly evolved in their current forms. There is little difference between house cats and those of other feline lineage when it comes to the basics of fulfilling their needs. The same is true for dogs and canine animals.
Cats and dogs do not teach their offspring how to change their behaviors to better adapt to their environment. A cat or a dog that has offspring will teach their children how to manipulate the environment they are in but if that environment changes, they must learn how to manipulate all over again because they cant equate environmental situations with ones previously faced of similar ways.
Cats and dogs are not self-aware as we know it. They do make certain 'decisions' based on their survival, but its instinctual at best.

Now, at this time, I dont believe that whales are considered sentient, but the biggest barrier to that declaration is communication. We simply dont know how much language that they possess. If we could unravel that simple mystery... I believe that they would no doubt receive sentient being status.

((please understand, its 4am and Ive not gone around looking at information on exactly what scientists have been able to uncover. I am going based on things Ive previously learned about the mentioned species.))

I may be a little late in this discussion, but I just have one question. Does this mean my tuna boats could be brought up on murder charges if a dolphin gets caught in the net?

Hmm. Undecided, as yet. This is a wee bit thorny because the necessary definitions may turn out to be essays in their own right. I can't help but feel that we're perhaps getting ahead of ourselves here.

I'll be watching this debate with keen interest.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I may be a little late in this discussion, but I just have one question. Does this mean my tuna boats could be brought up on murder charges if a dolphin gets caught in the net?

Accidental Homicide. :D

Accidental Homicide. :D

I believe the proper term would be Dolphinslaughter;)

I may be a little late in this discussion, but I just have one question. Does this mean my tuna boats could be brought up on murder charges if a dolphin gets caught in the net?

And just to make this clear - if your fishing boats show up in Vastivan territorial waters, or in our exclusive fishing zone, our submarines will be making shark-snacks out of your tuna boats.

We work very hard to insure our oceanic food supply, and will have no hesitation in assuring its continuance.

A few more artificial reefs won't hurt.

Self awareness is a big one whited fields. People and dolphins, to my knowledge thus far, are the only two species capable of self awareness. Ants can manipulate aphids, I doubt they are cognizant of time.

Self awareness is a big one whited fields. People and dolphins, to my knowledge thus far, are the only to species capable of self awareness. Ants can manipulate aphids, I doubt they are cognizant of time.

Alright, yet another edit....

And just to make this clear - if your fishing boats show up in Vastivan territorial waters, or in our exclusive fishing zone, our submarines will be making shark-snacks out of your tuna boats.

We work very hard to insure our oceanic food supply, and will have no hesitation in assuring its continuance.

A few more artificial reefs won't hurt.

That would be in violation of the fair trial resolution. Bad Vastiva.

Self awareness is a big one whited fields. People and dolphins, to my knowledge thus far, are the only two species capable of self awareness. Ants can manipulate aphids, I doubt they are cognizant of time.

Actually, I've seen a good arguement stating all life is sentient and a better one stating no species has yet to evolve far enough to reach sentience. Which one you want?

Actually, I've seen a good arguement stating all life is sentient and a better one stating no species has yet to evolve far enough to reach sentience. Which one you want?

Whichever, even cotton plants emit ultrasonic screams when stressed. So long as its death is justified, within reason, I do not have a real problem.

I am, however, interested in the argument that no species is sentient. Does it mean no species as a whole, allowing for individual members to be sentient, or non at all? That all are sentient is one no amount of metaphysical reaoning can convince me of. Insert green smiley face here.

Whichever, even cotton plants emit ultrasonic screams when stressed. So long as its death is justified, within reason, I do not have a real problem.

I am, however, interested in the argument that no species is sentient. Does it mean no species as a whole, allowing for individual members to be sentient, or non at all? That all are sentient is one no amount of metaphysical reaoning can convince me of. Insert green smiley face here.

