NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that the Global Library will pass. However, many people have expressed reservations about the resolution. If it does pass, a repeal will and should soon follow. Not that the principle is neccessarly bad. The proposal has 4 major flaws.

1.Bad Grammer- The language is not only not official it is wrong in many casses, "say’s" "you’re self" etc. A much better proposal could be written

2. Technology- The resolution creates holographic technology. Unless the UN has secret access to this amazing technology, I think we all are a little amazed. The principle of creating technologies to solve problems is very wrong and it raises the question of running this futuristic technology and also why we can't just have the entire library on CD or some other invention.

3. Funding/Organisation- The resolution has no mention on how the library will work. It also says it will function by donation. I think that raises large problems over bias and if the library should be strapped of cash.

4. Globalization- I personally think that 1 library in the entire world would be a disaster. Surely governments would find this an excuse to drop funding of their public libraries and donations to private ones. Also, free speech would be severely impaired as all reading material would be controlled by one (hypothetical) comitee. While I dont suggest people reading Mein Kampf, some library should have it and I severly doubt that this Global Library would.


The point behind this thread is to create a well worded repeal and perhaps a better proposal to subsitute the one that appears to be passing.

Right now its:
Votes For: 7,264

Votes Against: 4,120
or 63.8% to 36.2%

A lead of that margin is very unlikely to be reversed, especially with so many votes already counted.

Right now its:
Votes For: 7,264

Votes Against: 4,120
or 63.8% to 36.2%

A lead of that margin is very unlikely to be reversed, especially with so many votes already counted.

The most recent repeal - The 40 Hour Work Week - had a far larger lead than that, and that was overturned by the votes of the Four Pacific Regions.

So you never know :}

The most recent repeal - The 40 Hour Work Week - had a far larger lead than that, and that was overturned by the votes of the Four Pacific Regions.

So you never know :}

Well I hate to break it to you but that repeal fell right through. And if there is going to be any repealing I will be doing it.

Whoever does it, the repeal will need to be well-planned, well-drafted, and well executed. If it isn't (falling short in just one of these area) it will greatly diminish its chance of success.

First, do not submit! If and when this proposal passes as a resolution wait before submitting a repeal. If the wording is drafted in the forum it has a greater likelihood of coming out appropriately. Be patient, work smart, listen to input, and this can all go away.

The most recent repeal - The 40 Hour Work Week - had a far larger lead than that, and that was overturned by the votes of the Four Pacific Regions.

So you never know :}

I don't quite think it had that big a lead, sadly I know too well ;)

Off the top of my head I think the Pacifics and RR have around 2500 votes between them, while that should get it close there are a large number of UN members who have voted in favour and are pretty much uncontactable.

So to the repeal...

I suggest that the arguements outlined in it go to detail, the points suggested currently touch upon the arguement but don't fully emphasise the point to the extent to be effective.

Not to be rude but you all are really :mad: . the only reason that not everyone will agree to it is because they have been blackmailed into voting against. If the four pacific regions were against it why are the going to repeal it. If I was them I would just vote against it. Obviously Peoples moral thoughts are fighting the blackmail.

It's a friggin money pit

"if it passes." Yes, if the tide turns then we, or at least I end up happy, because the resolution dies. If it passes then we can submit a repeal.

Most people seem to realise that the resolution needs working. So might as well start early

Why repeal it? Because of a few nit-picky complaints? The proposal can be proof-read before it is officially passed. Besides, a world library would be a great chapter (no pun intended) in the history of mankind. Never before have all the collected works of all the great thinkers in histoty been put into a collection. This would provide great educational and cultural opportunities for all our countries.

North Pacific has not voted, and the delegate has 704 votes.
South Pacific has not voted and the delegate has 397 votes.
East Pacific has not voted and the delegate has 419 votes.
Rejected Realms has not voted and the delegate has 120 votes.

Thats a total of 1640 votes. Far short of the 3000 we need. Just to put things in perspective

Why repeal it? Because of a few nit-picky complaints? The proposal can be proof-read before it is officially passed.
No, once a proposal is submited it can not be changed.

No, once a proposal is submited it can not be changed.

That's right. You can't polish a turd.

North Pacific has not voted, and the delegate has 704 votes.
South Pacific has not voted and the delegate has 397 votes.
East Pacific has not voted and the delegate has 419 votes.
Rejected Realms has not voted and the delegate has 120 votes.

