NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone should approve my motion to repeal the Global Library:

[Description: UN Resolution #86: The Global Library (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Holographic Imaging? Holographic wrist watches? We are in NationStates, not Star Wars. Not only are there no specifics concerning the production of such technologies, but such an utter waste of donation money could possibly be used to fund other, more important programs, such as healthcare, cancer and AIDs research, the support of people affected by natural disasters, etc.

Not only is this a sketchy waste of money as I explained, but such a readily available supply of information regarding the technological and medical advances can only be of use to enemies of the UN, terrorist Cells, and other criminal organizations.

Thus this act must be repealed in order to preserve funds for more useful and productive causes, and to make sure enemies of the UN do not benefit from the information made available by such a library.]

Well there are your reasons.

My nation voted against the Global Library proposal when it came to a vote; as such, we shall be voting in favor of this repeal should it reach the UN floor.

I have my reservations, but I'll support.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will support this repeal.

This Resolution was one of the craziest of all the UN resolutions i have seen and i would support it being repealed.

The Republic of Skinny87 has read the resolution for the Global Library and fully intends to support the repeal of this resolution. It seems pointless and far too imaginative, as well as a waste of public resources that could go into far more worthy proposals like the Tsunami Warning System currently being decided on

With so much resentment of this particular resolution, it's a wonder that it actually passed.

With so much resentment of this particular resolution, it's a wonder that it actually passed.
first, don't think that the forum opinion reflect the UN opinion. many time the forums reflect the minority that scream, despite the silent majority.
second, I think that you right by your wish to repeal it, but you do it wrong. good repealing of that resolution shouldn't harm the freedom of information, but to give better and cheaper way for that (like open internet enciclopedy system).

I agree with Green Israel but this clearly needs some alterations at least.

The small voice of the nation of Chong-dama fully agrees with the Gelgameks representative.

I find it foolish for this body to expect so many people to voluntarily fund an invasion of confidential national and personal information:

Original post by The Gelgameks:

"such a readily available supply of information regarding the technological and medical advances can only be of use to enemies of the UN, terrorist Cells, and other criminal organizations."

- Not only could enemies of the UN use this information, but member states seeking to use another member state's information for their personal gain (i.e. war, espionage, or corporate profit-seekers).

Consider also the tremendous amount of time and capital required to compile "all human knowledge". How does the legislator who submitted this resolution propose to collect this information? Do we force people to submit to a mythical "brain scan" that will collect every bit of knowledge they have? That certianly would also require research, disregarding civil liberties and the massive invasion of privacy. Or, if I've read too far into the wording, then how exactly does one define "all human knowledge". (Take into consideration that knowledge is not always fact or truth; in other words: knowledge is subjective.)

Aside from the civil rights issues, it seems clear to my constituents that this proposal requires member states to set aside land for the construction of the libraries. Suppose the citizens of a member nation are unwilling to give up what little free-space they have for this structure, perhaps for information they will never want or use! On the other hand, who will control where these facilities will be built? How can the global community be ensured that one nation or region will not be given special treatment when deciding where the funds are appropriated in this massive construction proposal? (OOC: Most Americans would call this "pork-barrelling".)

Another group of beneficiaries from this "utopian" proposal: the select government agencies and private foundations winning the contracts to research this fantastical new technology called "holographic imaging". My nation does not feel compelled to fund foreign investment to the detriment of our very own researchers.

To add insult to injury, if anyone expects member nations to voluntarily fund what I have just described, then those nations invite the consequences upon their citizens.

I urge all UN member states to support the repeal this corrupt, flawed, and utterly invasive "World Library" as soon as possible.

I can definately get my region to support this but you should re-word the repeal and make it less aggressive and more formal.

If people actually care about the money in their pockets and the safety of their citizens then no rewording is necessary. I stated my opinion to perhaps enlighten the people who agree with the formation of such a library. People already in favor of such a repeal for any reason should approve it's coming to a vote. It's not like my opinions are being put into motion.

