NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my current draft of the second "Global Library" resolution, which will be ready as soon as the repeal is completed. Your criticism is appreciated.


The United Nations,

Recalling Resolution number 86, the Global Library, and its subsequent repeal,

Reaffirming the idealistic strength of the concept of a global repository for knowledge,

And recognizing the failures of the previous resolution,

Hereby establishes the grounds for a new Global Library.

The library shall be established in three separate forms, each with a specific goal.

Firstly, in the interest of creating readily available literature and promoting literacy, the U.N. establishes

1) The Global Library or Literary Awareness Act
The new Global Library shall consist of a small central structure built with expansion in mind created to store, protect and distribute works of literature. This housing will serve to protect works of literature in all forms, written, filmed or recorded. The library is open to the donation of literature and funding from any citizen, nation or region.
In addition to the central structure, any U.N. member nation who chooses to may establish a secondary library or series of libraries within its own borders on its own funding. If that nation pays a cost equivalent to an additional one-fourth that of the construction of their library to the project, these libraries will be declared a subsidiary of the Global Library and will be open to share and order any form of literature from the central library and its subsidiaries, provided that the library providing the book can retain at least one copy. Subsidiaries also will share equally in the upkeep of the central structure.

All subsidiaries must be free and open to the public, though late fees may be charged after one month and missing fees after two months. Late fees may not exceed more than ten percent of the price of a book per week. Libraries may reserve the right to refuse to check out rare or easily damageable texts. The library is non-profit save in the interest of promoting itself, and all money made from fees and subsidiaries goes directly into expansion through new wings, new subscriptions, and new purchases of literature

To ensure that the literature placed in the Global Library qualifies as of literary merit or credible information, a committee will be formed consistent of no more than two members of any U.N. member nation that wishes to participate. They shall act as the chief librarians of the Global Library and the Universal Library and are required to have actual experience in the field of literature or news. This committee serves to keep the library working and to take suggestions of books that should be ordered using excess funds. If both of a nations representatives feel that a work does not follow the standards listed, they may bring it before the committee as part of a list presented each month and disallow it under a seventy-five percent vote. Librarians must cannot disallow a work based on obscenity if that work still qualifies as of literary merit.

Secondly, in the interest of preserving historical texts and granting the public the right to view these texts, the U.N. also establishes

2) The United Nations Literary Museum or Historical Preservation Act
As an expansion upon the Global Library, an expansion will be built for the U.N. Literary Museum. The goal of this program is the preservation of rare or original texts and historical documents. These documents may not be removed by citizens, and additional librarians (a limit of two per nation) will be charged with ensuring their protection.

Any individual member nation will be allowed to create auxiliary branches of the Literary Museum, these nations will bear the expense for construction or conversion of an existing structure to house the auxiliary museum. The U.N. will cycle its texts through any nation who chooses to build an auxiliary museum on a weekly basis, rotating and spreading the works through these museums. The nation may charge admission fees to these museums, fifty percent of fees collected will be administered by the United Nations for maintenance of the museum. Profit will be administered equally to expand the three projects.

3) Universal Library, or Virtual Freedom of Information Act.
The Universal Library shall consist of an organized storehouse of digital information collected from member nations. In addition to scans of the texts held by the Global Library (subject to regulation), files may be submitted by any nation. These files are automatically added to the system and may be removed or edited later. The IGL will be located in servers established in any U.N. Member Nations, and each Member Nation must pay a subscription fee of 0.000001% of their annual GDP.

The IGL is freely open to any citizen with computer access, and will function as a research tool and source of free information and literature.

Copyrighted material may not be submitted to the IGL without the approval of the nation whose laws dictate the copyright or the author of the work. Actual submission to the IGL is limited to citizens granted the right to submit, again the choice of the national government. Finally, after information is submitted, it is subject to the regulatory procedures of the Universal Library Committee, formed using the same methodology as the Global Library Committee.

So, that's the whole thing. If you like it, your vote would be appreciated on the repeal process to help it get through. If you don't like it, tell me why and I'll fix it. And vote yes on the repeal anyways.

Overall, I like it. I like your inherent optimism that the repeal will pass too. I hope it does.

Hereby establishes the grounds for a new Global Library.

My first concern is probably most minor, but what about the needs or desires of nations living elsewhere in the Universe other than Earth? Ultimately, I can deal with the title "Global Library" even if it deals with other worlds, but on some level I think this might need to be spelled out. Your call, really, as this is minor.

