NationStates Jolt Archive

Fairness and Equality

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Cascadia Atlanticus

Description: Proposal for a U.N. Resolution regarding the Fair and Equal Exercise of Powers exercised by the United Nations.

Fair Administration and Non Discrimination

In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

Practical Limitations Recognized

The United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall not pursue any investigation, prosecution, or otherwise exercise any power unless there exists a sufficient factual basis and a good faith motive on the part of the actor(s) exercising such power.

Looking through the proposal list, I found this proposal, which I had never heard of, has already reached quorum and will be voted on after the repeal of prostitution. Comments, anyone?

At first reading, I can't see any reason not to support this.

I think it's redundant given what we already have, but oh well.

How would this affect any future proposals and existing resolutions? Would someone be able to claim (for example) that the resolution Gay Rights is not a fair and even administration of power, as it could be seen to interfere with some religions and not others?

Could it be used as an excuse to stop proposals being voted on because someone can find a reason they would violate this?

And aren't there game rules about forbidding the limitation of UN powers?

I guess my question is this - does this apply to UN actions, or to everything to do with the UN, including future proposals?

(This might be a moderator/game staff question btw, but please feel free to chip in with answers!)

Obviously this resolution must include the military. Does this mean that women must be allowed into combat units?

Now, I'm not saying I'm against this, necessarily, but there are quite a few convincing reasons why women shouldn't fight on the front lines.

I believe they should be forced to meet the same, exacting physical standards as men, for strength and endurance. The average woman can't. Hell, the average man can't. I personally think women should be able to do the job as long as they are physically capable, but I wonder what this act means for the issue. Would we have to scale back standards exclusively for women because requiring them to actually do their job effectively isn't "fair?"

Obviously this resolution must include the military. Does this mean that women must be allowed into combat units?

Now, I'm not saying I'm against this, necessarily, but there are quite a few convincing reasons why women shouldn't fight on the front lines.

I believe they should be forced to meet the same, exacting physical standards as men, for strength and endurance. The average woman can't. Hell, the average man can't. I personally think women should be able to do the job as long as they are physically capable, but I wonder what this act means for the issue. Would we have to scale back standards exclusively for women because requiring them to actually do their job effectively isn't "fair?"

The UN doesn't have a military.

Wouldn't this apply to every nation in the U.N., and their military forces?
From the way it's worded, I get the feeling that it would.

Wouldn't this apply to every nation in the U.N., and their military forces? the United Nations ... shall ... exercise such power when interacting with any person or government ...
Please explain your objections with quotes. It looks like a clear definition of separation to me. UN over here, nations and individuals over there.

UN Ambassadors are not officers of the UN, nor are any national representatives or support staff. If a nation were to loan staff to a UN Internal Organization, those staffers and officers would act not as nationals of a given country, but rather as UN staff for the duration of their assignments.

No, this doesn't apply to nations or their military forces, as they are not agents of the UN.

I'm not objecting, I'm asking for clarification. It says "the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof". Now, I don't know if our nations can be considered organizations or agencies of the U.N., but we definitely act on the behalf of and with the authority of the U.N.

So it looks like this would apply to every U.N. member nation.

we definitely act on the behalf of and with the authority of the U.N.
Well, we don't. We incorporate passed resolutions into our laws as required, but anything not expressly defined by the UN we decide for ourselves. We don't ask (or permit) the UN or any member nations to stand behind what we do or interfere in it in any way. If you pick a fight with a non-UN nation, does that mean that the rest of us submit to the authority of the UN and become your unwitting and required allies? No?

See Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48), Articles 1, 2, and 3. This is not a document that makes us subservient to the UN - it frees our sovereign rights in those areas where international law has not poked its hairy nostrils.

Wouldn't this apply to every nation in the U.N., and their military forces?
From the way it's worded, I get the feeling that it would.
I think Enn is trying to pull a fast one here.

From the wording, that's exactly what it would do.

I think Enn is trying to pull a fast one here.

From the wording, that's exactly what it would do.
Huh? All I did was put this up here. It's not my proposal, I just thought it would be good for there to be a thread active before this reaches general voting.

I'm not going to support it. At least not yet; I still have my doubts.

We are not convinced that this resolution will make a positive impact in any way. We do not see how it is neccessary and it is a bit vague.

Denai
Principality of Prachya

Looks like a bit of a sketchy resolution to me. It could easily be misleading, it's not particularly well worded and as far as I can work out it gives no extension on existing UN resolutions.

For now I will be voting against, although i'm looking forward to the discusion and might change my mind.

I think Enn is trying to pull a fast one here.

From the wording, that's exactly what it would do.

How?

Take TilEnca for example. I am the ambassedor (sp? I can't spell my own job, but eh, who cares?) to the UN from TilEnca. But that does not make me an agent of the UN, nor does it give me the power to act on behalf of it.

So my military forces are mine alone, they do not belong to the UN, and so will not be held to the code of conduct under this proposal.

And since the UN can not have a standing military prescence, this proposal will never affect the military.

Another question about this in relation to future proposals and resolutions.

There was a post somewhere else (in the Geneva Convention thread I think) about terrorism and the UN.

If this proposal says the UN has to remain fair and impartial, does it mean that the UN and it's agencies can not label any group a terrorist group?

Cause I really would support it if that was the case :}

My problem with the proposal? Define "fair"- it's different for everyone. This proposal is too vague for my approval.

Huh? All I did was put this up here. It's not my proposal, I just thought it would be good for there to be a thread active before this reaches general voting.
My apologies.
Who proposed it, then?

*sniff* there was a coup in my region, and i'm not the delegate anymore.

Could someone dejargonafy this for me? I admit to being puzzled by the use of what could be called deliberately complex language, as it seems to me that this could easily hide the proposer's true motives. Can I have it in simple sentences what this actually does?

My apologies.
Who proposed it, then?
Proposed by: Cascadia Atlanticus
Never heard of them before, and never seen them on the UN forum.

I think it's redundant given what we already have, but oh well.

I concur; I'd think the UN existing and doing what it does, legislating, is already assumed to be fair and equal in majority.

This resolution is redundant, vague, a waste of precious UN time.

My government will certainly vote against it.

Please enable the redundancy check before posting similar issues. Hm, if this issue is redundant, I would greatly appreciate if a link to previous similar issues was included and changes amended would be accentuated. Thank you

There are already several UN resolutions emphasizing equality, both in general terms as in specific cases (sex, marriage, gays). This resolution does nothing, adds nothing, has no actions. It can't, because if it would it would mess up game mechanics by disallowing certain resolutions which are not fair and equal according to...according to..according to who, actually? Who gets to decide what's fair?

I contacted Cascadia Atlanticus about the resolution because I didn't understand what it actually meant by 'fairness' and what its impact would be. (I had also found the resolution a bit full of jargon, as some of the forum members here seem to have done).

Anyway, I got the following telegram reply from Cascadia:

"Basically, it would protect UN nations and their national leaders from harassment by the UN, whenever UN agents/actors exercise UN power. The UN would only be able to treat nations fairly and equally, and would be able to discriminate and/or harass member states or their leaders unless there was good reason to do so.
The Proposal would have no impact on your domestic policy; it would only regulate the way the UN interacts with UN member states..."

Now my nation is not aware of the UN being involved in any discriminatory or 'unfair' use of power, or harassment of member states. Indeed, I don't believe that the UN has the ability to do such a thing - its power seems to stem almost purely from resolutions, which are applied equally to all members. A number of resolutions already seem to emphasise fairness and equity as guiding principles so I cannot see what is to gain by this resolution. At this early stage I am intending to oppose it on the ground of being full of jargon and adding unnecessary verbosity to UN processes.

I'm agreeing with the opinion that this resolution seems to define nothing that has not already been defined in previous UN Proposals. This is a very poorly worded resolution and as such New Larson cannot endorse it.

Matthias Betsworth
UN Delegate for the Allied States of New Larson

In agrrement with New Larson at the moment. Unfortunatly it will probably be voted in to the UN thanks to those who dont seem to acknowledge what it says in relation to UN resolutions throughout history, and there are plenty of them. :rolleyes:

I'd like to state that this is the last non-repeal in a while that Sarcodina finds not objectionable. It is deals with an important (and often spoken of and often ignored) issue the UN must face if it wishes to mantain its status as truly world organization which includes people of different political and personal persuasions...the issue is freedom to govern freely.
The UN has protected homosexuals, atheists, women, "animal lovers" (see Definition of Marriage), pacifists, and minorities. But there are many in the UN who don't feel such international emphasize should be placed on a few select groups. This new proposal establishes that for instance you believe in a divine figure, you should not be treated like a crazy person. If you like the idea of spending money on defense, you should not be labeled a wacko. If you believe in economic prosperity not communism then you are not necessarily a facist...etc.
The point being the UN is a world body and though it is set up in a majortarian system where the majority will speak loudest...it is also important to be accepting to all NS's people due to your status as worldwide organization. This proposal states that the UN is for everyone and (though this proposal is not going to all of sudden change the UN itself and the resolutions that are voted for) all are able to freely and fairly deal and be judged within its jurisdiction.

In this spirit of being understanding, I'd like to apologize to DemonLordEnigma, I disagree with much of what you say but I did not mean to be so accusational for that one post in the discussion of the repeal of prostitution (I think the pure mass of the thread made me quick to type and slower than I should have to think)...sorry.

The UN has protected homosexuals, atheists, women, "animal lovers" (see Definition of Marriage), pacifists, and minorities. But there are many in the UN who don't feel such international emphasize should be placed on a few select groups. This new proposal establishes that for instance you believe in a divine figure, you should not be treated like a crazy person. If you like the idea of spending money on defense, you should not be labeled a wacko. If you believe in economic prosperity not communism then you are not necessarily a facist...etc.