I will not vote to repeal resolution #86, for i feel that the evolution of science and technology shall lead to wonderful findings that could possibly progress society in ways that we cannot currently comprehend. My friends, the space race did not die with The Cold War. It is still going on in a sense, anyone who causes such spending 'useless' is merely denying science and in the 21st century, this is not something we can do. Granted, we cannot frivolously splurge, we must cut funds in someother way. We cannot repeal resolution #86 though, the scientific evolution of our great nations must be taking in stride, for if we do not evolve first then our enemies will.

(This post is an IC/OOC mix, FYI)

To the representative from Anaxagorasia:

While I respect your steadfast commitment to the ideals of science and future progress, you must not allow yourself to be blinded by the prospect of supercomputers and machines capable of marvelous wonders.

First, not all members of the United Nations have the infrastructure to support such a massive undertaking, such as those nations choosing to be nations in the Middle Ages, or before modern day. At the same time, we have nations which have conquered galaxies far away, and therefore likely already posess some facsimile of the technology described. In both cases, nations fitting those profiles would find no need to fund the "World Library", or the Library's existence would simply be anachronological.

Second, it seems you missed some of the larger points in my argument:

1. Democracy is not furthered when the privacy of individuals is invaded.

2. Unregulated administrators of the program would likely use biased discretion when appropriating funds.

3. Any information a government or individual chooses to provide could lead to unintended consequences proving disadvantageous to that entity.

Re-read the arguments, and I believe you will understand why Resolution #86 should be repealed.

I will not vote to repeal resolution #86, for i feel that the evolution of science and technology shall lead to wonderful findings that could possibly progress society in ways that we cannot currently comprehend. My friends, the space race did not die with The Cold War. It is still going on in a sense, anyone who causes such spending 'useless' is merely denying science and in the 21st century, this is not something we can do. Granted, we cannot frivolously splurge, we must cut funds in someother way. We cannot repeal resolution #86 though, the scientific evolution of our great nations must be taking in stride, for if we do not evolve first then our enemies will.

:looks at his 3000+ ship space armada and the thousands of lightyears travelled by them every day:

You're a little late for the space race.

There is evolution of science, which the UN has protected (Scientific Freedom, Stem Cell research). However, this is not evolution of science but just a great waste that the author of came to oppose in the end.

The Global Library is a step to the future. I am against the repealing of the Global Library.

I will not change my vote, I agree with Green Sun. The Global Library is a step in the future and its benifits may not be immediately seen but over time, they will.

The Global Library is a step to the future. I am against the repealing of the Global Library.

It is a step in the future using technologies most nation's don't have, violating the copyright laws of the UN, and requires a small galaxy to be converted to processors, something not even the most advanced nations I know of can do.

I still have my repeal/reform proposals ready to go, but I'm lacking one of the two nations to support my regional delegacy at the Dark Realm of Unnormalcy. Any assistance would be wonderful, but I suppose I'll support this proposal as well.

DLE has touched upon a very important issue in the repeal of this act; Copyright laws. Even if one nation has the technology to , for instance, go into space, why does it owe it to any other nation to give out this technology? That nation worked for it, so it should reap the benefits until someone else works to reap the benefits alongside them. It's called capitalism and those who are deserving get the monopolies.

... you should re-word the repeal and make it less aggressive and more formal.

Agreed. Nargopia was an active campaigner against the original resolution and is glad to see an organized attempt to repeal it. Nargopia has not donated any money to this "Global Library" and does not have contact with any nation that has provided donations. Reword the proposal to include more specific reasons. Quote the orignal proposal and show how each part is flawed (DLE can probably help you there). Make the UN body see how much of a problem this is.

DLE has touched upon a very important issue in the repeal of this act; Copyright laws. Even if one nation has the technology to , for instance, go into space, why does it owe it to any other nation to give out this technology? That nation worked for it, so it should reap the benefits until someone else works to reap the benefits alongside them. It's called capitalism and those who are deserving get the monopolies.

No offense, but if the UN doesn't care about national sovereignty then I doubt it cares about personal copyright law. Especially since the UN is a social alliance and greatly reflects those socialistic ideals that make us all hate it when it passes a resolution we don't want to comply with (like "The Global Library").