The new Global Library shall consist of a small central structure built with expansion in mind, hexagonal in dimension so as to open itself to continuous new expansions based on the economic situation of the library. This shall serve as a housing to protect works of literature in all forms, in addition to historical and informational texts and archived subscriptions to credible news sources. The library is open to the donation of literature from any citizen, nation or region.

I'm not sure that shape is as critical to the ability of the library to expand as is location. For such a massive undertaking, I think there needs to be a specific location in mind that is reasonably accessible to most people (nations). Next, I think someone would need to preside over the maintenance and collection of the written works, as well as maintenance of the physical structure. Are there going to be standards as to what qualifies for submission? If so, what are those standards and who enforces them?

In addition to the central structure, any U.N. member nation who chooses to may establish a secondary library within its own borders. At a cost equivalent to one-fourth the price of its construction and one-fourth the gains of any late fees exacted, that library will be declared a subsidiary of the Global Library and will be open to share and order any form of literature from the central library, provided the latter can retain at least one copy.

Again, minor point, but does this mean that a nation can establish a secondary library and that nation pays a quarter of the costs or does the UN pay a quarter of the costs?

The library shall be funded once more by donation, this time with a minimal goal in mind and infinite room to expand.

This is going to be tremendously expensive - are you sure voluntary donation will work? The somewhat snarky part of me says that member nations wishing access to the library should be required to pay a small one-time fee based on their population that would allow unrestricted access for all citizens of that nation, and that otherwise, only government officials from that nation could request access. It's the best workaround of Res. 4 I can come up with this late at night, but it might help with the funding.

I'm not sure what you mean by "minimal goal", and I think that the concept of "infinite room" probably contradicts some fundamental law of nature. Perhaps a certain amount of land could be set aside, and if the library needs to expand beyond that land, another site would be mutually agreed upon for future construction?

In addition, it will also charge late fees for information checked out after one month (which cannot exceed ten percent of the sale price of the book), and additional fees for missing books. The library is non-profit, and all money made from fees and subsidiaries goes directly into the expansion of the library through new wings, new subscriptions, and new purchases of literature. No money may be taken from the project to be used for any purpose that does not follow the pursuit of free information.

Seems fine, as long as there are stipulations that certain original rare books are non-circulating.

Since the physical structure is limited by the economic involvement of each nation, the U.N., in the continued interest of this pursuit, also establishes an
2) Internet database.
(details will be placed here later)

Honestly, I think the idea of a "virtual" library is superior in many regards to the physical one, though I see no reason (aside from funding, which can become a big reason, I guess) that one can't have both. I'd place the larger emphasis on the virtual database, though, as that's going to be the easier one to create and fund, in my opinion - at least for nations possessing decent access to the Internet or similar technology.

Wow. That was a lot of posting - and a lot of criticism. All in all, I think it's an excellent idea if you can find a workaround for the funding (for the physical building), and I think the virtual library would be easily accomplished through donation and mutual cooperation between nations.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
Kriovalian Ambassador to the United Nations

I like your repeal attempt, and I like that you have a replacement proposal--AND, I like the proposal.

Seeing that the UN is correcting the resolution I think it's far past time I publicly apologize for the Global Library. It's my fault that it reached quorum. I arranged with The Great Agnostica that I'd telegram for his proposal once the drafting were complete. Unfortunately, it seems the drafting failed to effect a suitable proposal, and I telegrammed away regardless of how well TGA's portion of the agreement was fulfilled. This was failure to be thorough on my part. I apologize Pojonia, that you have to undo what I shouldn't have done in the first place.

But I still like your proposal. I wish this had been proposed instead those late December/early January days when I had so much time to telegram. Ugh. I really hope you keep at it, and that it gets through.

I like your repeal attempt, and I like that you have a replacement proposal--AND, I like the proposal.

Seeing that the UN is correcting the resolution I think it's far past time I publicly apologize for the Global Library. It's my fault that it reached quorum. I arranged with The Great Agnostica that I'd telegram for his proposal once the drafting were complete. Unfortunately, it seems the drafting failed to effect a suitable proposal, and I telegrammed away regardless of how well TGA's portion of the agreement was fulfilled. This was failure to be thorough on my part. I apologize Pojonia, that you have to undo what I shouldn't have done in the first place.

But I still like your proposal. I wish this had been proposed instead those late December/early January days when I had so much time to telegram. Ugh. I really hope you keep at it, and that it gets through.
The repeal proposal is on page 5 of the queue.