Thats a total of 1640 votes. Far short of the 3000 we need. Just to put things in perspective

The West Pacific has 507 votes and the The Pacific has 310, and I don't think either if them has voted. It's still about 1000 short of the 3300 margin should they all vote against.

But when you think about it, this is proposal is paralyzed if it does not receive the funding through donations. So, I resolve to just let the project die when funding plateaus. :cool:

BTW, I'm not usually nitpicky, but this is just something that drives me to mention: it's grammAr, with an "a", not grammer. I guess it's just the whole irony of it all...

That's right. You can't polish a turd.

I can testify firsthand that it's not possible.

Changing a passed resolution, that is...

But when you think about it, this is proposal is paralyzed if it does not receive the funding through donations. So, I resolve to just let the project die when funding plateaus. :cool:

BTW, I'm not usually nitpicky, but this is just something that drives me to mention: it's grammAr, with an "a", not grammer. I guess it's just the whole irony of it all...
Sorry about that. Yes it would be useless without funding, but then why keep it at all. It only stays on the books. Repeall it and give resolution 86 to another proposal

Please click here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7873620&postcount=277)

I figured it would be easier to just post the revision ideas here:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7 Points of the Global Library that will be changed.

1. The holographic imaging will be thrown out of the Resolution.

2. There will be NO buildings will be built in any nation.

3. Instead of holographic imaging technology there will be Touch Screen Flat Panels that are portable. They are about eight inches in length, ten point five inches in width, and three inches in density. They will connect to a network without advertisements and anything else that is on it except all human knowledge.

4. All books will be put in the network a year after they are published.

5. When we start putting information into the system we will pick one newspaper from each city that has a population of 800,000 into the network randomly. Which means if there are one more newspapers per city we will randomly pick one?

6. This program will be funded by all nations. Which means if you voted no for the Global Library or didn’t vote at all you must still fund it. Plus since the reforms it will cost less. A lot less then what was first accepted…

7. Finally this Library will not be regulated. This means all books other publish works will be accepted into the Library.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


While this revision is far superior to the original resolution, I still have some issues with certain parts of it. Here are my comments on each clause of the revision:

1) Good. Excellent idea. The technology, which was probably impossible, would be obsecenely expensive and impractical even if the wristbands could be created.

2) Another excellent point. The physical buildings were a waste of money and impractical.

3) Hmmm. While this technology is definitely simple and cost-effective, I still don't think that it is necessary. Perhaps if we made this clause more specific to include something stating that a few of these panels that would be stationary instead of portable. These panels could be located at existing libraries or public areas. I do honestly think that this is a much better alternative to the wristbands, but still believe that it would be foolish to pay for every citizen to personally own one.

4) I would actually be okay with a shorter time limit. However, I don't think that books (or any published works) should be available to the Global Library at all without the author's permission. I do understand, though, that it would be impossible to obtain author permission for every book published in the entire NationStates universe, so I propose an "implied consent" policy, under which the Global Library assumes it has permission to archive the published works unless otherwise notified by the author. This could be done electronically as well.

5) I still have an issue with this in that the data transfer would be huge and the selection process is confusing. I propose a sort of international press board made up of a diverse group of members that authors its own Global News. This Global News could then be displayed as part of the Global Library system.

6) This funding thing is still fuzzy, but with the revision I can see how it is more feasible. I promise a funding proposal in the near future. I'll be working on that.

7) See my comments on Clause 4 about copyright law and regulation. Also, I believe that at least some small system of regulation has to occur to verify accuracy of information entered into the library. Perhaps some sort of agency could be set up to check into this information to verify that it is accurate and unbiased.


Well then, just some ideas, but ones that I feel very strongly about. Please comment on these and provide me with feedback I can use to strengthen my contribution to the revisionary resolution.

Also, a side note: Great Agnostica has officially agreed that the original resolution is ineffective and impractical. He has honorably taken it upon himself to spearhead the repeal and rewrite of the resolution. Therefore, nonconstructive insults to the original resolution are inappropriate and inflammatory comments that are no longer welcome... we are all on the same team here, let's keep it that way.

3) Hmmm. While this technology is definitely simple and cost-effective, I still don't think that it is necessary. Perhaps if we made this clause more specific to include something stating that a few of these panels that would be stationary instead of portable. These panels could be located at existing libraries or public areas. I do honestly think that this is a much better alternative to the wristbands, but still believe that it would be foolish to pay for every citizen to personally own one.

