NationStates Jolt Archive

To: Member States of the United Nations
Re: Eon Convention on Genocide Resolution

Press Release from the Office of Projections:
At this time, the Pilot United Nations News Service is ready to project that Resolution #83, Eon Convention on Genocide Resolution, will pass through the U.N. by a margin of 73% to 27%. That projection is made with a possible five percentage point margin of error.

Up to this point, PUNNS has correctly projected eighteen out of twenty-two U.N. resolutions within the five percentage point margin of error, inlcuding the most recent Stem Cell Research Funding resolution.

I am glad this proposal is going to pass, I hate genocide and oppression more than anything.

Not overly concerned, though I wonder if all UN members read what they approved....

Not overly concerned, though I wonder if all UN members read what they approved....

Most don't even read previous resolutions. This latest one has been repeatedly challenged as being illegal.

(grin)

IC Pilot:

Pilot voted against the resolution for the countless violations of U.N guidelines. Our nation already considers genocide a crime punishable by God himself and we intervene wherever nessecary.

IC Pilot:

Pilot voted against the resolution for the countless violations of U.N guidelines. Our nation already considers genocide a crime punishable by God himself and we intervene wherever nessecary.

Could I ask you (politely) to discuss what you believe the violations are in the official thread for this, as I would be interested to hear your opinion (but would prefer not to start a whole other discussion outside of the main thread!)

Thanks :}

Although I agree on the genocide bill, I happened to notice that extermination for religion counts as genocide. Does this mean I won't be able to declare holy war's, jihad's, or crusade's? Not that I'm going to, (in fact my government is avowedly atheist) just wondering.

No, you can't declare holy wars, Jihads, or Crusades. If an existing war turns into one, however, that may be a different story.

What if I was playing in a medieval period game, and the goal was not to smite a certain peoples, but to retake a certain area of religious signifigance? Does killing everyone in the way count as genocide? If I just do horrible things to everyone with no favrotism is that OK?

Time doesn't matter for the resolutions, sadly. And killing everyone in the way, whether combatant or not, does count. And the horrible things defies a different resolution.

I'd appricate it if this wasn't a debate thread. If you have any opinions on the project, I'd be more than glad to hear them.

My opinion is :

Pilot is damned effective. I wonder if his ability goes over to writing proposals that pass.

Agreed. He should also write proposals.

Once this resolution has passed (and it will) it will just mean that if you want to do some pest extermination, you momentarily quit the UN or use some other trick like having multi-nation empires. So don't worry everybody: this resolution is so weak everyone can stay after it has passed! *cheering*

Outside any genocide discussions: I wish people would write down less beaucratic poetry when submitting a proposal and actually try to do the job in a few clear sentences in english, not lawyer-speak... so resolutions are actually passed on their content, not just the title.

Outside any genocide discussions: I wish people would write down less beaucratic poetry when submitting a proposal and actually try to do the job in a few clear sentences in english, not lawyer-speak... so resolutions are actually passed on their content, not just the title.

OOC: Obviously you've never really had any experience with any government position then, because that "poetry" is there for a reason ... namely to settle future disputes and clearly point out what is being done. Look at any legal / political document. I think the one that is typically introduced to American school children early one is the "Declaration of Independence", though when in many high schools the Articles of Confederation and Constitution are largely ignored (with the Bill of Rights -- first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, getting some attention).

My point: if you want to read things written for a child, there is a wonder series of books call the "Golden Books". They are written in a "few clear sentences in English, not lawyer-speak".

But if you wish to roleplay the part of a lawyer, you might want to put your "Go Spot Go" or "The Little Engine that Could" Golden Books down and realize that you are in fact playing *gasp* a political game.

To: Member States of the United Nations
Re: Eon Convention on Genocide Resolution

Press Release from the Office of Projections:


At this time, the Pilot United Nations News Service is ready to project that Resolution #83, Eon Convention on Genocide Resolution, will pass through the U.N. by a margin of 73% to 27%. That projection is made with a possible five percentage point margin of error.

Up to this point, PUNNS has correctly projected eighteen out of twenty-two U.N. resolutions within the five percentage point margin of error, inlcuding the most recent Stem Cell Research Funding resolution.

Votes For: 13,355

Votes Against: 2,912

That rounds out to 82% to 18%, outside your range.

Votes For: 13,355

Votes Against: 2,912

That rounds out to 82% to 18%, outside your range.

But it still passes right? It doesn't get disqualified for doing better than people thought? Cause that would SUCK!!!

(smirk)

Hah! I was more accurate than PUNNS!

Til, the only way it would be disqualified is if it got 101% of the vote.

OOC: Obviously you've never really had any experience with any government position then, because that "poetry" is there for a reason ... namely to settle future disputes and clearly point out what is being done. Look at any legal / political document. I think the one that is typically introduced to American school children early one is the "Declaration of Independence", though when in many high schools the Articles of Confederation and Constitution are largely ignored (with the Bill of Rights -- first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, getting some attention).