No offense, but if the UN doesn't care about national sovereignty then I doubt it cares about personal copyright law. Especially since the UN is a social alliance and greatly reflects those socialistic ideals that make us all hate it when it passes a resolution we don't want to comply with (like "The Global Library").

The UN cares very much about copyrights. It passed a resolution (the UCPL, available for browsing on the topic about freedom of information) guaranteeing it will be held as legal.

Well if this one doesn't get approved then I'll change the wording and make it a long list of reasons that no one can argue with.

I'll support it.

Then I'll support a more realistic replacement.

Then I'll support a more realistic replacement.


Like the internet? Cheap, accessible, already established... sounds great to me.

The internet: a concept that actually makes sense.

Information on the internet is contributed voluntarily, is developed and maintained privately (and by government to a certain extent), and governments are not compelled to participate, provide access, or invest in its development.

Write a proposal standardizing the internet for all nations that wish to use it, and you'll have my vote.

Standardize it? How?

Keep in mind there are some of us that use more advanced forms of it.

Standardize it? How?

Keep in mind there are some of us that use more advanced forms of it.

Then it shouldn't be to difficult to make the advanced form compatible with the sharing programs of other nations, now should it? Obviously, if the UN needs to design its own file-sharing network, it can do that with an easily-established commission comprised of representatives of each nation. The new network could be designed to be easily compatible with systems already in place.

Which would be nice if most Earth computers were programmed for holographic display, a trinary computer system (holograms and blueprints only), dealing with AIs, the occasional piece of nanotech improving or being controlled by it, or the fact that the tech advances at an extreme rate.

It's not impossible, but most Earth nations don't have the capacity to attempt it.

Which would be nice if most Earth computers were programmed for holographic display, a trinary computer system (holograms and blueprints only), dealing with AIs, the occasional piece of nanotech improving or being controlled by it, or the fact that the tech advances at an extreme rate.

It's not impossible, but most Earth nations don't have the capacity to attempt it.

As far as the display goes, that shouldn't matter, as it's only on the viewing end and doesn't concern file sharing... couldn't you program a feature allowing your holographic display systems to project a two-dimensional image?

In addition, all you'd have to do to solve the data transfer problems created by your alternate programming would be to set up a sort of T-1 line for your nation. All information being passed through there (entering in binary code) could be easily rewritten in a text-based language compatible with the computers of your citizens.

My point is that you are going to have to deal with vastly different technologies in even the internet. We could just allow create an internet, but limit the capabilities of it based on technology level of the nation in question.

My point is that you are going to have to deal with vastly different technologies in even the internet. We could just allow create an internet, but limit the capabilities of it based on technology level of the nation in question.

I think that's a wonderful idea. This would also make security much easier, and access much quicker due to the fact that Global Information would be the only files available on this network.

Then it shouldn't be to difficult to make the advanced form compatible with the sharing programs of other nations, now should it? Obviously, if the UN needs to design its own file-sharing network, it can do that with an easily-established commission comprised of representatives of each nation. The new network could be designed to be easily compatible with systems already in place.


NSUNapster?

NSUNapster?

Nargopia officially approves the name "NSUNapster," whether Asshelmetta was seriously proposing it or not.

Nargopia officially approves the name "NSUNapster," whether Asshelmetta was seriously proposing it or not.
There's more to teh intarweb than napster. MMORPG's, for instance...
Message boards, for another instance...

I posted a new repeal and I hope everyone will approve it.

Hehe, still haven't gotten the support needed to put my own up. Nonetheless, by the time your proposal makes it/doesn't, I should have a pretty solid draft of a second global library proposal of a much more serious nature. If anyone will actually look at it...

Your new draft (if I'm looking at the right one, and I should be) is better than the old by far and I stand in approval once more.


If anyone's really interested in this topic, they should also check out the "Reforming the Global Library" thread.

Thanks I thought it best to take down the agressive nature of the first and make it not quite as long.