You do realise that hetrosexuals, sportsmen and women and war mongers already have a fair amount of protection under most nations laws? That no one would think to write a proposal called "Rights of Hetrosexuals" because it would be assumed that it would not be needed?

Laws to protect minorities are put in place because they are being persecuted and attacked. And not being able to write proposals to protect them will only make them more vunerable and open to attack.

If people are going to use this proposal to attack any future proposals because they might violate the idea of "fairness" then quite honestly nothing is going to be able to be passed in the future, and anything that will be passed is going to be so worthless that it will not be worth the effort of passing it.

This does indeed seem repetitive as it seems that we have enough resolutions supporting equal rights for practically everything in existance. Well, this will (as I'm sure it will pass) just be another one added to the list. O well, equality never hurt anyone (at least not the principle of it anyway).

I don't really like the UN's definition of fair in some issues as well (as by past resolutions) but o well you sign up for betterr or worse I suppose. So presuming this resolution is all about equality (because it did seem unneccisarly long to say what could have easily been said in about two sentences) I can't see any reason to vote against it...

Tilenca- "Laws to protect minorities are put in place because they are being persecuted and attacked. And not being able to write proposals to protect them will only make them more vunerable and open to attack."

I don't believe the case can be made that after two resolutions passing about gay marriage they were still being 'persecuted'. And that after giving women rights in multiple resolutions then adding another helped the fight over sexism. But this has nothing to do with the resolution.

Because this resolution will not hinder resolutions to be made because it isn't worded to do that and even if so that would be game mechanics...so it wouldn't matter because the mods wouldn't allow it. Same with the fact that no previous resolutions, by my judgement, will be changed because of a resolution due to no reference of changing resolutions in the proposal and it being a game mechanics issue. This is simply a resolution to be fair to minority opinions and nations and to treat them respectfully...this idea is not in any resolution though it is important for the UN to follow...

I admit there are some obvious exceptions - but technically there is only one resolution on Gay Rights, and one resolution on Marriage (and another one that really should not have been passed at all due to vagueness and it being badly written) - but under this proposal the first one could not have been passed and nations could be merrily opressing and repressing homosexuals as we speak.

This new proposal establishes that for instance you believe in a divine figure, you should not be treated like a crazy person. If you like the idea of spending money on defense, you should not be labeled a wacko. If you believe in economic prosperity not communism then you are not necessarily a facist...etc.

That means that this proposal is messing with game mechanics, because it would mean that certain proposals cannot be accepted based on very vague notions of what "fair" and "equal" is.

A main objection, it seems, to the proposal is that it is redundant. However, it is not redundant, and in fact closes several important loopholes.

Here is my explanation of why the propsoal is significantly distinct from the existing law.

Resolutions 12 (regarding gay rights) and 21 (regarding the right to a fair trial) only apply to domestic policy; neither of these resolutions affect the manner in which the United Nations may interact with Member states or the leaders of the member states.

Resolution 26 similarly does not impact the interaction of the UN with member states and the leaders of the members states. The equality guarantee in that Universal Bill of Rights, for instance, reads as follows: "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation." By its own terms, the equality gurantee is intended to protect individuals from unfair treatment by the domestic law of the member states. Finally, Resolution 26 makes it clear that its focus is on domestic law in the concluding section, wherein it states:

"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."

Finally, Resolution 80 also focuses on the law of the member nations: "These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens."

My proposal, however, focuses on protecting the rights of the member states and their leaders who are at the discretion of UN agents, without any such protections. The proposal I have asked you to support closes an important loophole, and protects each nation and its leaders from unfair treatment by the UN itself.

I hope this convinces you that this proposal does not duplicate existing law. I should be checking the forums here in the coming days; please let me know if you have additional questions.

Verily yours,

King of Cascadia Atlanticus.

This is simply a resolution to be fair to minority opinions and nations and to treat them respectfully...this idea is not in any resolution though it is important for the UN to follow...

Said much better, and much more concisely, than my previous explanation. Many thanks to Sarcodina! :)

We are tentatively in favour for the time being, but will closely monitor the debate in order to ensure our vote is cast in full knowledge of all possible effects of this proposal.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

My problem with the proposal is that, if it does become law, it could be used to a) strike down any resolutions that favour or disfavour one group over another (gay rights and union rights are examples of these) and b) prevent any further proposals/resolutions coming to the floor because someone can find a small part of it that indicates it would violate this proposal.

If either of these are the case, then this proposal is really dangerous and could affect the future of the UN in a far more serious way than the strength of "mild" would suggest.

With all due respect, I believe that such a reading of the proposal is incongruent with the purpose, the spirit, and even the text of the proposal. The proposal seeks to implement equality among the several member states of the UN. There is simply no need for concern that this resolution would render resolutions protecting "gay rights and union rights" illegal; for the proposal, again by its own terms, would only regulate the UN's interaction with the member states themselves. In other words, this proposal is absolutely unconcenred with domestic policy. Therefore, current resolutions regarding "gay rights and union rights" are not implicated by this proposal at all.

To give an example of a situation within the scope of the text of this proposal: If an agency of the UN decided to increase scrutiny of capitalist countries (you might call this a policy of "ideological profiling"), perhaps by increasing the investigatory and prosecutorial actions of such states, this proposal would render such a policy illegal. The proposal would forbid such an unfair and unequal treatment of the member states.

The distinction between the interaction between member states and their denizens, and the interaction between the United Nations and the Sovereign Member States may be a subtle one, but it is a critical distinction with which to be familiar to grasp the scope of this proposal.

TilEnca, I hope this allays your concerns. Please let me know if you have additional inquiries.

I know - I am possibly being paranoid about the scope of the powers of the proposal.

But - and this is the one thing that made me consider it - it says that the UN has to display fairness in all interactions with nations (doesn't it?).

Passing a resolution that will alter the laws of a nation (which all resolutions do) can be seen to be interacting with the nation. And all the members of that nation.

So if you look at it one way - the resolutions passed affect all member nations and so the interaction will always be fair - every nation gets the same treatment.

But if you look at it the other way - that the resolution affects some members in a way that it does not affect others - then it would be violating the fairness clause in it.

If I am the only one that thinks this, then maybe I am reading it wrong and you can all tell me to shut up. So - am I paranoid?

Many thanks for your thoughtful analysis!

I maintain that the proposal should not be read that expansively (for the reasons I set out above). However, even if one does read the proposal that broadly, note that the proposal emphasizes "fairness" and "equality."

And what might we mean by codifying our commitment to the values of "fairness" and "equality?" With respect to the examples you provided, "gay rights and union rights," I'd like to point out that nothing about the goals of "equality" or "fairness" would forbid the passage of laws that protect minority interests, to the extent that discrete and insular minorities are protected by the legislation. However, if the UN, either by legislation or by the acts of UN actors, attempted to unfairly and unequally exalt the interests of a privelged few above the interests of others, then that, indeed, would be problematic -- irrespective of who is in the "privileged group." For it is inconsequential which groups are being stimgatized, harrasssed, or otherwise unfairly or unequally privileged to the detriment of otheres; we must simply reject the unfair and unequal exercise of power when it is within our means to do so.

I maintain that this step in legal analysis is quite unncessary, however, because the proposal's intent (and, in my view, the text itself) limits the proposal to governing the interaction between the UN and the Sovereign Member states. Even if the proposal should be read as broadly as its language might possibly permit, then there is still no cause for discomfort. The UN would still retain the right to protet the interests of those discrete and insular minorities who need legal protections, if the UN so desired.

Now for this sucker.

Description: Proposal for a U.N. Resolution regarding the Fair and Equal Exercise of Powers exercised by the United Nations.

Fair Administration and Non Discrimination

In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

Practical Limitations Recognized

The United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall not pursue any investigation, prosecution, or otherwise exercise any power unless there exists a sufficient factual basis and a good faith motive on the part of the actor(s) exercising such power.

Okay, is this necessary? Doesn't strike me as such.

Many thanks for your thoughtful analysis!


Seriously - I am thinking of seeing if there is a degree in NSUN international law available :}


I maintain that the proposal should not be read that expansively (for the reasons I set out above). However, even if one does read the proposal that broadly, note that the proposal emphasizes "fairness" and "equality."

And what might we mean by codifying our commitment to the values of "fairness" and "equality?" With respect to the examples you provided, "gay rights and union rights," I'd like to point out that nothing about the goals of "equality" or "fairness" would forbid the passage of laws that protect minority interests, to the extent that discrete and insular minorities are protected by the legislation. However, if the UN, either by legislation or by the acts of UN actors, attempted to unfairly and unequally exalt the interests of a privelged few above the interests of others, then that, indeed, would be problematic -- irrespective of who is in the "privileged group." For it is inconsequential which groups are being stimgatized, harrasssed, or otherwise unfairly or unequally privileged to the detriment of otheres; we must simply reject the unfair and unequal exercise of power when it is within our means to do so.

I maintain that this step in legal analysis is quite unncessary, however, because the proposal's intent (and, in my view, the text itself) limits the proposal to governing the interaction between the UN and the Sovereign Member states. Even if the proposal should be read as broadly as its language might possibly permit, then there is still no cause for discomfort. The UN would still retain the right to protet the interests of those discrete and insular minorities who need legal protections, if the UN so desired.

Yeah. I no longer have any objection to it. I just sometimes read things the wrong way, and it takes me a little while to get my head back round the right way again.

Thank you for explaining all this - you are right - and for not going nuts at me for (repeatedly) trying to pick holes in what you wrote. It is pretty good :}

TilEnca:
Upon the receipt of this news, there was much rejoicing in the Royal Court of His Excellency, the First Benevolent and Wise King of Cascadia Atlanticus!!

We are both honored and humbled to have your support. May your nation prosper! :)

A main objection, it seems, to the proposal is that it is redundant. However, it is not redundant, and in fact closes several important loopholes.