The arguement points out the fact humanity seems to follow the actions of a prey species and suggests that all of our actions come from a genetic need for survival and not real intelligence, much like how a plant bends towards sunlight. If proven true, that will mean everything human has accomplished amounts to just the survival tactics of an overpopulated prey species trying to follow its instincts to increase its population and thrive. It also pretty much makes all of human history make sense.

That would be in violation of the fair trial resolution. Bad Vastiva.


Fair trial
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The outer hebrides

Description: We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.

Votes For: 10,713
Votes Against: 3,069

Implemented: Sun Jul 13 2003


That one?

In Vastiva, trespassers may be shot on sight, with no charges attaching to the shooter once proof of attempt of committing a crime has been documented.

The presence of a fishing boat, in our waters, with no permission to be there, constitutes trespassing.

And they're not Vastivan citizens, so I am not violating anything.



UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #47

Definition of 'Fair Trial'
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ninjadom

Description: A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003. However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is.

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:
1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.


Clause 1 - VERY speedy. About 95 knots.
Clause 2 - They're allowed the external surface of their boats, which function to defend the boat from the water and sinking.
Clause 3 - All the defendants are in the water, easily confrontable.
Clause 4 - Presence in a fishing boat in Vastivan water is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"
Clause 5 - self-evidently being followed.
Clause 6 - Sailors judged sailors in a Naval court.
Clause 7 - The Captain doesn't care whose fishing boat is there, if its not Vastivan, its trespassing with intent.
Clause 8 - Attempted Murder by Starvation of Vastivan people and Illegal Trespass with Intent to Commit a Capital Crime are the charges.
Clause 9 - We will gladly broadcast the results, as our satellites view the area constantly.
Clause 10 - Vastivan law states a criminal automatically waives all rights to fair trial if they attempt to avoid arrest and/or detainment.

Whichever, even cotton plants emit ultrasonic screams when stressed. So long as its death is justified, within reason, I do not have a real problem.

I am, however, interested in the argument that no species is sentient. Does it mean no species as a whole, allowing for individual members to be sentient, or non at all? That all are sentient is one no amount of metaphysical reaoning can convince me of. Insert green smiley face here.

AP, that quote is going to haunt you later... I promise.

Actually, I've seen a good arguement stating all life is sentient and a better one stating no species has yet to evolve far enough to reach sentience. Which one you want?

Both, please. And using my definition of Sentience. Thank you.

The arguement points out the fact humanity seems to follow the actions of a prey species and suggests that all of our actions come from a genetic need for survival and not real intelligence, much like how a plant bends towards sunlight. If proven true, that will mean everything human has accomplished amounts to just the survival tactics of an overpopulated prey species trying to follow its instincts to increase its population and thrive. It also pretty much makes all of human history make sense.

I don't know, we are hybrids in the prey/predator sense.
Most of our intelligence has been devoted to hunting skills/defense from predators, and now technology for abstract purposes not known to other animals.

What constitutes real intelligence?
It seems if you have no need to evade predators or hunt prey, you have no need to be intelligent.


How so Vastiva? Reasonable justifation does not pin me down in any way to anything.

Both, please. And using my definition of Sentience. Thank you.

If it uses your definition, then it would not ba a good argument. :)

Like your laws. So, if an AP fishing vessel sailed by human persons loses control for any reason beyond the crews control and ends up in Vastivian waters, it gets gunned down despite its reason for being in Vastivian waters not being intentional (desire or substantial certainty that it is in the water of another NS).

Good Ethics, and Interesting. So, let's look at the implications of your law:


The Universal Bill of Rights



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Free porcupines

Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Votes For: 11169

Votes Against: 3649

Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003

According to this, UN Nations must treat all Humans in this matter regardless of citizenry.

AP looks up the Sultanate of Vastiva

The Sultanate of Vastiva: UN Member.

Hmm. It appears Laws have been enacted to bring the The Sultanate of Vastiva into compliance with the United Nations resolution "The Universal Bill of Rights".