*sigh*
i feel like sisyphus, approving this resolution over and over...

get somebody to help you put together a good spam campaign, for jebussake.
it's never going to pass if you don't advertise it to all the delegates whose past votes make them seem likely to support it.

That would involve working =( But I'll consider it.

*sigh*
i feel like sisyphus, approving this resolution over and over...

get somebody to help you put together a good spam campaign, for jebussake.
it's never going to pass if you don't advertise it to all the delegates whose past votes make them seem likely to support it.

I'd be glad to help in that department

bump

You would?

Yes. Fighting the original global library resolution brought forth the most passionate debate I have offered since joining NSUN. I would love a chance to continue the fight.

Do you know of anyone else who would be interested? Personally if we can get a few more then I'll fight to the last on this God-awful resolution. I plan to reinstate my repeal every time it fails until it gets approved. I think if we get like, one or two others, we could reach out to the 144 people we need.

We, too, volunteer our support.

Personally, I am amazed that this resolution passed. I beleive that any aid I can give to repeal this awful piece of the UN's history would restore some diginity to the body.

What do you others think of the points I made in my first post here?

I think that, even if there are some oversights in the resolution, showing contempt and outright insult for someone else's resolution is a tad arrogant.

But that could just be me :}

You can count on my delegate vote to repeal this one. I have no idea how it made it through the first time.

The Confederacy of Todregen will support the resolution to repeal the Global Library. The finacial burden on the member nations of the UN are staggering.

I think that, even if there are some oversights in the resolution, showing contempt and outright insult for someone else's resolution is a tad arrogant.

But that could just be me :}

Actually, during the time the resolution was at vote, the author himself (Great Agnostica) withdrew his support and tried to prevent the resolution's passage.

I support the repeal of the Global Library whole-heartedly. I bitterly fought against it. It is true Great Agnostica sided against their own proposal in the end, but it was simply too late. Down with the Global Library... and a recommended flogging of Great Agnostica for authoring one of the worst written proposals ever to pass the UN.

I support the repeal of the Global Library whole-heartedly. I bitterly fought against it. It is true Great Agnostica sided against their own proposal in the end, but it was simply too late. Down with the Global Library... and a recommended flogging of Great Agnostica for authoring one of the worst written proposals ever to pass the UN.

Well, I don't think it was that it was "too late", it was just that no one acted. If we in our little island of a forum declare our positions for or against something it has no bearing on how the thousands of members and delegates unless we telegram and get the word out. There should've been an extensive telegram campaign against if we were to successfgully strike it down. There was no such campaign.

I support the repeal of the Global Library whole-heartedly. I bitterly fought against it. It is true Great Agnostica sided against their own proposal in the end, but it was simply too late. Down with the Global Library... and a recommended flogging of Great Agnostica for authoring one of the worst written proposals ever to pass the UN.
Unless you know Great Agnostica personally and he/she understands that this is a joke (something even I am not entirely sure of), then I recommend that you do not alienate nations with remarks like these. I agree that the resolution was poorly written, and I agree that it was impractical. However, I respect Great Agnostica for putting forth his/her ideas in the form of a resolution. In time, I plan to write some proposals of my own. I would appreciate the same respect for putting my reputation on the line in order to try to pass my ideas.

On a more positive note, here's the list for the spamming campaign thus far. I have taken the liberty of dividing up responsibilities. Please contact the regional delegates whose country names begin with the letters I have placed next to your name. Do not consider "The" as the first word of the country name.

Nargopia: A-H
Chong-dama:I-P
Gelgameks:Q-Z

Shortly I will post a general telegram that can be copied and pasted. Please comment if you would like to be added to the campaign list or if you have issues or questions with the current campaign.

I would also like to be a part of the telegraming campaign, if you have room, to help support this repeal.

So I guess that means
Nargopia A-G
Chong Dama H-M
Gelgameks N-T
Jeinga U-Z

where's the current resolution in the queue?

if it's been in for several days already, wait a few more and let it die and then resubmit the resolution and start the campaign.

that way fewer people will endorse the wrong one, or have to endorse several version to make sure they've gotten the right one, etc.