4) I would actually be okay with a shorter time limit. However, I don't think that books (or any published works) should be available to the Global Library at all without the author's permission. I do understand, though, that it would be impossible to obtain author permission for every book published in the entire NationStates universe, so I propose an "implied consent" policy, under which the Global Library assumes it has permission to archive the published works unless otherwise notified by the author. This could be done electronically as well.

5) I still have an issue with this in that the data transfer would be huge and the selection process is confusing. I propose a sort of international press board made up of a diverse group of members that authors its own Global News. This Global News could then be displayed as part of the Global Library system.

6) This funding thing is still fuzzy, but with the revision I can see how it is more feasible. I promise a funding proposal in the near future. I'll be working on that.

7) See my comments on Clause 4 about copyright law and regulation. Also, I believe that at least some small system of regulation has to occur to verify accuracy of information entered into the library. Perhaps some sort of agency could be set up to check into this information to verify that it is accurate and unbiased.


Also, a side note: Great Agnostica has officially agreed that the original resolution is ineffective and impractical. He has honorably taken it upon himself to spearhead the repeal and rewrite of the resolution. Therefore, nonconstructive insults to the original resolution are inappropriate and inflammatory comments that are no longer welcome... we are all on the same team here, let's keep it that way.

I have some problems. Now I do agree with three, maybe instead of portable there should be stations but the problem with that is that you would have to put one in every city, town, and villege and more in the cities. Which I believe that will cost more plus you will have to keep them repaired and make sure there is no censorship on the governments part.

4. I do really agree with this and I have no problems what so ever.

5. I do not agree with this at all because I believe we can make a computer able to hold the amount of knowledege that would be put into the computer.

6. I believe this will be more feasible and will be more than to pay for this without there being a big tax hike.

7. I also agree there should be a agency to do what you proposed. I just don't want there to be censorship. Even as much as the FCC does in america.

Now on that side note. I must say I have changed my mind. I feel that we should write a part two to it because personaly I don't really want to repeal it.

1.Bad Grammer- The language is not only not official it is wrong in many casses, "say’s" "you’re self" etc. A much better proposal could be written

LoL, my personal favorite is this one "There is will be also" LOL :D

Don't worry though, IF this resolution pass, it simply cannot be implemented.

Two main reasons:

1) The technology to create it doesn't excist, so it cannot be created.
2) It requires donations to be created, and my nation will donate 0$, but will accept your donations with open hands. kthnx überl33t etc :fluffle:

So no worries. When this resolution pass, all that happen is that there will be some donations, but not from me.

In addition to the points already raised, first things that pop into my head:

# If there are no buildings then where will the scanning and operations of the library take place?

# Not sure on "all books other publish works" being put in the library. There are certain information, such as terrorist based materials for example, that should not be put in.

# Again related to clause seven, Nargopia suggested the elimination of bias and accuracy. First of all accuracy will be ensured, to a degree, due to the fact that books are checked for libel and such things before being printed. Secondly I have no problem with bias, as long as all the books are not biased in the same way then the books will provide people with different viewpoints. I find it very odd that bias was raised about books and not the newspaper idea, which in my opinion are far more biased.

# About those newspapers, what about national newspapers? Why aren't the newspapers entered on the basis of circulation instead of city size? Providing the newspaper has a web address with content available on there why isn't that linked to instead?

# "Funding by all nations" I assume this means national governments? I still believe this proposal put forth will cost a great deal of money. This means that we'll either have to raise taxes or take a large amount of money (probably all of it) out of the education budget. As there is already a decent system of librarys and the internet to assist learning I can't really see the point in backing this proposal.

Why are you all so worried about the expenses incurred from the physical and technical properties of the proposed Library? What about the outright theft involved in making private property freely accessible, free of charge? Will there be compensation to the owners of the information? Unless we are discussing mass-expropriation, will we compensate the owners of the material? All this holographic mumbo-jumbo seems like a sure-fire way of ending book-sales. The owners of the material must be compensated. And there is where the REAL expense is found. Can you imagine what numbers we are talking about, especially if "all human knowledge" is to be included in this library? You'd have to be Carl Sagan to properly express the astronomical sums involved!

What is: "all human knowledge" anyway? I'd hate to think it was nothing more than indexing all the books and newspapers for future reference. How boring! In my opinion, such a project should be aimed at compiling all knowledge from scratch. Building a new database aimed at informing and educating rather than a big, all-encompassing reference. I would comission all the worlds top nerds and eggheads to write up work of authorative quality that explains everything you need to know about anyything. Then we call it "all human knowledge" and revise it regularly.