Here is my explanation of why the propsoal is significantly distinct from the existing law.

Okay, so it doesn't duplicate existing law. You could have told us sooner, but anyway. I still don't see what "important loopholes" there are to close. There are no loopholes.

My proposal, however, focuses on protecting the rights of the member states and their leaders who are at the discretion of UN agents, without any such protections. The proposal I have asked you to support closes an important loophole, and protects each nation and its leaders from unfair treatment by the UN itself.

Again, what loophole? There is no loophole! The UN is governed by UN resolution, which pass as law in member nations, equally. So why is this resolution necessary? Equality is already there - it's embedded in the NationStates world.

I still am not convinced that this resolution is worthy of UN attention. Our government is firmly against until you can convince us that there is in fact a loophole that desperately needs closing. So far, your absence from the discussion and poor argumenting is not convincing us, though we admire the thoughts behind it. There's just no reason for this resolution.

Reading through these many posts, I must agree that this proposal is vague, redundant, and could possibly restrict future proposals - which is changing the game mechanics.

There are no definitions of 'fair', which was pointed out by several people, and this alarms my nation. Nazis find it 'fair' to exterminate all peoples of Jewish religion, will this be protected by this proposal?

I don't believe the case can be made that after two resolutions passing about gay marriage they were still being 'persecuted'. And that after giving women rights in multiple resolutions then adding another helped the fight over sexism. But this has nothing to do with the resolution.

The point of passing these resolutions is to protect the minorities being persecuted, and also to begin the end of their persecution by example to the people of our nations. If the government did not allow gays to be married, or to give equal rights to women, than obviously the people of that nation are right to persecute them and will continue to do so.

It has everything to do with this resolution because different people have different views on what is 'fair'. If one nation does not respect women, for instance, and considers it 'fair' to treat them with disrespect and to restrict their movements, is this also protected by your resolution?

Because of the vagueness of your resolution, I will be voting against it and urging my region to do the same. I agree with the resolutions to protect women and homosexuals, and this resolution - should it pass - will leave a window open to have these resolutions thrown out.

Seems like a good resolution to me.... makes sure that UN officials don't discriminate.

I like the spirit and intent of this resolution. The posts have been enlightening. I agree with the opponents of this resolution as to the vague wording. I do think it can be intrepreted in a variety of ways that could be counter productive to its intent. I will keep reading to see other points but right now will be voting no.

Samsonish

When drafting new law, there is always a balance to be had between precision and explanation. Sometimes, in attempting to explain components of legislation, the legislation becomes unwieldy and thus, confusing. On the other hand, in an attempt to be precise, and tackle only a specific category of issues, the legislation becomes a too short, and does not answer every conceivable issue that might arise.

This is the price we pay of living under the rule of law. Absolute specificity and absolute precision will never be had. Take, for instance, the word "fair." We have the dictionary to help us, and even if we copied that definition into the text of the proposal, some nations would not be satisfied, claiming the issue was too vague.

I understand that there will be opponents to the wording of the resolution, no matter how it was worded. And I appreciate that fact, because we are all entitled to our views on the resolutions that come to the floor.

Nevertheless, I believe that I have struck the appropriate balance between precision and explanation with this draft, and I urge nations that might have worded the resolution differently to vote for the resolution, keeping in mind the intent and spirit of the resolution, and the effort put forth in getting this resolution to the floor.

If some of the critics of the wording had voiced their views during the period of time that I had post a draft on these forums before ever submitting the proposal, I would have been more than happy to accomodate their views. However, not one nation indicated any specific way by which the wording of the resolution could be improved. I therefore relied on legal advisers instead.

The resolution is what it is. I appreciate the outpouring of support from nations who believe that the UN must also be nondiscriminatory and fair in its dealing with member states. As to the other nations, I appreciate your time and consideration, and I retain hope that we might see eye-to-eye on other issues in the future.

Reading through these many posts, I must agree that this proposal is vague, redundant, and could possibly restrict future proposals - which is changing the game mechanics.

There are no definitions of 'fair', which was pointed out by several people, and this alarms my nation. Nazis find it 'fair' to exterminate all peoples of Jewish religion, will this be protected by this proposal?



The point of passing these resolutions is to protect the minorities being persecuted, and also to begin the end of their persecution by example to the people of our nations. If the government did not allow gays to be married, or to give equal rights to women, than obviously the people of that nation are right to persecute them and will continue to do so.

It has everything to do with this resolution because different people have different views on what is 'fair'. If one nation does not respect women, for instance, and considers it 'fair' to treat them with disrespect and to restrict their movements, is this also protected by your resolution?

Because of the vagueness of your resolution, I will be voting against it and urging my region to do the same. I agree with the resolutions to protect women and homosexuals, and this resolution - should it pass - will leave a window open to have these resolutions thrown out.

Voted against, urging regional members to do the same.

Anyone contacted Gatesville yet?

Regards,

TNE
(Delegate)

Lord Maximus, the delegate of the Oppressed Peoples of Dancing Zombies, speaks. "personally, I don't like it. I know I may be a new member of the UN, but I believe that most nations have their own rules of equality, and those that don't probably have a reason. Of course, I do also believe that this resolution has a good, heart, which is all the more reason for me to vote it down. NEXT!"

So, I think this has good intent, but I want DLE to thoughly rip it to shreads before I vote.

This is easily the lamest proposal I have ever read.

This is easily the lamest proposal I have ever read.

Care to say why instead of just saying that like a newcomer?

Rather.

Must say they will get no vote from me on this one. I beleive it should be dropped all together.

PM Oliver Lane.

Then, that means you should vote Against to see it dropped.
Newcomers...

Would it be possible for people to explain why they are voting against it (or for it)? I am not trying to dictate your positions, but if you explain why you don't like it, then it is possible someone will explain if you have misunderstood something, which might make you see something you had not considered.

Sir, How terribly uncouth of you!

Yes, I may be new. But that gives you no excuse to be so Extroadinarily rude.

Anyway, I find myself Drawn neither to Nay or Yay as it is such a Ridiculous proposition.

Oliver

Sir, How terribly uncouth of you!

Yes, I may be new. But that gives you no excuse to be so Extroadinarily rude.

Anyway, I find myself Drawn neither to Nay or Yay as it is such a Ridiculous proposition.

Oliver

(smirk) Fair enough.

It must be said, the great many have so little in the manners department.

Please Sir, be slightly more considerate in your postings, and maybe you will gain the respect of your fellow men.

Oliver

Don't we already have about 40 resolutions dealing with the same thing? People let the equality thing die. It's been done and covered. The only thing we haven't given equal rights to are animals, organs, and plants.

It must be said, the great many have so little in the manners department.

Please Sir, be slightly more considerate in your postings, and maybe you will gain the respect of your fellow men.

Oliver

Please, Sir, please give us reasons as opposed to random gibbering.

Random Gibbering?

It may be somewhat off topic, but not random at all.

My reasons for not wanting to vote are that it really is a pointless resoloution, that will have no effect and such as thus is a waste of time.

Oliver

Random Gibbering?

It may be somewhat off topic, but not random at all.

My reasons for not wanting to vote are that it really is a pointless resoloution, that will have no effect and such as thus is a waste of time.

Oliver

Elaborate.
Sir.

In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

My nation does not wish to recognise the right of gay marrage. Our religious texts state marrage is the union of a man and woman. The Ideology of my government does not agree with gay marrage, however the UN voted in favour in the past. We do not see how this action on the behalf of the UN was fair and will be looking into the possiblitity of repealing all gay marrage laws if this is passed.
For possible knock on effects of this resolution the Federation of Engineering Chaos votes in favour

It's always fair.
It's fair because more people voted FOR it than against it.

Description: Proposal for a U.N. Resolution regarding the Fair and Equal Exercise of Powers exercised by the United Nations.

Fair Administration and Non Discrimination

Nonexistant. Fair means everyone gets treated equally. The problem is, someone always benefits from everything while someone always gets nothing. Fairness doesn't exist in nations.

In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

This strikes me as bad on all levels.

So I would have to give equal consideration to UN nations I would like to test biological weapons on just because they are in the UN when making my decisions on UN issues? Even if they are an idiot spouting nothing but stupidity? Or guilty of making up past events, such as whether or not their opponent has been warned by the mods or they have asked for space? I certainly hope not.

Practical Limitations Recognized

The United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall not pursue any investigation, prosecution, or otherwise exercise any power unless there exists a sufficient factual basis and a good faith motive on the part of the actor(s) exercising such power.

Uh huh.

Fact: I would like to nuke a random nation for the joy of it.
Fact: I have the armaments to do it.
Fact: I think this will make the UN better.
Fact: I am acting on what I think will happen, thus I only need to provide evidence I think it will happen.
Fact: Evidence provided and irrefuteable.

Excuse me while I nuke a random nation for the joy of it and claim UN backing.

In regards to the exercising of power by UN authority. It does not seem prudent to include ideology of government as a factor which should not affect the decisions which are made in the UN. This is because any government may take any action and claim that this action is due to political ideology, thus rendering the UN incapable of action against such things which it has committed itself against.

My guess is the resolution is a joke, and I find it fairly amusing. Especially when I was told that it had been noted that Merric had voted against Fairness and Equality.

The resolution doesn't actually say anything. But I had a good laugh. ;-)

Nonexistant. Fair means everyone gets treated equally. The problem is, someone always benefits from everything while someone always gets nothing. Fairness doesn't exist in nations.



This strikes me as bad on all levels.

So I would have to give equal consideration to UN nations I would like to test biological weapons on just because they are in the UN when making my decisions on UN issues? Even if they are an idiot spouting nothing but stupidity? Or guilty of making up past events, such as whether or not their opponent has been warned by the mods or they have asked for space? I certainly hope not.