The repeal proposal is on page 5 of the queue.
Page 1 now, and about 40 endorsements short.

I have two issues with this proposal:

1) I still don't see why we need a physical structure. I think that an internet-like (but independant), well regulated file-sharing network could accomplish much more for a fraction of the cost. Nothing would have to be "checked out," there would be no waiting lists, you wouldn't have to worry about any books or recordings being stolen, and you wouldn't have to pay to send physical materials to all corners of the universe.

2) I still don't think that donation is the way to go. We need to set up some sort of annual, national subscription fee in which nations that want their citizens to have access to the Library can use their tax dollars to support the global library (the amount they will be charged can be based on population). In our repeal TGs, we mentioned donation as being one of the glaring flaws of the original resolution; it doesn't seem fair to me to now introduce a replacement resolution that has the same flaw.

1) I still don't see why we need a physical structure.

Nor me. It would be fairer, cheaper and more practical to put the money into increasing access to the internet and putting information on there. You might build a secure database of digitised information, access to which could be charged for maintenance costs, much like commercial internet encyclopaedias except non-profit.

Thanks to all of you for your excellent criticism, it's been exactly what I've needed to get this proposal up to my own standards.


I have two issues with this proposal:

1) I still don't see why we need a physical structure. I think that an internet-like (but independant), well regulated file-sharing network could accomplish much more for a fraction of the cost. Nothing would have to be "checked out," there would be no waiting lists, you wouldn't have to worry about any books or recordings being stolen, and you wouldn't have to pay to send physical materials to all corners of the universe.


Absolutely, there are tremendous advantages to an internet file-sharing network, which I fully intend to implement in the second half of the proposal. But I don't think that really replaces the physical structure. The Global Library (and we might need a new title for it) strikes me as an idealistic concept in addition to a practical one, so I want this first half of the proposal to reflect that idealistic strength. Thankfully, the physical structures size and reach is based entirely on each nations own choices - those who live in futuristic or alien worlds don't have to support it, don't have to set up a subsidiary, and don't have to recieve benefits from it at all. But there's a stronger feeling associated with literature and information in a physical form, and before we establish a technically superior system it seems a fitting compromise to have a physical structure established. I will continually stand by the assertion that an internet file-sharing system, while an amazing and extremely beneficial tool, is not a library. The two are not the same thing, and therefore I'll uphold both of them seperately as opposed to one phasing out the other.

“Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences long forgotten. Books smell... musty and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer is... it has no texture, no context. It's there and then it's gone. If it is to last, then the getting of knowledge should be tangible. It should be, um... smelly.”

- Rupert Giles


2) I still don't think that donation is the way to go. We need to set up some sort of annual, national subscription fee in which nations that want their citizens to have access to the Library can use their tax dollars to support the global library (the amount they will be charged can be based on population). In our repeal TGs, we mentioned donation as being one of the glaring flaws of the original resolution; it doesn't seem fair to me to now introduce a replacement resolution that has the same flaw.

It does seem a bit off, there. Here are my two responses
1) The new GL has alternate sources of funding (each subsidiary library is constructed of the nations own expense, with an additional one-fourth the cost going to the central) and I'll try to clear up the language a bit so that that's apparent.
2) Instead of funding 37,000 libraries, we're funding one, small at first, that continually expands.

That being said, you're still absolutely right. Other alternate methods of funding to ensure that the library is successful should be implemented, and they should be well drawn out so as to ensure that the issues we brought up in the repeal are properly covered. What amount of money, exactly, do you think would cover a fair fee to allow use of the GL?


My first concern is probably most minor, but what about the needs or desires of nations living elsewhere in the Universe other than Earth? Ultimately, I can deal with the title "Global Library" even if it deals with other worlds, but on some level I think this might need to be spelled out. Your call, really, as this is minor.

The concerns of a nation outside the planet are covered by two things: A) interstellar shipping to a subsidiary library, which I certainly hope exists in any space-age nation, and B) the unfinished second part of the proposal.


I'm not sure that shape is as critical to the ability of the library to expand as is location. For such a massive undertaking, I think there needs to be a specific location in mind that is reasonably accessible to most people (nations). Next, I think someone would need to preside over the maintenance and collection of the written works, as well as maintenance of the physical structure. Are there going to be standards as to what qualifies for submission? If so, what are those standards and who enforces them?