So, no, Vastiva's Navy does not do that.

Nice try sparky, really. ;)

(A court of peers in such instance would be one of Admiralty, unless you classify all ships in your waters as military combatants.)

Now I know why I keep talking to you - we both bicker fairly, with respect to the other, without flames - and we are often on interesting points.

If it uses your definition, then it would not ba a good argument. :)

Like your laws. So, if an AP fishing vessel sailed by human persons loses control for any reason beyond the crews control and ends up in Vastivian waters, it gets gunned down despite its reason for being in Vastivian waters not being intentional (desire or substantial certainty that it is in the water of another NS).

In the act of fishing in those waters, you are breaking UN Law (see "Law of the Sea"). You are also committing attempted murder as per our law, which is being applied to anyone there.

Now, if you are broadcasting distress signals, you fall under a different category, that of a distressed ship.



Good Ethics, and Interesting. So, let's look at the implications of your law:


The Universal Bill of Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Free porcupines

Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,

The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Votes For: 11169

Votes Against: 3649

Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003


According to this, UN Nations must treat all Humans in this matter regardless of citizenry.

AP looks up the Sultanate of Vastiva

The Sultanate of Vastiva: UN Member.

Hmm. It appears Laws have been enacted to bring the The Sultanate of Vastiva into compliance with the United Nations resolution "The Universal Bill of Rights".

So, no, Vastiva's Navy does not do that.

Nice try sparky, really. ;)

(A court of peers in such instance would be one of Admiralty, unless you classify all ships in your waters as military combatants.)

I do to a point. I classify unknown and/or uninvited fishing vessels as "unknown hostile invaders". And a Maritime (aka "Naval") court is perfectly legitimate.

As such action is a clear and present danger to the survival of the civilian population, it could be construed as an Act of War. Instead, we just blow up the ship, saving everyone lots of hassle. Except the Captain, who gets to file reports and a summary court finding.

Next attempt, please.

Both, please. And using my definition of Sentience. Thank you.

I've posted a summary of the nonsentience one already. If everything we do is just following a genetic programming to the best of our ability, you must wonder when intelligence actually starts.

The other arguement points out how plants react to sunlight and other stimuli, animals showing actual personalities and, such as a certain parrot, the ability to learn up to a certain level by human standards, how animals have shown the ability to adapt to human technology and even learn how to use a few pieces of it (the simplest of the simple), and how multiple animal species and even a few bacteria species alter their environment. Communication, once thought to be the defining trait of humanity, has been shown to exist in plants (in a very limited form) and certain marine and pack/herd species. Making tools? Humans are far from the first. Teaching young? Dogs, cats, and many mammal species do it (the fact humans are about the only ones of the primate family to do this is a bit incongruous and will haunt science for decades to come).

Keep in mind that is just a summary. Why? Because I'm lazy.

So, any more edits anyone?

Don't forget to include an option for artificial life. Wouldn't want an annoyed android dictator with a nation capable of ion cannons and antimatter missiles.

Don't forget to include an option for artificial life. Wouldn't want an annoyed android dictator with a nation capable of ion cannons and antimatter missiles.

Text, please.

(This is DLE)

-This shall also be extended to artificial life forms, such as androids and artificial intelligences, at the option of the nation.

Or something along those lines.

(This is DLE)

-This shall also be extended to artificial life forms, such as androids and artificial intelligences, at the option of the nation.

Or something along those lines.

This is not necessary - get them declared sentient, and they're sentient.

Though I should change the addendum to say something like "shall include all citizens of UN Nations at the time of acceptance" or something like that.

This is not necessary - get them declared sentient, and they're sentient.

Though I should change the addendum to say something like "shall include all citizens of UN Nations at the time of acceptance" or something like that.

I like your change better. Meh. Just a case of me being in an unusual mood.

What is your usual mood?

;)

I like your change better. Meh. Just a case of me being in an unusual mood.