Uh huh.

Fact: I would like to nuke a random nation for the joy of it.
Fact: I have the armaments to do it.
Fact: I think this will make the UN better.
Fact: I am acting on what I think will happen, thus I only need to provide evidence I think it will happen.
Fact: Evidence provided and irrefuteable.

Excuse me while I nuke a random nation for the joy of it and claim UN backing.


Yay! You finally tore it to shreds.
Now, lets see his comeback, and then I'll take a side.

My nation does not wish to recognise the right of gay marrage. Our religious texts state marrage is the union of a man and woman. The Ideology of my government does not agree with gay marrage, however the UN voted in favour in the past. We do not see how this action on the behalf of the UN was fair and will be looking into the possiblitity of repealing all gay marrage laws if this is passed.
For possible knock on effects of this resolution the Federation of Engineering Chaos votes in favour

Well, that wouldn't work, because it would be in regard to gender and a political condition. So this would not allow you to go out of compliance with prior UN Resolutions.

Don't we already have about 40 resolutions dealing with the same thing? People let the equality thing die. It's been done and covered. The only thing we haven't given equal rights to are animals, organs, and plants.
and there's a propsal up right now for animal rights.





Vegetable rights and peace!!

Fact: I would like to nuke a random nation for the joy of it.
Fact: I have the armaments to do it.
Fact: I think this will make the UN better.
Fact: I am acting on what I think will happen, thus I only need to provide evidence I think it will happen.
Fact: Evidence provided and irrefuteable.

Excuse me while I nuke a random nation for the joy of it and claim UN backing.

Remind me to be *extra nice* to DLE today.

Oops. Too late!

Here are some facts and random thoughts:
The UN passed a resolution regarding gay marriage because a majority voted for it (that is fair because that is how the UN works)
The UN has THREE resolutions repeating that gay marriage are allowed (that is unfair because that is against the rules and should've been not allowed)

This (ie the gay marriage resolutions passing) is an example of political bias. Political Bias is a problem in the UN and the new resolution's main NEW idea is the idea of ceasing its existence.

Continuing, I really think that the shaft is more often given to certain kinds of proposals then others. The forum are also the case. Not that one must agrees with a proposal (that would be absurd) but to treat someone like their some ancient cave man with a philosophy of stupidity (and then not be called a flamebaiter is nonsensical --this hasn't happened to me thus far but I see it a lot--)

Also back to the proposals, let's say there is one about a proposal regarding the right to attack with guns or some such issue. The fact is there is high chance of it being called for rules violations. Because making fun of pacifists (not that I do...well mostly not) or something like that is horrendous and offensive but for instance making fun of religious "extremists" (not the ones who kill people that is but the ones who well believe in a deity strongly) is okay.
For instance, I recently saw a homosexual adoption proposal. It was allowed to be voted on multiple times even though due to the fact that gays have equal rights (if not more rights) it would appear discrimination against them is not allowed all ready...but the UN higher ups did not do anything.

Also, the issue of what if there is a Nazi who wants to kill people or a someone with nukes etc. Do they get treated equally? This is an important question. To answer, first off the UN resolutions regard to everyone's policy... and until certain resolutions regarding weaponary, genocide and religious tolerance et al are repealed then they are the UN's policy to the Nazi or nuke friendly DLE :).
And this current resolution does not seem to me apply if someone is going to kill you, you have to be nice to them. I believe it states limitations...if someone wants to kill you then this resolution doesn't apply. If someone is trying to break UN rules illegally in their country then they don't apply. YEt if someone disagrees with a UN policy and wishes to try to change it then it does apply and they should be treated fairly.

I know this post is long and hard to comprehend but well when people bash me I'll try to respond more coherently.

Please to point out all three resolutions, first. I counted two.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that repeatedly, resolutions get shot down before being posted due to the lack of an ACTION. This seems to be the case here. I would have no problem voting for this, if I knew what its action is.

That seems to be what no one is answering. Give me something tangible, not just, "It makes things fair," and I'll vote for it.

Sounds good, just DON'T VOTE FOR IT! Think about it. Voting for this means that you want the UN to fund everyone . Do you want someone trying to wipe out their neighbor nation ( :mp5: ) being funded to stomp all over some unsuspecting peace loving pacifist ( :eek: )? I say it should be voted down. Good intentions can lead to bad places if things aren't thought out.

Absolute specificity and absolute precision will never be had. Take, for instance, the word "fair." We have the dictionary to help us, and even if we copied that definition into the text of the proposal, some nations would not be satisfied, claiming the issue was too vague.

You're nearly right. Yes, absolute precision is impossible, and should not be in a UN resolution. But what you are doing is taking a subjective term and present it as objective. While some might consider it only fair to invade another nation and kill whoever opposes them, others might not. And in that case, who is right, and what is the effect of this resolution?

A dictionary tells you the definition of "fair", but not the content. And it's the content of "fair" that matters.

If some of the critics of the wording had voiced their views during the period of time that I had post a draft on these forums before ever submitting the proposal, I would have been more than happy to accomodate their views. However, not one nation indicated any specific way by which the wording of the resolution could be improved. I therefore relied on legal advisers instead.

An astonishing amount of proposals goes past every day. It's impossible to comment on them all, because in 95% of the cases, they're crap. If a resolution is crap, I rarely comment on it because there's probably no reason as it will silently disappear. With this resolution, I responded as soon as I saw the approval-count going up towards reaching quorum. I never saw you here, though. For several days, you didn't explain or defend your proposal.

The resolution is what it is. I appreciate the outpouring of support from nations who believe that the UN must also be nondiscriminatory and fair in its dealing with member states.

The UN must be nothing. If it's the will of the UN to discriminate, tough. Take it or leave it. The UN *must* discriminate, even, because a gain for one nation is a loss for another one. A resolution like this can't stop that. That's how the game works.

Excuse me while I nuke a random nation for the joy of it and claim UN backing.

You haven't understood the resolution. You either nuke all UN nations fairly and equally, or you don't nuke anybody.

You haven't understood the resolution. You either nuke all UN nations fairly and equally, or you don't nuke anybody.

Actually he doesn't. The proposal says that the UN, it's staff and so forth, have to deal with with people fairly.

It doesn't say the member nations have to be fair and balanced in their interaction with each other.

How can we vote for only half a resolution?..

There are no penalties for those that flout this resolution...

Maybe if the resolution was re-drafted to include this omission then I could vote yes...

I have been looking at the arguments here as to how this resolution interacts with existing and future resolutions. While its looks good I can't see where it do anything good - there is a danger that it will do bad I intend to change my vote to against - probably wont matter as it looks like it will be passed overwhelmingly

You haven't understood the resolution. You either nuke all UN nations fairly and equally, or you don't nuke anybody.

Nope. As long as I picked the nation totally at random and am not targetting it for some specific reason and I make sure everyone in the nation gets equal doses of radiation, then I am complying with this proposal.

If some of the critics of the wording had voiced their views during the period of time that I had post a draft on these forums before ever submitting the proposal, I would have been more than happy to accomodate their views. However, not one nation indicated any specific way by which the wording of the resolution could be improved. I therefore relied on legal advisers instead.

Many of us were busy with more important things at the time. I don't have teh time to deal with every topic every day. I ignore some topics so that I can deal with others. Normally, the ones I ignore go nowhere, but this one snuck up on me.

. Normally, the ones I ignore go nowhere, but this one snuck up on me.

That's the risk one runs, I suppose.

Vastiva- "Please to point out all three resolutions, first. I counted two."
Gay Marriage Resolutions: 1) Gay Rights, 2) Rights of Minorities and Women, 3) Definition of Marriage.

For once I am on the side with an overwhelming majority, so I am feeling overall fine about how the discussion is going.

But, I really wish that people can understand that this resolution is not in support of treating EVERYONE fairly. The people it doesn't count (and this admittedly is an inferred list) is people who are not in the UN and people who pose a serious threat to your people or nation or another nation in the UN unprovoked (being fair to a person who is going to harm you is to harm them back in my opinion). The idea that the UN will become some organization that only cares about the view of minorities (ironic isn't it that people are complaining) when this resolution passes is not true. It is merely a resolution that is symbolic to a problem at hand. The majority will still rule, but hopefully with a more fair and evenhanded approach.

And to the idea about editing the current resolution to make it better. This is an often used facade to someone who doesn't like something (I would know because I've tried it)...DLE sorry you can't effect everything...

Actually he doesn't. The proposal says that the UN, it's staff and so forth, have to deal with with people fairly.
It doesn't say the member nations have to be fair and balanced in their interaction with each other.


I understand this has no bearing on how nations deal with each other, despite DLE's intended random assault to tests its parameters :)

I understand it has no bearing on resolutions.

But could someone please explain to me what UN staff and/or agents it is this proposal is talking about? Are we discussing the secretaries and file clerks and maintenance staff? If one of them is rude to me, as the representative of my government, as opposed to say... TilEnca's representative, what is the penalty? May I shoot them? No? Garrott?... If the elevator operator allows say... Groot Gouda's representative into the elevator and yet closes the door on me, what would be the penalty for such blatant unfairness?

I've noticed that anything that is "politically correct" seems to pass without thought or necessity for that matter. This is beginning to appear to be one of those proposals.

Please give me an example of how the UN has been or might be less than fair in its dealings with member nations and which "agents" of the UN might have enough position or power to do anything this resolution supposedly protects against, other than that elevator operator who really pissed me off.

And to the idea about editing the current resolution to make it better. This is an often used facade to someone who doesn't like something (I would know because I've tried it)...DLE sorry you can't effect everything...

Where did I say I wanted it improved? I fully plan on abusing this sucker once it passes whenever the opportunity presents and I'm dealing with a nation I wish removed.