Although I am not a delegate, and only a UN Member, if this resolution is ever able to get to the voting stage, be assured that my nation will vote for this resolution

I've recomended that my region approve this repeal. The hallowed halls of the UN shall be purged of bad English!

It should have been called the Global LiBARY.

i.e. "I'm goin' down to the liBARY to rent us up some mooovies."

I wrote a resolution to appeal the Global Library and hopefully replace it with a Global Internet Library that doesn't rely on technology that doesn't exist. Please support this proposal:




Description: UN Resolution #86: The Global Library (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Realizing the good intentions and benefits to "The Global Library," this resolution should be repealed for the following reasons:

1. The holographic technology required to execute this resolution does not exist as of yet, and would require enormous costs to develop, which could be better spent on healthcare, education or aid to countries affected by natural disasters, such as the tsunami.

2. Even if holographic technology were developed, the sheer costs of producing holographic wristbands and shipping them free of charge to all users of the Global Library are much too high, especially for poorer nations.

3. With the growing number of people with internet access, it would be much cheaper and more efficient to create a "Global Internet Library" that can be accessed by anyone via the internet, which is a widespread, proven technology.

Although this resolution is well intentioned and beneficial to society, it should be repealed due to the immense costs involved with holographic technology, and replaced by another resolution to create a Global Library that does not rely on expensive holographic technology that does not exist yet.

Here is the telegram I propose we in the spamming campaign use. For the record, I would like to personally thank The Gelgameks, Chong Dama, and Jeianga for undertaking this task.
-----------------------------------------------------
Honorable Delegate:

I am writing to request your support for the proposal “Repeal the Global Library.” The Global Library resolution, a stain on the books of the United Nations, is faulty and impractical for the following reasons:

1) The resolution contains holographic imaging technology that is nonexistent and huge data transfer rates that are currently impossible. Both the holographic imaging and required data transfers are mandated by the resolution, but are in reality unnecessary. The amount of money required to develop this technology would drive most nations’ economies into the ground.

2) The resolution does not address copyright law in any way, thereby hindering the general creative drive of individual world citizens. The resolution requires that anybody’s recorded ideas (including books and any works of art) are to be seized and made available free to all citizens.

3) The resolution states that the library will be paid for by donation. However, it also states that every nation will receive a library installation, even if they don’t contribute financially. Seeing this, many nations have refused to donate money to the cause, knowing that they will reap the benefits anyway.

4) Physical library installations are an unnecessary financial burden. A much better idea would be to create an internet-like file-sharing network that can be accessed easily by citizens of each nation. This system would be much cheaper and more practical than the system currently in place.

When the author of “The Global Library” was confronted with these facts during the resolution’s voting process, he decided to vote against his own resolution and encouraged others to do the same. I ask you now, as a fellow member of the United Nations, to go to the UN List of Proposals and support this, and encourage those in your region to vote for the resolution when the time comes. I thank you for your patience and cooperation.

(Your National Leader’s Name)
(Your Nation’s Name)
--------------------------------------------------

If anyone has any suggestions (especially with regard of how to locate a list of regional delegates) please do not hesitate to post them. All nations involved in the spamming campaign, please reply to this post so we know that you're still involved.

Let's get rid of the Global Library before we start voting on alternatives.

haven't gotten my spam tg yet...

good luck!

Checking the proposal list by searching for "The Global Library", I find only one "Repeal the Global Library" proposal, with no argumentation. I refuse to support this one as opposed to the other repeals because it will never make it if it hits the floor without sufficient purpose given to repeal. Either the original repeal needs to be resubmitted or a new repeal needs to be introduced. I'll be happy to provide it as soon as I find another endorsement.

As a represenative of the Free Citizens of the Democratic States of Kervoskia, I tell you that Kervoskia will support the repeal of resolution 86. It is a frivilous waste of funds that could be used in better ways. Certainly I am not against advancement in technology, science, and educatio, but there are better ways to do so. We need not spen money on #86 when there are more worthy causes. The security of nations is also an issue. Nations have a right to secuirty and I feel this may harm it. So you have Kervoskia's support.