OT&OOC: DLE, you might want to clean up that sig of yours like so...


Factbook (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372928)

Technology and Diplomacy (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372417)

I just think it would look a bit nicer. You may not care, but I thought I would mention it, just in case.

Now I know why I keep talking to you - we both bicker fairly, with respect to the other, without flames - and we are often on interesting points.



In the act of fishing in those waters, you are breaking UN Law (see "Law of the Sea"). You are also committing attempted murder as per our law, which is being applied to anyone there.

Now, if you are broadcasting distress signals, you fall under a different category, that of a distressed ship.

Agreed, this is quite fun :). Now, back to the matter at hand.
(No power means no distress signal, but anyway)
Lets look again...

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

They must be subjected to a court hearing before declared as breaking any law...

Now, being convicted of Commiting attempted murder without physical contact or being proven guilty in a court of law, you blow up their ship...

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Now, since AP is a UN Member, its fishing fleet would meet UN guidelines and be under the flag of AP. So, what is Vastiva required to due under The law of the sea, hmm, I wonder?

12. That any flagged warship may board a ship if it has reasonable grounds to believe it is engaged in an international crime, such as but not limited to terrorism, piracy or smuggling. If the search finds nothing, the boarded ship shall be compensated by the warship's nation to a mutually agreeable value. A database of searches shall be kept by the UN to aid law enforcement. On boarding or attacking a vessel, the warship must immediately run up its national colours or the action will be considered an act of piracy.

Invoking a law that works against you and trumps your tresspassing law. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad Vastiva :)

I do to a point. I classify unknown and/or uninvited fishing vessels as "unknown hostile invaders". And a Maritime (aka "Naval") court is perfectly legitimate.

As such action is a clear and present danger to the survival of the civilian population, it could be construed as an Act of War. Instead, we just blow up the ship, saving everyone lots of hassle. Except the Captain, who gets to file reports and a summary court finding.


Explain how a flagged UN ship of AP is a clear and present danger before following applicable UN Maritime Law. (Since Vastiva brought it up we will assume it is not illegal.)

The fish can be reclaimed for Vastiva, if fishing has been done in Vastivian water, and crew members tried.

There has been no court finding, as any court must assume the person is innocent until proven guilty.

Defence at trial means defending against accusations of guilt. Shooting at a ship, as Vastivian vessels do, is not an accusation, it is a punishment.

Might want to think about article 4 and how it applies.

Will stop there for now.

Agreed, this is quite fun :). Now, back to the matter at hand.
(No power means no distress signal, but anyway)
Lets look again...

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

You're not being arrested.



They must be subjected to a court hearing before declared as breaking any law...

Now, being convicted of Commiting attempted murder without physical contact or being proven guilty in a court of law, you blow up their ship...

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Now, since AP is a UN Member, its fishing fleet would meet UN guidelines and be under the flag of AP. So, what is Vastiva required to due under The law of the sea, hmm, I wonder?

Responding to an Act of War falls under none of these.



Invoking a law that works against you and trumps your tresspassing law. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad Vastiva :)

Exclusive Fishing Zone.



Explain how a flagged UN ship of AP is a clear and present danger before following applicable UN Maritime Law. (Since Vastiva brought it up we will assume it is not illegal.)

The fish can be reclaimed for Vastiva, if fishing has been done in Vastivian water, and crew members tried.

I repeat, we're not arresting or trying you - we're removing the threat to our way of life.



There has been no court finding, as any court must assume the person is innocent until proven guilty.

Defence at trial means defending against accusations of guilt. Shooting at a ship, as Vastivian vessels do, is not an accusation, it is a punishment.

Might want to think about article 4 and how it applies.

Will stop there for now.

Ah - there's the rub. The trial was ended at the overwhelming evidence of your presence. At that point, you were under Naval law:


Due Process
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The global market

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


"Public Danger", as this is a clear and present danger.