I understand this has no bearing on how nations deal with each other, despite DLE's intended random assault to tests its parameters :)

I understand it has no bearing on resolutions.

But could someone please explain to me what UN staff and/or agents it is this proposal is talking about? Are we discussing the secretaries and file clerks and maintenance staff? If one of them is rude to me, as the representative of my government, as opposed to say... TilEnca's representative, what is the penalty? May I shoot them? No? Garrott?... If the elevator operator allows say... Groot Gouda's representative into the elevator and yet closes the door on me, what would be the penalty for such blatant unfairness?

I've noticed that anything that is "politically correct" seems to pass without thought or necessity for that matter. This is beginning to appear to be one of those proposals.

Please give me an example of how the UN has been or might be less than fair in its dealings with member nations and which "agents" of the UN might have enough position or power to do anything this resolution supposedly protects against, other than that elevator operator who really pissed me off.

Any agency granted powers by the UN has the potential to abuse such power -- consider, for example, Article II of the Eon Convention Against Genocide which creates a UN agency:

Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.

Some of the members of the UN on here believe that this resolution is only half finished. That being there are no penalties, i have to agree with this, which is why i will be changing my vote to against. I know that one vote may not hold much weight, but maybe these words may:

I urge you all to change your vote to against. Why? as i have already said, there are no penalties, i beleive that this should be re-thought.

Some of the members of the UN on here believe that this resolution is only half finished. That being there are no penalties, i have to agree with this, which is why i will be changing my vote to against. I know that one vote may not hold much weight, but maybe these words may:

I urge you all to change your vote to against. Why? as i have already said, there are no penalties, i beleive that this should be re-thought.

You don't think the nations should be able to sort out the punishments themselves?

And there are other resolutions that don't have punishments detailed in them. Gay Rights for example. The EON Convention for another.

Some of the members of the UN on here believe that this resolution is only half finished. That being there are no penalties, i have to agree with this, which is why i will be changing my vote to against. I know that one vote may not hold much weight, but maybe these words may:

I urge you all to change your vote to against. Why? as i have already said, there are no penalties, i beleive that this should be re-thought.

There are a number of considerations that come into play when one sets out to determine the goals and the scope of a proposal. One of those is the rather mundane consideration of what form of resolution is likely to garner a majority vote.

The issue of enforcement via civial and criminal penalties could turn out to be a very controversial issue, and I believe it is better to debate these ina comprehenisve "enforcement bill," rather than to deal with bits and pieces of the debate in a piece meal fashion, resolution by resolution.

If you desire a comprehensive enforcement scheme for violations of UN law, I invite you to submit a proposal, rally support for it, and debate it on these forums. I would prefer that you not try to tack on additional goals onto the bill I have submitted. The goal of this proposal is to put all agents of the UN on notice that they are to act fairly and non-discriminatorily.
'

Sounds good in theory, unless you think that the UN should be an organization which promotes democracy throughout the world. Under this resolution, no such purpose would exist for the UN, and would in fact be prohibited.

But we live in the world of moral relativism. Maybe an oppressive dictatorship is really the best for your nation. How could I ever judge? I just don't think your people are "ready" to govern themselves.

I don't think the UN should be a "democracies only" club, but should rather encourage democratic reforms in all nations. Just one Sovereign's opinion....

AGAINST

I still don't think EITHER side has a good arguement yet.
We need more mud slinging.
Slinging I say!

Just wanted to point out a line from the resolution "Rights of Minorities and Women"

"Article III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another."

So this new resolution will actually improve on this ridiculousness of total equality. Because things will be based on treating people with respect not total unabashed equality even with reason to not think two systems are equal.

And to those that speak about the need for penalty...this resolution can't be enforced with penalities (you were unfair, now you lose your UN membership)...it simply sends a message and is something to point to when the UN starts acting unfair to someone...Can someone really explain what type of penalty they were speaking of to add on?

Is this really what our resolutions are reduced to these days? "Oh we need some sort of assurance of fairness and equality from the U.N. Tell you what, let's make a resolution for it. Something like 'The U.N. should be fair and equal in all matters.' No, wait, that's not enough. Ah sod it, let's just pad it out with some nondescript waffle."

I can't vote against it because I agree with what it says. But I don't want to vote for it because it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't do anything that taking tiny details from all of the human rights legislation passed so far doesn't surpass.

Demographika, that's why I am going to abuse the living hell out of it once it passes. Turn it from protecting rights to being the main tool behind violating them. Besides, I could use the extra territory.

Demographika, that's why I am going to abuse the living hell out of it once it passes. Turn it from protecting rights to being the main tool behind violating them. Besides, I could use the extra territory.

Are you trying to get people to vote against to stop you, or are you encouraging to people like you to vote for it?

Are you trying to get people to vote against to stop you, or are you encouraging to people like you to vote for it?

I'm demonstrating one of the flaws of it. See my post about how I can abuse it. Now, it's up to you to decide whether you think I'm just saying that as an example or if I will follow through on it.

I'm demonstrating one of the flaws of it. See my post about how I can abuse it. Now, it's up to you to decide whether you think I'm just saying that as an example or if I will follow through on it.

Psychology strikes again.

Psychology strikes again.

Thankfully, it does not appear that the success of this proposal will depend upon our prediction of whether nations intent upon abusing the law will disregard the law's plain meaning.

Indeed, this is something we need not worry about, for DLE is not the sole and final arbiter of the meaning of the law.

Thankfully, it does not appear that the success of this proposal will depend upon our prediction of whether nations intent upon abusing the law will disregard the law's plain meaning.

Indeed, this is something we need not worry about, for DLE is not the sole and final arbiter of the meaning of the law.


Well, doesn't it?
People bent on abusing the law will, by nature, abuse it.
And if you don't want them to, you don't pass it.

We're all crazy.

(this kind of combines two posts by Sarcondina, but only because they are connected. It also mixes up the quotes a little, but I am not misquoting him I promise)


Here are some facts and random thoughts:
The UN passed a resolution regarding gay marriage because a majority voted for it (that is fair because that is how the UN works)
The UN has THREE resolutions repeating that gay marriage are allowed (that is unfair because that is against the rules and should've been not allowed)


Vastiva- "Please to point out all three resolutions, first. I counted two."
Gay Marriage Resolutions: 1) Gay Rights, 2) Rights of Minorities and Women, 3) Definition of Marriage.


Gay Rights defends the right of gay marriage.

Rights of Minorities and women does not mention marriage anywhere. It says "one should have the right to express their love for the member of the same sex" which is CLEARLY not the same as saying they can marry them.

Definition of marriage does not directly mention gay marriage - it defines marriage as the union of two (or more?) people regardless of sex, religion and a whole load of other things. So without it it is not beyond reason marriage could be banned between TilEncans and Geminians. Which means it has a purpose that is more than defending gay marriage.


This (ie the gay marriage resolutions passing) is an example of political bias. Political Bias is a problem in the UN and the new resolution's main NEW idea is the idea of ceasing its existence.


Actually it is not an indication of bias on behalf of the UN, but possibly on behalf of the member nations. The UN has no say in what we chose to pass (other than the game mechanics issues) so it can't possibly be biased in the resolutions. The member nations can, but they don't work for the UN and are not covered by this proposal.


Also back to the proposals, let's say there is one about a proposal regarding the right to attack with guns or some such issue. The fact is there is high chance of it being called for rules violations. Because making fun of pacifists (not that I do...well mostly not) or something like that is horrendous and offensive but for instance making fun of religious "extremists" (not the ones who kill people that is but the ones who well believe in a deity strongly) is okay.


I have to admit I don't get your point here. As far as I have seen Gun Regulation proposals are not called for rule violations, but because most nations think it is a national, not international, issue.


For instance, I recently saw a homosexual adoption proposal. It was allowed to be voted on multiple times even though due to the fact that gays have equal rights (if not more rights) it would appear discrimination against them is not allowed all ready...but the UN higher ups did not do anything.


That depends on your perspective. Adoption is one area where you can discriminate against someone without actually doing it. Because you can easily claim that having two gay parents is not in the best interest of the child, because the child will be teased and mocked because of the fact he has two fathers an no mother. Which although it does look like discrimination is actually a logical reason why a child can not be adopted (from a certain point of view)


Also, the issue of what if there is a Nazi who wants to kill people or a someone with nukes etc. Do they get treated equally? This is an important question. To answer, first off the UN resolutions regard to everyone's policy... and until certain resolutions regarding weaponary, genocide and religious tolerance et al are repealed then they are the UN's policy to the Nazi or nuke friendly DLE .


Remember that this is not asking nations to treat everyone fairly. Only agents and staff of the UN (eg The Pretenama Panel - a body that tries people for genocide). So if a Nazi who wants to kill people is brought before it, they must be treated fairly and not just thrown away to rot. That doesn't mean that this person can not be convicted - but they must have a fair trial and not suffer discrimination in the way the Panel carries out it's duty.


And this current resolution does not seem to me apply if someone is going to kill you, you have to be nice to them. I believe it states limitations...if someone wants to kill you then this resolution doesn't apply. If someone is trying to break UN rules illegally in their country then they don't apply. YEt if someone disagrees with a UN policy and wishes to try to change it then it does apply and they should be treated fairly.


Which is a good thing. (But does this not imply that it is will have a serious effect on the moderation staff?)


For once I am on the side with an overwhelming majority, so I am feeling overall fine about how the discussion is going.


I don't know what side I am on, but I am quite happy with the way the discussion is going as well. Very little name calling and back-biting :}

(Btw - what side is the majority on?)

The majority is on the winning side.
Simple concept, really.

The majority is on the winning side.
Simple concept, really.

(smirk) I did not know if he was talking about the current state of the vote or the people who were involved in this thread :}

(smirk) I did not know if he was talking about the current state of the vote or the people who were involved in this thread :}

It's one and the same.