The shapes just a bit of personalization, but your other arguments are well-founded and quite frankly the most troublesome of the concept. Firstly, location. Location, location, location. The U.N. establishes the grounds for a Global Library in this proposal, but the problem with that is that I have no idea what qualifies as ground to set it on. Any ground declared in NationStates belongs to a specific nation, accordingly, and there are no specific locations mappable to place it. Essentially, I think I have to keep this abstract to avoid singling out nations and just create the nuetral ground in the same way a person creates a nation or region. However, if you have a specific location in mind that would best suit most nations, I would love to hear it. The idea I've been tossing around for a bit would be to put it in Maxtopia, Mr. Barry's old nation, but that seemed a bit silly to me.


Again, minor point, but does this mean that a nation can establish a secondary library and that nation pays a quarter of the costs or does the UN pay a quarter of the costs?

Will have to clarify this, as well as a few other things you've mentioned... mumble, grumble.


Seems fine, as long as there are stipulations that certain original rare books are non-circulating.

Done!

“Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences long forgotten. Books smell... musty and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer is... it has no texture, no context. It's there and then it's gone. If it is to last, then the getting of knowledge should be tangible. It should be, um... smelly.”

- Rupert Giles


Not to argue with The Great Mr Giles (for whom I have a great deal of respect) but he is wrong, and there is evidence from his own life to indicate this.

If you store all the knowledge in books, they have to be stored in a real, physical place. And that place can be subject to all sorts of issues. Explosions, fires, looting.

If information is available in the virtual world then it can be easily replicated, stored and backed up. It can be transmitted all over the place, so that if one copy is lost it can be replaced in an instant. That sharing information becomes the easiest thing in the world.

The explosion at the office of The Council was a good example of this - all the library was lost. If they had taken the step of putting it all on line, then - well things might have gone differently :}

On this topic - do you mind if I take a crack at writing a different version of this? I will not submit it, or even propose it, if you disagree as I would never want to steal someone elses resolution (or their thunder), but the idea of a virtual library does have some appeal :}

The library is supposed to be global, but if it exists in only one physical location then most people will not get access to it. I would suggest, then, that in addition to the actual library building, that all the texts available within should be available online on a global library website too, free of charge.

If it's not going to be by voluntary donation, I want to see strict cost controls on the proposal. I want to get some kind of projection from the game mods what effect it will have on our economies.

If it's not going to be voluntary, maybe a multi-level access program should be written into the proposal. Countries that wanted more than minimal access for their citizens would pay more. Because then I don't think the game effects could automatically assume any nation would go for more than the minimum, but we could RP however much involvement we wanted.

So far, I'm seeing two major points of discussion. First, there's the logistical difficulty of making a physical structure to house, quite literally, all the Universe's knowledge. It's a dizzying proposition for Earth by itself, but when FT nations are factored in (some of whom are in other galaxies), it's a big problem. Could we make some central structure simply a virtual interface for most of the collection, with some sort of repository for most of the literature with multinational relevance? For example, I would think that the UN Charter would be needed in such a collection, but the latest Kriovalian romance novel could probably be forsaken (in the physical collection). If the goal is more to promote the dissemination of knowledge, rather than the protection of knowledge, I think the virtual route should predominate.

The second is the funding. Personally, I think a good way to reduce costs would be to simply have each member nation's librarians upload (scanning/transcribing where necessary) information to the GL's networks, and have each entry tagged by title, author, publication date, nation submitting the work, and so on. This would limit the number of UN-employed librarians to those simply needed to catalog incoming material, rather than adding more people to the payroll to do the scanning/transcription plus the classification.

Another thing that I believe Asshelmetta mentioned, was that a scalable "subscription" plan by various nations could augment the voluntary donations. I see one level as being "no frills" government-only access, which would be constrained to official documents and statistics, and exclude things like classical literature. Another level could be a "pay per work" option for nations wishing to purchase access to only a fraction of the collection. Then there could be the "universal access" option that allows unrestricted access to the GL for that nation. Maybe there are more options that I'm not thinking of right now, but I could see any or all of those as viable. In whichever case, I see individual nations being responsible for paying to wire up their own networks.

Krioval, I really like your suggestion about the subscription service.

Pojonia, I still don't see the need for a physical library, and your claim that we could use interstellar delivery would raise the cost of this by an exponentially enormous amount. I honestly think that an independant file-sharing network is the best way to go.

What about the following as a compromise on the physical structure issue?