Nor is the Wolfish POW resolution applicable, as there is no attempt to take prisoners in any form - and the Antarctic Ocean kills in a matter of minutes in any case.

Finally, from Rights and Duties of UN States, Section I:


Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

AP would be in violation of Article 3, as that is intervention in my economic affairs. Article 2 allows me to fire in my waters.

on top of that:


Section II: The Art of War:

Article 4
§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.


Law of the Sea:


3. That all nations shall have in or above international waters, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone:
a) Freedom to fish in designated fishing areas, subject to UN quotas.


All Antarctican waters are MPZs, do check the discussion thread for that one.

It appears I still "win" this arguement. Have we hijacked my thread enough?

No, playing devils advocate is more interesting.

Quick response.

An adrift fishing boat is not interfering with your economic affairs, nor is it an act of war. A ship under UN flag must be boarded, or boarding must be attempted, before firing on the vessel. The Law of the sea prevents you from declaring any ship in your waters an act of war and requires the Vastivian Navy to board them.

The duty is being abandoned out of necessity.Tresspass is allowed when done out of necessity. If not, article four of the Human Rights initiative allows sailors, or their relatives, to bring suit in your nation against the Navy. Absent proof that they were conducting any illegal or dangerous activity, since the boat was blown up and was never boarded, the Navy is hard pressed to prove any guilt or wrongdoing.

An unarmed fishing boat adrift in the water is not a public danger. A warship, maybe. In either event, you still have to board it before blowing it up.

Human rights are immunities of international law. They do not allow such cruel and unusual punishment.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, however, ignorance of circumstances invoking the law is. So, any adrift ship is ignorant of its actual location. So, it is not aware of circumstances invoking MPZs, or that it is violating the law of the Seas. Your Navy fires on innocent ships in violation of UN Resolutions.

Misinterpreting/misunderstanding UN Resolutions for personal gain does not constitute "winning" an argument. It means a false sense of security is making it easier for the other person to beat you without your knowing or anticipating. :cool:

pbbbth.

An unknown fishing vessel is trespassing in a Maritime Preservation Zone, and an Exclusive Fishing Zone. As such, it falls under Vastivan jurisdiction.

We are not arresting them - we are torpedoing them. And nowhere does it state I have to board anything. It says I may.

Article 4 § Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

A trolling fishing boat is not armed.

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

So, to not cruel or unusually treat unarmed tresspassers.

Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Stop killing fisherman without a trial.

Article 4 § Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

A trolling fishing boat is not armed.

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

So, to not cruel or unusually treat unarmed tresspassers.

Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Stop killing fisherman without a trial.

Article 11 sinks your arguement - what are you doing in my waters with a fishing boat in the first place?

Article 10 does not apply - I am treating you just as I would treat any other fishing boat which, unannounced and in absense of an SOS, showed up in my waters.

Article 4 applies under the Clear and Present Danger declaration. It would not matter what you were at that point - you are a perceived threat.

Article 11 works more against you than me. Tresspassing out of necessity and beyond their control, bearing the flag of a UN Nation, does not justify violating human rights.

Where is your memory, how that flag bearing UN ship got there has been described in almost every thread?;)

But, how is an unarmed fishing boat, dead in the water (pun intended), a boat that presents a percieved clear and present danger. If an unarmed fishing boat is an imminent threat to your submarines/warships, AP will loan you money to update your Navy forces.

Article 11 works more against you than me. Tresspassing out of necessity and beyond their control, bearing the flag of a UN Nation does not justify, violating human rights.

Where is your memory, how that flag bearing UN ship got there has been described in almost every thread?;)

But, how is an unarmed fishing boat, dead in the water (pun intended), a boat that presents a percieved clear and present danger. If an unarmed fishing boat is an imminent threat to your submarines/warships, AP will loan you money to update your Navy forces.

*loans you my glasses*

Its not a threat to my navy. Its a threat to my food source. If it was "out of necessity and beyond their control", they would be broadcasting an SOS. They're not, they're trespassing, torpedo.