The more people who are for it, the one that's winning.
Therefore, there's a higher chance of people being FOR the resolution in this thread.

Of course, that's subject to change.

I'd like to have part of the resolution explained before I vote:

"In the exercise of any power, the United Nations ... shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government)." (emphasis added)

I have a question as to the wording. Does the phrase "without regard to any political consideration including the outcome of any conflict" mean that the UN will deal with persons or governments without regards as to the past actions of said persons or governments? Specifically, what I am concerned about is the possibility that this wording might be used by war criminals and dictators to prevent the UN from intervening in situations that may violate basic human rights or in unjust wars. For example, a war criminal or violator of human rights, such as Hitler or Stalin, might use this resolution to prevent due justice from being served under international law, citing that they are not being treated "fairly, evenly, and appropriately without regard to political consideration", despite the undeniable fact that one committed genocide as well as instigated the most destructive conflict in human history, while the other held a reign of terror, execution, and deprivation within one of the largest countries in the world for half a century. Is the "Practical Limitations Recognized" phrase a safeguard against this?

Does the phrase "without regard to any political consideration including the outcome of any conflict" mean that the UN will deal with persons or governments without regards as to the past actions of said persons or governments?

This is a very good question, and I'm glad to see it raised here. You need not fear, the wording forbids the consideration of "the outcome of any conflict," not the actions taken during the conflict. The resolution would not permit the UN to turn a blind eye to war crimes by any nation, whether that nation happend to be the "winner" or the "loser" of the conflict. Thus, Hitler would be liable under UN law whether he had "won" or "lost" the conflict. The proposal would have no bearing on the wrongful actions taken during conflict, but it would require both "winners" and "losers" to have their actions evaluated the under the same legal standards, and with the same scrutiny.

I can think of a good reason why NOT to vote for this resolution.

I'd be comfortable with the new UN Resolution for Fairness if it didn't contain the, "or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government)."

Does that mean if a government is participating in genocide or that their ideology is that hobos should be drained of all blood then we can't take that into consideration in UN decisions? I would be against that. The way this is worded, I cannot accept it.

Upon looking through the forum, I see that this has been addressed; however, it would be nice if the resolution itself addressed this issue. Obviously, I am not the first to think that it could be interpreted wrongly.

It seems to us that, what with the lack of any enforcement method and all, the effect of this resolution will be to create one more tool that UN nations can add to their propaganda arsenals.

We think that this can only strengthen the principles of free debate within the UN, and we intend--provisionally of course--to support it.

I can think of a good reason why NOT to vote for this resolution.

I'd be comfortable with the new UN Resolution for Fairness if it didn't contain the, "or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government)."

Does that mean if a government is participating in genocide or that their ideology is that hobos should be drained of all blood then we can't take that into consideration in UN decisions? I would be against that. The way this is worded, I cannot accept it.

Upon looking through the forum, I see that this has been addressed; however, it would be nice if the resolution itself addressed this issue. Obviously, I am not the first to think that it could be interpreted wrongly.

Any law can be interpreted wrongly.... but interpreting a practice of widespread genocide as an ideology is stretching the understanding of the word pretty far. I think that drafters of legislation expect that readers and appliers of that legislation will use the standard tools of commen understandings and experience when interpreting the provisions contained therein.

In any event, we already have the Eon convention against Genocide which explictly outlaws genocide. Therefore, Genocide is already illegal under UN law.

This is a very good question, and I'm glad to see it raised here. You need not fear, the wording forbids the consideration of "the outcome of any conflict," not the actions taken during the conflict. The resolution would not permit the UN to turn a blind eye to war crimes by any nation, whether that nation happend to be the "winner" or the "loser" of the conflict. Thus, Hitler would be liable under UN law whether he had "won" or "lost" the conflict. The proposal would have no bearing on the wrongful actions taken during conflict, but it would require both "winners" and "losers" to have their actions evaluated the under the same legal standards, and with the same scrutiny.

On this point I thought I would repost a post from our Regional Message Board.
Perhaps the proposal author could clarify further?

The New Jerusalem



Vote no on the UN resolution.

The UN can't discriminate among nations?
And can't take into count "the outcome of any conflict"?


Like if Iraq invades Kuwait, the UN can't "discriminate" against Iraq, just because it invaded someone?

The UN is SUPPOSED to discriminate (look it up) among nations. Especially on account of "the outcome of ... conflict[s]"!!

And their ideologies, if those cross the line: like UN sanctions against a genocidal or violently racist state?

"Oh no, that's our 'ideology', you can't have sanctions against us, that's discrimination." Absolute BS!


What's the point of the UN if it can't discriminate among the ideologies and actions of governments?

-------------------------

Discriminate (Dis*crim"i*nate) (?), v. i.

1. To make a difference or distinction; to distinguish accurately; as, in judging of evidence, we should be careful to discriminate between probability and slight presumption.
2. (a) To treat unequally.



[Posted on the Dome of the Rock Regional Message Board by Blixtop Citadel]

DLE is not the sole and final arbiter of the meaning of the law.

Well, both no-one and everyone is the final arbiter, so in a way, everbody is individually as a nation the sole arbiter of the meaning of the law. If I consider something fair and equal, then it is. Same for DLE.

Well, both no-one and everyone is the final arbiter, so in a way, everbody is individually as a nation the sole arbiter of the meaning of the law. If I consider something fair and equal, then it is. Same for DLE.

Well, then it is for you, for DLE.
So, you believing something only makes it so in your own right.

This resolution is either intentionally or unintentionally badly worded. As it stands, it can take power and effectiveness out of the UN.

For example, if I read it correctly, the UN cannot investigate a matter without proof. This doesn't make sense--you investigate to gain proof.

So Chimaea votes AGAINST this resolution and encourages all nations to do likewise.

For example, if I read it correctly, the UN cannot investigate a matter without proof. This doesn't make sense--you investigate to gain proof.


The resolution does not require "proof," but only some reasonable basis for suspicion that a crime may have been committed. If a UN agent has no reason to believe a crime may have been committed, what business does the agent have investigating?

The "sufficient factual basis" and "good faith motive" standard is a relatively low one -- all that's required is for the UN agent to have some real basis (rather than an imganiary or a vindictive one) upon which to inititate an investigation.

Surely, none of the member states want to be harrassed based on some figment of a UN agent's imganigation? There needs to be a standard to create some accountability, although the standard proposed in this proposal is a relatively low one.

This resolution is either intentionally or unintentionally badly worded. As it stands, it can take power and effectiveness out of the UN.

For example, if I read it correctly, the UN cannot investigate a matter without proof. This doesn't make sense--you investigate to gain proof.

So Chimaea votes AGAINST this resolution and encourages all nations to do likewise.

Excatly, it needs to say, 'No accusations without proof', or something, but that also has already been covered by other resolutions.

Well, both no-one and everyone is the final arbiter, so in a way, everbody is individually as a nation the sole arbiter of the meaning of the law. If I consider something fair and equal, then it is. Same for DLE.

This is a very interesting jurisprudential question, one that the current proposal does not tackle. I do think, however, that the International Court of Justice, if created, could have some bearing on the issue. Barring that, a convincing argument can be made that the General Assembly itself is the final arbiter of UN law.

On this point I thought I would repost a post from our Regional Message Board.
Perhaps the proposal author could clarify further?

The New Jerusalem



Vote no on the UN resolution.

The UN can't discriminate among nations?
And can't take into count "the outcome of any conflict"?


Like if Iraq invades Kuwait, the UN can't "discriminate" against Iraq, just because it invaded someone?

The UN is SUPPOSED to discriminate (look it up) among nations. Especially on account of "the outcome of ... conflict[s]"!!

And their ideologies, if those cross the line: like UN sanctions against a genocidal or violently racist state?

"Oh no, that's our 'ideology', you can't have sanctions against us, that's discrimination." Absolute BS!


What's the point of the UN if it can't discriminate among the ideologies and actions of governments?

-------------------------

Discriminate (Dis*crim"i*nate) (?), v. i.

1. To make a difference or distinction; to distinguish accurately; as, in judging of evidence, we should be careful to discriminate between probability and slight presumption.
2. (a) To treat unequally.



[Posted on the Dome of the Rock Regional Message Board by Blixtop Citadel]

This is a good question. I answered this objection in an earlier post, wherein I replied that actions taken during the course of conflict (or in the initiation of a conflict) are separate and distinct from the outcome of a conflict. The UN should not give favortism to the winner of a conflict, if in fact the "winner" also created war crimes. This is the worst sort of political injustice, where the "winner" claims among the spoils of war a blind eye to any wrongs the "winner" committed during a conflict. This is surely something the UN should not tolerate.

This is a good question. I answered this objection in an earlier post, wherein I replied that actions taken during the course of conflict (or in the initiation of a conflict) are separate and distinct from the outcome of a conflict. The UN should not give favortism to the winner of a conflict, if in fact the "winner" also created war crimes. This is the worst sort of political injustice, where the "winner" claims among the spoils of war a blind eye to any wrongs the "winner" committed during a conflict. This is surely something the UN should not tolerate.

Hear, hear.

The majority is on the winning side.
Simple concept, really.

Yes the majority is on the winning side, but since the arguements about this resolution being unfinished and what have you, there have been a thousand more members vote for against. That is in the space of a day. if that rate continues then the majority will stay in the For side of this vote.

But what you have to ask about this resolution is, will it really have much of an effect on yours and others nations if passed?
personally I think not. which is why my vote stays with the underdogs tally.

Yes the majority is on the winning side, but since the arguements about this resolution being unfinished and what have you, there have been a thousand more members vote for against. That is in the space of a day. if that rate continues then the majority will stay in the For side of this vote.

But what you have to ask about this resolution is, will it really have much of an effect on yours and others nations if passed?
personally I think not. which is why my vote stays with the underdogs tally.