My point: if you want to read things written for a child, there is a wonder series of books call the "Golden Books". They are written in a "few clear sentences in English, not lawyer-speak".

But if you wish to roleplay the part of a lawyer, you might want to put your "Go Spot Go" or "The Little Engine that Could" Golden Books down and realize that you are in fact playing *gasp* a political game.
It is my political belief that the non-language you are defending here will be the basis of the next bloody revolution in the real world: that agaist bureaucrats (inc. lawyers). Because they don't speak the same language of the people anymore (in every country) the gap between them and the people is widening which is causing less and less respect for eachother and more and more friction. Its the one "genocide" I would definitely cheer on and participate in.

The only thing it does is not settle future disputes but create future disputes over the placement of one comma, the actual meaning of a word while at the same time it generates loopholes for the sneaky bastards and entrapments for the honest man. When one cannot just honestly tell in court what happened w/o the aid of a translator (lawyer) the justice system is about as perverted as the churches were with their latin before the reformation.

If I play a political game part of my goals are to change this. For example the dutch law"book" fills an entire wall made up out booklets. The booklets (articles, amendments, amendments on amendments, etc) each cover a matter like for example murder and all the little exceptions and loopholes created by the corrupt justice and bureaucratic system. 1 Line "Don't Kill other people or go to jail for the rest of your life" covers the entire section. Who cares about degrees, self defence, manslaughter etc? Someone is dead.

By adding more words you add more matter to dispute and crawl through.

If I play a political game part of my goals are to change this. For example the dutch law"book" fills an entire wall made up out booklets. The booklets (articles, amendments, amendments on amendments, etc) each cover a matter like for example murder and all the little exceptions and loopholes created by the corrupt justice and bureaucratic system. 1 Line "Don't Kill other people or go to jail for the rest of your life" covers the entire section. Who cares about degrees, self defence, manslaughter etc? Someone is dead.

By adding more words you add more matter to dispute and crawl through.

OOC:
Unfortunately the world is not so black and white. The reason variances exist in law is to try and ensure punishment equates the crime. Each and every case must be viewed with the individual facts pertaining to that case. By simply passing blanket sentences you are eroding the civil rights of the individual being tried and consequently setting back all our collective civil rights a good few hundred years.

It is my political belief that the non-language you are defending here will be the basis of the next bloody revolution in the real world: that agaist bureaucrats (inc. lawyers). Because they don't speak the same language of the people anymore (in every country) the gap between them and the people is widening which is causing less and less respect for eachother and more and more friction. Its the one "genocide" I would definitely cheer on and participate in.

The only thing it does is not settle future disputes but create future disputes over the placement of one comma, the actual meaning of a word while at the same time it generates loopholes for the sneaky bastards and entrapments for the honest man. When one cannot just honestly tell in court what happened w/o the aid of a translator (lawyer) the justice system is about as perverted as the churches were with their latin before the reformation.

If I play a political game part of my goals are to change this. For example the dutch law"book" fills an entire wall made up out booklets. The booklets (articles, amendments, amendments on amendments, etc) each cover a matter like for example murder and all the little exceptions and loopholes created by the corrupt justice and bureaucratic system. 1 Line "Don't Kill other people or go to jail for the rest of your life" covers the entire section. Who cares about degrees, self defence, manslaughter etc? Someone is dead.

By adding more words you add more matter to dispute and crawl through.

So you are saying that never once in the whole of this dutch law book there is anything that could be intrepretted in more than one way? No loopholes? No gaping chasms of doubt?

Things that are going to affect the life of millions of billions of people have to be written in such a way that are very clear, otherwise you will just get people abusing them all over the place and the law that was written to protect people is now being used to put them all in jail with no chance of release (for their protection of course).

I am not a fan of huge legal documents (ooc - The West Wing crakcs me up about that in one of the episodes) but I am even less of a fan of something that can be intrepretted ten different ways from Sunday and used to do the opposite of it's intent.

1 Line "Don't Kill other people or go to jail for the rest of your life"

Does this mean there is no army? Because it says that if you kill someone, you go to jail. Which applies to anyone in the army who kills people.

So - no army? Or another law to clarify what killing is?

OOC:
Unfortunately the world is not so black and white. The reason variances exist in law is to try and ensure punishment equates the crime. Each and every case must be viewed with the individual facts pertaining to that case. By simply passing blanket sentences you are eroding the civil rights of the individual being tried and consequently setting back all our collective civil rights a good few hundred years.

imo Our civil rights are currently been wiped away already by the masses of bull taht have replaced common sense. It also lacks support and understanding from the base: those civilians whose rights we're talking about - which in my opinion is what its all about. Civilians are supposed to abide by and know the law... but the law has become such that no-one can.