We could add onto UN headquarters (or on UN-owned undeveloped land) a series of access points to the GL (virtual) and include a rare or antiquity book museum whose collection would periodically rotate. That way, even physical works from across the galaxy would eventually be seen by visitors, and each book showcased would have a reference that could then be accessed or downloaded by guests. A nominal admission fee could be charged, with the proceeds going to maintaining and rotating the collection. Or, a permanent collection could be installed, with only part of the overall exhibit being rotated (ultimately, I think a permanent-only installation would require many nations' physical works going unseen, which would cause its own political problems down the road).

Wonderful! That first idea is great! The rotating library could be on some sort of massive transport ship that docks at each planet with the full subscription service, individuals who wish to enter are charged admission, and viola! Portable museum that generates extra income to offset the cost burden on governments!

Wonderful! That first idea is great! The rotating library could be on some sort of massive transport ship that docks at each planet with the full subscription service, individuals who wish to enter are charged admission, and viola! Portable museum that generates extra income to offset the cost burden on governments!

I was thinking more of a traditional museum attached to the UN, but your idea's great too! Maybe the two could even be combined. Kriovalian citizens, for example, are all literate and well-educated (well, for the most part, anyway), and they'd likely jump at the opportunity to see a Nargopian ancient text in person - linking that sensory perception to the words on their 'net screens.

Pojonia, I still don't see the need for a physical library, and your claim that we could use interstellar delivery would raise the cost of this by an exponentially enormous amount. I honestly think that an independant file-sharing network is the best way to go.
I didn't say that interstellar delivery would raise the cost, I said that interstellar nations would still have access to the library because of interstellar delivery - if they don't have contact with other nations, it's hard for them to even be members of the U.N. An independent file-sharing network IS the best way to go if you want free information, the physical library is a side project and an idealistic concept to match the pragmatic. The issue I'm facing here is making it as pragmatic as possible by itself.

The library is not intended to house all of the universes knowledge, Krioval, just knowledge and literature nations deem important. "All the worlds knowledge" is from the original resolution, and has already been pointed out as a glaringly bad idea.

The physical library is intended only to match the amount of funding the UN wants to put into it, so if you don't like the concept you won't have to build a subsidiary and will still have the benefit of what we store in this file-sharing system. Once I finish up the other half of this proposal we should have a better idea where we stand. But the goal of the Global Library is to start small and expand as time goes on, whereas the Internet Global Library (or whatever we term it) will be up and running much faster.

Tilenca, by all means feel free to draft your own proposal, I am always open to better ideas (especially when I can plunder them to strengthen my own ;)). You guys are a great help, keep it up while I work on clarifying and changing these issues.

Final question: does the U.N. have a physical headquarters? I was under the impression that they did not, and therefore we couldn't construct a library on U.N. grounds. If we do, then that solves one of my least favorite problems since it would automatically be the one place that is most accessible to each U.N. Nation.

Check it out! Here's the second draft, which includes a revised version of the physical GL, a more organized structure, and the first draft of the IGL or Internet Global Library. Finally, it includes the most dangerous topic of them all, in my own opinion: regulation of information. Again, all criticism is welcome and will most certainly inspire change.

I need to come up with a new name, I think, for both of these "libraries", any suggestions? Universal Library sounds somewhat appeasing, but seems to be lacking something.

Preamble (unchanged)

The new Global Library will take two forms:

1) The Global Library
Structure:
The new Global Library shall consist of a small central structure built with expansion in mind, hexagonal in dimension so as to open itself to continuous new expansions based on the economic situation of the library. This shall serve as a housing to protect works of literature in all forms, in addition to historical and informational texts and archived subscriptions to credible news sources. The library is open to the donation of literature from any citizen, nation or region.
Access:
In addition to the central structure, any U.N. member nation who chooses to may establish a secondary library within its own borders. If that nation pays a cost equivalent to an additional one-fourth that of the construction of their library to the project, that library will be declared a subsidiary of the Global Library and will be open to share and order any form of literature from the central library, provided the latter can retain at least one copy. In addition, the library will cycle its more important texts through these subsidiaries on a weekly basis, rotating and spreading the works classified as rare or original copies. These copies cannot be removed from any of the libraries by citizens, but can be viewed within the physical structure.
Regulation:
To ensure that the literature placed in the Global Library qualifies as of literary merit or credible information, a committee will be formed consistent of no more than two members of any U.N. member nation that wishes to participate. They shall act as the chief librarians of the Global Library and are required to have actual experience in the field of literature or news. This committee serves to keep the library working and to take suggestions of books that should be ordered using excess funds. If both members of a nations representation feel that a work does not follow the standards listed, they can bring it before the committee as part of a list presented each month and disallow it under a seventy-five percent vote. Librarians must present their argument as to why the work should not be present and cannot disallow a work based on obscenity if that work still qualifies as of literary merit.
Funding:
The library shall be funded once more by donation, this time with a minimal goal in mind and infinite room to expand. In addition, it will also charge late fees for information checked out after one month (which cannot exceed ten percent of the sale price of the book), and additional fees for missing or lost books. Finally, nations who wish to have the benefit of acting as a protector to rare and original texts shall share the cost of the upkeep, but not expansion, of the central library. The library is non-profit save in the interest of promoting itself, and all money made from fees and subsidiaries goes directly into expansion through new wings, new subscriptions, and new purchases of literature. No money may be taken from the project to be used for any purpose that does not follow the pursuit of free information.