- Representative of the Free Citizens of Kervoskia

Checking the proposal list by searching for "The Global Library", I find only one "Repeal the Global Library" proposal, with no argumentation. I refuse to support this one as opposed to the other repeals because it will never make it if it hits the floor without sufficient purpose given to repeal. Either the original repeal needs to be resubmitted or a new repeal needs to be introduced. I'll be happy to provide it as soon as I find another endorsement.

I tried that too, and I only found that one. Try scanning the proposals until you find them. I know mine's in there

Anyone who is willing to help:

I have resubmitted the repeal of the global library, and we have five or six days to approve it (I think). I think we should begin the campaign whenever it's convenient. For me that would be tomorrow afternoon.

Repeal "The Global Library"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #86
Proposed by: The Gelgameks

Description: UN Resolution #86: The Global Library (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: I ask that the people of NS repeal this resolution due to the simple reason that it will provide enemies of the UN with very useful informations and technologies which we cannot afford to lose. Also it takes away money that could be used for more serious, life-threatening matters and benefit the public welfare in a more practical manner.

Approvals: 1 (Monadnock)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 144 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Feb 3 2005


I can't support this repeal proposal. the argumentation is weaker, not stronger, than the original. Seeing as the project is funded by donation, your repeal doesn't show an uninformed voter why it is that it takes away money from other public welfare projects. And the argument of "Enemies of the U.N." stealing technology and weaponry also shows no causality - it doesn't show how the wording of the resolution poses the threat, but just establishes that the threat is there. This is something that will be under heated attack the moment it hits the floor, and the wording of the repeal needs to preempt these attacks so that it can pass smoothly.

If a repeal hits the floor and is voted against, something that happens rarely but specifically because of wording such as this, it crushes the chances of repeal for a long time to come. We can't set up a straw man here, because it achieves the exact opposite effect of what we want. There is stronger argumentation as to why this should be repealed and it needs to be in place before it gets taken to the floor.

Well damn. I just spent an hour straight telegramming delegates for support.

I can't/won't change my stance on this particular paragraph. I really don't believe that it will ever pass if it hits the floor. But I also do NOT want to see the repeal process fall apart before it's even reached the table. People are going to get rapidly sick of this as time goes on, especially with the upward climb in repeal proposals as of recent times.

I hate to suggest this now, especially in this thread, but I'm beginning to come under the impression that something needs to be done, and done soon. Since I've been working on it for quite some time, simply waiting for endorsements, perhaps this repeal proposal might prove a better alternative? I'll place in a clause to include the argumentation of the security threat tommorrow morning when I wake.

The United Nations,

OBSERVING the recent passage of resolution 86, The Global Library,

NOTING WITH REGRET the gap between donations acquired and actual cost of building (at first presentation of proposal) 37,376 libraries, one per nation,

REALIZING that holographic technologies are still far from reach in specific nations and expensive to implement, thus delaying the project indefinitely,

AND IN THE INTEREST OF establishing a new Global Library proposal of a practical and efficient nature, hereby

CONDEMNS Resolution 86 on account of poor wording and unprofessional presentation, which reflects ill on U.N. policy as a whole in addition to being ambiguous and therefore easily abused, and

REPEALS the resolution on account of the impossibility of acquiring the funding and technologies needed to begin the project.

I think speed will be an ally here. I'll submit this tomorrow when my endorsements arrive - I've got two people who have given me guarantees that they will be visiting the realm shortly.

If the original repeal can be fixed by then, or if the consensus is that it can pass on its own when it hits the floor, I'll keep quiet and throw my support behind the original instead. But we need to move fast before nations become frustrated with the entire project. I hope this repeal provides a sensible alternative that can be fully supported by each nation.

Actually, the timing and wording of the spamming campaign (which never distinguishes which repeal is to be supported) coincides better with Pojonia's proposal. But as long as it's repealed, I honestly don't care which is used. We're all on the same team here.