OOC: Obviously you've never really had any experience with any government position then, because that "poetry" is there for a reason ... namely to settle future disputes and clearly point out what is being done. Look at any legal / political document. I think the one that is typically introduced to American school children early one is the "Declaration of Independence", though when in many high schools the Articles of Confederation and Constitution are largely ignored (with the Bill of Rights -- first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, getting some attention).

My point: if you want to read things written for a child, there is a wonder series of books call the "Golden Books". They are written in a "few clear sentences in English, not lawyer-speak".

But if you wish to roleplay the part of a lawyer, you might want to put your "Go Spot Go" or "The Little Engine that Could" Golden Books down and realize that you are in fact playing *gasp* a political game.

Can you get any more patronising, please?

Does this mean there is no army? Because it says that if you kill someone, you go to jail. Which applies to anyone in the army who kills people.

So - no army? Or another law to clarify what killing is?
Now, wouldn't that be nice? :D

Things that are going to affect the life of millions of billions of people have to be written in such a way that are very clear, otherwise you will just get people abusing them all over the place and the law that was written to protect people is now being used to put them all in jail with no chance of release (for their protection of course).

I am not a fan of huge legal documents (ooc - The West Wing crakcs me up about that in one of the episodes) but I am even less of a fan of something that can be intrepretted ten different ways from Sunday and used to do the opposite of it's intent.

Er, I rather think that was SCO-Land's point- that legal documents SHOULD be clear and understandable by all. But they're not.

Being clear, easy to understand and unambiguous is NOT synonymous with being filled with jargon. Believe it or not, nearly all laws can be explained in words of three syllables maximum, using words found in most pocket dictionaries- I know this as I used to work at a Citizen's Advice Bureau, where free legal aid was regularly given. If volunteers can explain to laymen in "normal" english, why can't politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers? *THAT'S* the point being made :P

So you are saying that never once in the whole of this dutch law book there is anything that could be intrepretted in more than one way? No loopholes? No gaping chasms of doubt?
No, i'm saying the opposite: its one big gaping chasm of doubt.

Things that are going to affect the life of millions of billions of people have to be written in such a way that are very clear, otherwise you will just get people abusing them all over the place and the law that was written to protect people is now being used to put them all in jail with no chance of release (for their protection of course).
Which is exactly the point I'm making. The whole legal business has become far too unclear, which is being abused all over the place while regular folks face exactly that which you are fearing here.

I am not a fan of huge legal documents (ooc - The West Wing crakcs me up about that in one of the episodes) but I am even less of a fan of something that can be intrepretted ten different ways from Sunday and used to do the opposite of it's intent.
Which is exactly what has happened and is contiinueing to happen. I once worked on a building which had its contract filling a 20m2 room... and all that to say how many toilets etc there should be and who's responsible for if x goes wrong, except when y applies in which case z takes the upperhand etc etc.

I'm not saying that we should go back to something like the 10 commandents, but over half the crap could be cut now.

Er, I rather think that was SCO-Land's point- that legal documents SHOULD be clear and understandable by all. By they're not.

Being clear, easy to understand and unambiguous is NOT synonymous with being filled with jargon. Believe it or not, nearly all laws can be explained in words of three syllables maximum, using words found in most pocket dictionaries- I know this as I used to work at a Citizen's Advice Bureau, where free legal aid was regularly given. If volunteers can explain someone to laymen in "normal" english, why can't politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers? *THAT'S* the point being made :P

Exactly! :fluffle:

The deal is even that such volunteers are even needed in the first place!

Er, I rather think that was SCO-Land's point- that legal documents SHOULD be clear and understandable by all. But they're not.

Being clear, easy to understand and unambiguous is NOT synonymous with being filled with jargon. Believe it or not, nearly all laws can be explained in words of three syllables maximum, using words found in most pocket dictionaries- I know this as I used to work at a Citizen's Advice Bureau, where free legal aid was regularly given. If volunteers can explain to laymen in "normal" english, why can't politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers? *THAT'S* the point being made :P

Because I suspect that the "normal" english is a watered down version of the actual law, missing some of the nuances and so forth out of it.

Because I suspect that the "normal" english is a watered down version of the actual law, missing some of the nuances and so forth out of it.
No, normal english is what ppl speak regulary without all kinds of warped misuses of regular words and inventions of words that hold no actual meaning. Bureaucrat speak is often futher away from the actual language it pretends to be then actual other languages.

No, normal english is what ppl speak regulary without all kinds of warped misuses of regular words and inventions of words that hold no actual meaning. Bureaucrat speak is often futher away from the actual language it pretends to be then actual other languages.

(grin) I am not saying that people on the street don't speak normal english. I am saying that - as with anything - if you translate something from one language to another there is a good chance you will lose some of it in translation.

Legal language is very formal, very precise and very accurate (generally - there are probably exceptions to this). Normal language isn't, so things will most likely be lost in the translation.