Dead in the water. No power. Adrift. Unable to fish, or broadcast an SOS to an underwater submarine. No proof that it was fishing in Vastivian waters. Current state illustrates that it is not fishing in Vastivian waters.

It shows up as a blip, then gets blown up. A clear violation of the human rights of the sailors.

*my glasses are just fine*:)

What is your usual mood?

;)

Usual mood? That depends. What mood do you think someone joyously bashing in the heads of n00bs while laughing maniacally is in?

OT&OOC: DLE, you might want to clean up that sig of yours like so...


Factbook (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372928)

Technology and Diplomacy (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372417)

I just think it would look a bit nicer. You may not care, but I thought I would mention it, just in case.

Actually, that is done that way so people have to do a bit of work to get there. That, and it annoys them.

Dead in the water. No power. Adrift. Unable to fish, or broadcast an SOS to an underwater submarine. No proof that it was fishing in Vastivian waters. Current state illustrates that it is not fishing in Vastivian waters.

It shows up as a blip, then gets blown up. A clear violation of the human rights of the sailors.

*my glasses are just fine*:)

Then you would hate orbital defenses around Terran and Terrator. If you are not broadcasting a certain signal, then the automated cannons of Uberdeath(TM)(C) open fire and don't stop until you are destroyed or they are shut off. If you try to land on either planet without permission (you'll be broadcasting a different signal), they open fire on you on your way down and several ships will join them. All of this assumes you get passed the mine field due to be installed soon (third signal needed).

This is a case of if you were not guided in or given permission, you are assumed to be hostile. Doesn't matter if your ship is crippled or not, as several of the lifeless derelicts in the area are heavily armed and will open fire with intent to destroy despite no one being at the controls. It's not a friendly, or even remotely nice, region of space.

Then you would hate orbital defenses around Terran and Terrator. If you are not broadcasting a certain signal, then the automated cannons of Uberdeath(TM)(C) open fire and don't stop until you are destroyed or they are shut off. If you try to land on either planet without permission (you'll be broadcasting a different signal), they open fire on you on your way down and several ships will join them. All of this assumes you get passed the mine field due to be installed soon (third signal needed).

This is a case of if you were not guided in or given permission, you are assumed to be hostile. Doesn't matter if your ship is crippled or not, as several of the lifeless derelicts in the area are heavily armed and will open fire with intent to destroy despite no one being at the controls. It's not a friendly, or even remotely nice, region of space.

Actually, that is pretty cool. In either event, it is still a violation of the Human Rights Resolution.

Actually, that is pretty cool. In either event, it is still a violation of the Human Rights Resolution.

Human Rights is worthless in a region of space where if one of the three local groups doesn't kill you, the ion storms, abandoned-and-yet-still-hostile derelicts, or some idiots who tried to explore the region and got lost will. This is all assuming you're not stupid enough to get within the range of energy arcs of Dyson's Logic, as those energy arcs can blow up large planets at times (nevermind the fact they are caused by radiation from the black hole at the center of the dust cloud). To add to the fun, the region is peppered with Black Suns that require active sensor scanning to avoid running into and no mapping system known to exist works there.

So, yes, it's pretty safe to assume that anything which shows up and tries to land on a planet without permission is hostile, as they've probably been driven insane or are on autopilot after losing the entire crew. The sane ships detect the ion cannons targetting them and decide to try a diplomatic approach.

Dead in the water. No power. Adrift. Unable to fish, or broadcast an SOS to an underwater submarine. No proof that it was fishing in Vastivian waters. Current state illustrates that it is not fishing in Vastivian waters.

It shows up as a blip, then gets blown up. A clear violation of the human rights of the sailors.

*my glasses are just fine*:)

Ah, but you are forgetting the Captain - he decides. Methinks mine are more then able to discern an immobile ship from one fishing. They are not robots, they are humans who make decisions.