Yeah. I'm voting Against too, just because it's very badly worded.

Everyone needs to be treated equally. Everyone in my reigon agrees so. I have also skimmed this thread and found that many people would say that "hitler would be able to get away with crimes such as genocide because he is not being treated equally or fairly". You have to review the laws again. The loopholes people are concerned with are covered with past passings of laws. Me and the nations of my reigon are voting for this bill.

Everyone needs to be treated equally. Everyone in my reigon agrees so. I have also skimmed this thread and found that many people would say that "hitler would be able to get away with crimes such as genocide because he is not being treated equally or fairly". You have to review the laws again. The loopholes people are concerned with are covered with past passings of laws. Me and the nations of my reigon are voting for this bill.

Well, it's still badly worded.

Well, it's still badly worded.

Just because you keep saying that does not make it so. I might say that any proposal that garners a signficiant majority fo the vote is worded quite well, if the goal is to get the proposal passed -- and the proposal seems to be rather appealing to the Member States so far. So, it must be well worded, at least in some sense.

I want to see you engage in a debate about the principles of the resolution, but instead, you seem content on nit-picking about which words you might have used if you had drafted the resolution. All that is water over the dam; but the issues this proposal addresses are what's most relevant at this point.

Just because you keep saying that does not make it so. I might say that any proposal that garners a signficiant majority fo the vote is worded quite well, if the goal is to get the proposal passed -- and the proposal seems to be rather appealing to the Member States so far. So, it must be well worded, at least in some sense.

I want to see you engage in a debate about the principles of the resolution, but instead, you seem content on nit-picking about which words you might have used if you had drafted the resolution. All that is water over the dam; but the issues this proposal addresses are what's most relevant at this point.


I'm not the one Nit-Picking, go talk to DLE about that.

I'm not the one Nit-Picking, go talk to DLE about that.

Fair enough. :)

Originally Posted by Sarcodina
Here are some facts and random thoughts:
The UN passed a resolution regarding gay marriage because a majority voted for it (that is fair because that is how the UN works)
The UN has THREE resolutions repeating that gay marriage are allowed (that is unfair because that is against the rules and should've been not allowed)
(...)
Vastiva- "Please to point out all three resolutions, first. I counted two."
Gay Marriage Resolutions: 1) Gay Rights, 2) Rights of Minorities and Women, 3) Definition of Marriage.

Reply Tilenca:
Gay Rights defends the right of gay marriage.

Rights of Minorities and women does not mention marriage anywhere. It says "one should have the right to express their love for the member of the same sex" which is CLEARLY not the same as saying they can marry them.

Definition of marriage does not directly mention gay marriage - it defines marriage as the union of two (or more?) people regardless of sex, religion and a whole load of other things. So without it it is not beyond reason marriage could be banned between TilEncans and Geminians. Which means it has a purpose that is more than defending gay marriage.

Reply by Sarcodina:
The rights of minority and women does only list equality for gays in "expressing their love" (I took it as implication that they can marry)

About definition of marriage "not quoting directly about gay marriage"
DoM- "DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age"
If you really think the author was expressing the need for international marriage or interracial marriage then I'd think you mistaken. The main marriage of talk (I only slightly remember the conservation at the time) was sexual orientation. The fact it should have been "seeing that same sax marriage is allowed then also should be allowed ..."



Quote By Sarcodina:
This (ie the gay marriage resolutions passing) is an example of political bias. Political Bias is a problem in the UN and the new resolution's main NEW idea is the idea of ceasing its existence.

Reply by Tilenca:
Actually it is not an indication of bias on behalf of the UN, but possibly on behalf of the member nations. The UN has no say in what we chose to pass (other than the game mechanics issues) so it can't possibly be biased in the resolutions. The member nations can, but they don't work for the UN and are not covered by this proposal.

Reply by Sarcodina:
It is a bias on the part of the member nations and members nations make up the UN. So, the new resolution addresses the need for the UN members to be less biased. And the act of the a resolution repeating other resolutions is a game mechanics issue.



Sarcodina Quote:
Also back to the proposals, let's say there is one about a proposal regarding the right to attack with guns or some such issue. The fact is there is high chance of it being called for rules violations. Because making fun of pacifists (not that I do...well mostly not) or something like that is horrendous and offensive but for instance making fun of religious "extremists" (not the ones who kill people that is but the ones who well believe in a deity strongly) is okay.

Reply by Tilenca: I have to admit I don't get your point here. As far as I have seen Gun Regulation proposals are not called for rule violations, but because most nations think it is a national, not international, issue.

Reply by Sarcodina: You bring up my point unintentionally. Gun REGULATION proposals are easily allowed but freedom of guns etc. is often more likely to be called for game mechanics/obscenity etc. This has a lot to do I think with it getting more people mad at it and contacting the mods...it though is unfair for one to be more likely erased.



Sarcodina Quote:
For instance, I recently saw a homosexual adoption proposal. It was allowed to be voted on multiple times even though due to the fact that gays have equal rights (if not more rights) it would appear discrimination against them is not allowed all ready...but the UN higher ups did not do anything.

Tilenca Response:
That depends on your perspective. Adoption is one area where you can discriminate against someone without actually doing it. Because you can easily claim that having two gay parents is not in the best interest of the child, because the child will be teased and mocked because of the fact he has two fathers an no mother. Which although it does look like discrimination is actually a logical reason why a child can not be adopted (from a certain point of view)

Sarcodina Reply: If you hold that perspective Tilenca, then well I just don't know what to say. There is an expression called beating a dead horse...

Gay Rights- "...resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting [homosexual--added by Sarcodina to add comprension]people from discrimination in all parts of life. We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations."

Rights of Minorities and Women- "The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. "..." One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex."



Sarcodina Quote:
Also, the issue of what if there is a Nazi who wants to kill people or a someone with nukes etc. Do they get treated equally? This is an important question. To answer, first off the UN resolutions regard to everyone's policy... and until certain resolutions regarding weaponary, genocide and religious tolerance et al are repealed then they are the UN's policy to the Nazi or nuke friendly DLE .

Tilenca Reply:
Remember that this is not asking nations to treat everyone fairly. Only agents and staff of the UN (eg The Pretenama Panel - a body that tries people for genocide). So if a Nazi who wants to kill people is brought before it, they must be treated fairly and not just thrown away to rot. That doesn't mean that this person can not be convicted - but they must have a fair trial and not suffer discrimination in the way the Panel carries out it's duty.

Sarcodina Reply: They should be treated fairly, I did not say they should not.
I just wanted to point out that if someone is going to commit genocide they are not in the same boat as those who want to just love and dance in meadows (like so many UN members wish to do)



Sarcodina Quote:
And this current resolution does not seem to me apply if someone is going to kill you, you have to be nice to them. I believe it states limitations...if someone wants to kill you then this resolution doesn't apply. If someone is trying to break UN rules illegally in their country then they don't apply. YEt if someone disagrees with a UN policy and wishes to try to change it then it does apply and they should be treated fairly.

Tilenca Reply:
Which is a good thing. (But does this not imply that it is will have a serious effect on the moderation staff?)

Sarcodina Reply: Though the mods and admin do a great job and not enough nice things can be said about them, they do show some bias (not intentionally usually) and this new resolution does point out the UN members would like them to think twice about their actions.



Sarcodina Quote:
For once I am on the side with an overwhelming majority, so I am feeling overall fine about how the discussion is going.

Tilenca Reply:
I don't know what side I am on, but I am quite happy with the way the discussion is going as well. Very little name calling and back-biting :}

(Btw - what side is the majority on?)

Sarcodina Reply:
Agreed about the debate... it is very nice so far.
The "majority" I speak of is the voting majority not the debating majority. I do believe the fact that so many vote with no real knowledge of a resolution is a shame...and would wish they all look into this thread...I still think they'd vote for it though :)

Wow I apologize for the length of my last post...I need to learn how to properly quote people.

Here are some facts and random thoughts:
The UN passed a resolution regarding gay marriage because a majority voted for it (that is fair because that is how the UN works)
The UN has THREE resolutions repeating that gay marriage are allowed (that is unfair because that is against the rules and should've been not allowed)
(...)


Vastiva- "Please to point out all three resolutions, first. I counted two."


Gay Marriage Resolutions: 1) Gay Rights, 2) Rights of Minorities and Women, 3) Definition of Marriage.



Gay Rights defends the right of gay marriage.

Rights of Minorities and women does not mention marriage anywhere. It says "one should have the right to express their love for the member of the same sex" which is CLEARLY not the same as saying they can marry them.

Definition of marriage does not directly mention gay marriage - it defines marriage as the union of two (or more?) people regardless of sex, religion and a whole load of other things. So without it it is not beyond reason marriage could be banned between TilEncans and Geminians. Which means it has a purpose that is more than defending gay marriage.



The rights of minority and women does only list equality for gays in "expressing their love" (I took it as implication that they can marry)


But it does NOT state it specifically. If this resolution existed on it's own it would not enforce the right of gay marriage on UN nations.


About definition of marriage "not quoting directly about gay marriage"
DoM- "DEFINES marriage as the civil joining of a member of any nation with any other member of any nation, regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, color, or any other characteristic, with the exception of age"
If you really think the author was expressing the need for international marriage or interracial marriage then I'd think you mistaken. The main marriage of talk (I only slightly remember the conservation at the time) was sexual orientation. The fact it should have been "seeing that same sax marriage is allowed then also should be allowed ..."


I think he was. There have been comments on the past that there are no resolutions defending the rights of hetrosexual marriage, or inter-racial marriage. Only a resolution defending the rights of gay marriage. This resolution provided balance by defending the right of anyone to marry anyone else. Which - by the by - since I married an Elf in October, I am glad it is protected in internation law so that other countries will recognize the love we share and the marriage we share as legal.


This (ie the gay marriage resolutions passing) is an example of political bias. Political Bias is a problem in the UN and the new resolution's main NEW idea is the idea of ceasing its existence.



Actually it is not an indication of bias on behalf of the UN, but possibly on behalf of the member nations. The UN has no say in what we chose to pass (other than the game mechanics issues) so it can't possibly be biased in the resolutions. The member nations can, but they don't work for the UN and are not covered by this proposal.



It is a bias on the part of the member nations and members nations make up the UN. So, the new resolution addresses the need for the UN members to be less biased. And the act of the a resolution repeating other resolutions is a game mechanics issue.


It doesn't actually state that. I am not an international lawyer (or even a national lawyer for that matter) but I am pretty sure of one thing - I do not work for the UN. No one in my government works for the UN. I don't think anyone in my country works for the UN, but I could be wrong about that.

So if this proposal passes it will have no effect on the way I act and the way I vote in the UN. If I want to bring another proposal in defence of gay rights, there is nothing to stop me. If I want to bring a proposal in defence of Elf rights, there is nothing to stop me.

The proposal requires that the UN can not be biased, but it does not require that the nations who are members of the UN not be biased in dealing with each other.


Also back to the proposals, let's say there is one about a proposal regarding the right to attack with guns or some such issue. The fact is there is high chance of it being called for rules violations. Because making fun of pacifists (not that I do...well mostly not) or something like that is horrendous and offensive but for instance making fun of religious "extremists" (not the ones who kill people that is but the ones who well believe in a deity strongly) is okay.



I have to admit I don't get your point here. As far as I have seen Gun Regulation proposals are not called for rule violations, but because most nations think it is a national, not international, issue.



You bring up my point unintentionally. Gun REGULATION proposals are easily allowed but freedom of guns etc. is often more likely to be called for game mechanics/obscenity etc. This has a lot to do I think with it getting more people mad at it and contacting the mods...it though is unfair for one to be more likely erased.


I disagree. As far as I know the proposals for gun regulation and freedom are treated in the same way. I don't have any evidence in either direction, but I think that you are wrong :} (No offence)


For instance, I recently saw a homosexual adoption proposal. It was allowed to be voted on multiple times even though due to the fact that gays have equal rights (if not more rights) it would appear discrimination against them is not allowed all ready...but the UN higher ups did not do anything.



That depends on your perspective. Adoption is one area where you can discriminate against someone without actually doing it. Because you can easily claim that having two gay parents is not in the best interest of the child, because the child will be teased and mocked because of the fact he has two fathers an no mother. Which although it does look like discrimination is actually a logical reason why a child can not be adopted (from a certain point of view)



If you hold that perspective Tilenca, then well I just don't know what to say. There is an expression called beating a dead horse...


(grin). I did not say I hold that perspective. I think it is absolute crap. But believe me when I say there are nations out there who can get round discrimination using the quotes above.


Also, the issue of what if there is a Nazi who wants to kill people or a someone with nukes etc. Do they get treated equally? This is an important question. To answer, first off the UN resolutions regard to everyone's policy... and until certain resolutions regarding weaponary, genocide and religious tolerance et al are repealed then they are the UN's policy to the Nazi or nuke friendly DLE .



Remember that this is not asking nations to treat everyone fairly. Only agents and staff of the UN (eg The Pretenama Panel - a body that tries people for genocide). So if a Nazi who wants to kill people is brought before it, they must be treated fairly and not just thrown away to rot. That doesn't mean that this person can not be convicted - but they must have a fair trial and not suffer discrimination in the way the Panel carries out it's duty.



They should be treated fairly, I did not say they should not.
I just wanted to point out that if someone is going to commit genocide they are not in the same boat as those who want to just love and dance in meadows (like so many UN members wish to do)


Ah - that is a different matter. Treating someone fairly does not mean you treat two people who do different things equally.
You can treat someone fairly who commits genocide by giving them a fair hearing before The Pretenama Panel, rather than just shooting them in the head. And you can treat someone fairly who dances in the meadows by not setting fire to the meadow.
So you can treat them fairly, without having to treat them the same.

And you can treat two nations that commit genocide equally by treating them the same. Hence equallity.


And this current resolution does not seem to me apply if someone is going to kill you, you have to be nice to them. I believe it states limitations...if someone wants to kill you then this resolution doesn't apply. If someone is trying to break UN rules illegally in their country then they don't apply. YEt if someone disagrees with a UN policy and wishes to try to change it then it does apply and they should be treated fairly.



Which is a good thing. (But does this not imply that it is will have a serious effect on the moderation staff?)



Though the mods and admin do a great job and not enough nice things can be said about them, they do show some bias (not intentionally usually) and this new resolution does point out the UN members would like them to think twice about their actions.


In which case this proposal is increadibly ill-advised.
I realise that we try to pretend this is a real world, and not a game, but it is a game. And there is NO WAY anyone should be allowed to pass a resolution that actually has to influence the way people play it. Cause that would open a whole bunch of new proposals which are horrible and scary to contemplate.


For once I am on the side with an overwhelming majority, so I am feeling overall fine about how the discussion is going.



I don't know what side I am on, but I am quite happy with the way the discussion is going as well. Very little name calling and back-biting :}

(Btw - what side is the majority on?)



Agreed about the debate... it is very nice so far.
The "majority" I speak of is the voting majority not the debating majority. I do believe the fact that so many vote with no real knowledge of a resolution is a shame...and would wish they all look into this thread...I still think they'd vote for it though :)

(grin) Fair enough.

(see the next post for the details about quoting)

[&QUOTE=TilEnca]If you ignore the first character (the & sign) and follow this exactly then you will get the result displayed below[/QUOTE]

If you ignore the first character (the & sign) and folow this exactly then you will get the result displayed below

Does that help?

Just because you keep saying that does not make it so. I might say that any proposal that garners a signficiant majority fo the vote is worded quite well, if the goal is to get the proposal passed -- and the proposal seems to be rather appealing to the Member States so far. So, it must be well worded, at least in some sense.

Yes, it's pink and fluffy and fair and equal - it *must* be good. The amount of votes is in no way an indication of how good a proposal is. We've had resolution where even the author agreed it was bad, and still got passed. This resolution is badly worded. I'm sorry, but it is. It is too vague, and does nothing.

Unfortunately, the quality of resolutions is only ever discussed here, and here you'll only find about 10% of the actual voting population.

I want to see you engage in a debate about the principles of the resolution, but instead, you seem content on nit-picking about which words you might have used if you had drafted the resolution. All that is water over the dam; but the issues this proposal addresses are what's most relevant at this point.

It's going to be a law. Of course there should be nit-picking. The general principle is okay, but there's not much point in that when the wording is so vague. You can't just say "we should all behave fairly and equally" without saying exactly what that means, how this should be accomplished and what if we don't. This isn't hippie utopia, this is the UN. Fairness and equality don't exist here, only the will of the majority.

Wow. Another War of the Words, and I was sleeping.

This isn't hippie utopia, this is the UN. Fairness and equality don't exist here, only the will of the majority.

That's an incredibly cynical statement, but it does give me some insight as to the root of our disagreement on this resolution. It may be a matter of fundamental ideology, and if that is the root cause, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

That's an incredibly cynical statement, but it does give me some insight as to the root of our disagreement on this resolution. It may be a matter of fundamental ideology, and if that is the root cause, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Could we agree to compromise?

I find it amusing that the tsuanmi (sp?) thread has more posts than this one and it hasn't hit the floor yet and this one is in the last day of voting...not that I find tsuanmis funny...

To everyone that has been in this debate (which is like 20 at most) good job keeping it tame and fun.

Congratulations Cascadia on your proposal's passing...at least according to Sarcodina's pollsters.

I find it amusing that the tsuanmi (sp?) thread has more posts than this one and it hasn't hit the floor yet and this one is in the last day of voting...not that I find tsuanmis funny...

To everyone that has been in this debate (which is like 20 at most) good job keeping it tame and fun.

Congratulations Cascadia on your proposal's passing...at least according to Sarcodina's pollsters.

Those darn young pollsters. Always doing the voting.

I'd think this'll get abused.
But, if it doesn't, the world will be a better place.

I'm still waiting to see how people are going to prevent this from being used as a way to wipe out small nations.

I may not be the final arbiter of law, but for many nations I can be the final arbiter of whether or not they continue to exist. And no matter how you look at it, this has the potential for abuse that could be easily limited to having to actually try.

That's an incredibly cynical statement, but it does give me some insight as to the root of our disagreement on this resolution. It may be a matter of fundamental ideology, and if that is the root cause, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

It's not a matter of ideology, it's just how the game works. And this resolution can't change that. So I'm not really happy to disagree, because this proposal will pass and you've put a lot of effort into a useless resolution instead of putting your skills into a usefull resolution.

This has to be the dumbest proposal that I have seen in my short time participating on this site.

It doesn't mean anything!

"Let's all play fair"

I can't believe all of these losers are voting for this peace of garbage.

This was proprosed by people who think "power" is the root of all evil. How naive.

:headbang:

On this, the 17th day of Janaury, in the Year of Our Lord 2005,

His Excellency, the King of Cascadia Atlanticus, hereby responds and says as follows to all who have interest in the matter at hand:

These latest posts are a matter of rhethoric, but the substantive debate on these points has alreay been had in earlier posts on this thread.

At this point in the process, I shall be content to let the nations consider the proposal and vote howsoever they would.

If any nation has a last minute question, they should feel free to TG me. Otherwise, I shall invest my energy into other issues (such as Real Sylvania's excellent draft concerning an International Court of Justice).

Thanks to all who have offered ideas and suggestions! This debate has been a most worthy one!

Verily yours,

King of Cascadia Atlanticus.