Since the physical structure is limited by the economic involvement of each nation, the U.N., in the continued interest of this pursuit, also establishes an
2) Internet Global Library, or IGL.
Structure:
The Internet Global Library shall consist of an organized storehouse of digital information collected from around the globe and, where applicable, the Universe. In addition to scans of the texts held by the Global Library (subject to regulation), files may be submitted by any nation. These files are automatically added to the system and may be removed or edited later. The IGL will be located
Access:
The IGL is freely open to any citizen with computer access, and will function as a research tool and source of free information and literature.
Regulation:
Copyrighted material may not be submitted to the IGL without the approval of the nation whose laws dictate the copyright. Actual submission to the IGL is limited to citizens granted the right to submit, again the choice of the nations government. Finally, after information is submitted, it is subject to the same regulatory procedures of the Global Library Committee.
Funding:
Since the cost of upkeep for digital information is far cheaper than the cost of the physical library, this cost will be shared equally by each member nations’ government. Any government which has the technology or funding to reduce the upkeep is encouraged to donate to the project.

Open fire! for I shall catch the bullets with my teeth and dispense them with my tongue.

Final question: does the U.N. have a physical headquarters? I was under the impression that they did not, and therefore we couldn't construct a library on U.N. grounds. If we do, then that solves one of my least favorite problems since it would automatically be the one place that is most accessible to each U.N. Nation.
I don't believe they do. Aargh, I wish I had time to comment on your new proposal but I must be off for play practice. I shall return with a vengeance, however. ;)

Pojonia, I think your ideas are very strong, but I wish that we could work past the physical structure as the driving force behind this proposal. I certainly don't think it should be abandoned outright, but for sake of realism, I think it needs to be diminished in importance. So far, I see a lot of cumbersome financial issues that need to be resolved. For example, the one-fourth payment rule, while well-intended, is going to be tough to enforce if, say, Krioval builds a small library, declares it an adjunct to the GL, and then gives 25% of the construction costs (next to nothing) to the project. Further, the donations may or may not be enough to maintain the library after construction is complete. That would be a major problem in my view.

The other issue is a little more personal, I guess, in that I haven't received feedback as to which aspects of my suggestions are meeting with your disapproval. I really think that the idea of a "Literary Museum" would encapsulate the idea of a fixed physical structure, and that it would partially fund itself through admission fees. That the collection would be changed periodically should help to maintain interest in the museum. Then the primary focus of the GL could be shifted to the virtual realm, where individual nations self-select what they would like to contribute to the GL and perform all necessary tasks except the indexing.

If there are flaws, I'd love to hear about them. The goal, for me, is a practical and far-reaching resolution that meets the needs of as many people as possible.

Pojonia, I think your ideas are very strong, but I wish that we could work past the physical structure as the driving force behind this proposal. I certainly don't think it should be abandoned outright, but for sake of realism, I think it needs to be diminished in importance. So far, I see a lot of cumbersome financial issues that need to be resolved. For example, the one-fourth payment rule, while well-intended, is going to be tough to enforce if, say, Krioval builds a small library, declares it an adjunct to the GL, and then gives 25% of the construction costs (next to nothing) to the project. Further, the donations may or may not be enough to maintain the library after construction is complete. That would be a major problem in my view.

The other issue is a little more personal, I guess, in that I haven't received feedback as to which aspects of my suggestions are meeting with your disapproval. I really think that the idea of a "Literary Museum" would encapsulate the idea of a fixed physical structure, and that it would partially fund itself through admission fees. That the collection would be changed periodically should help to maintain interest in the museum. Then the primary focus of the GL could be shifted to the virtual realm, where individual nations self-select what they would like to contribute to the GL and perform all necessary tasks except the indexing.

If there are flaws, I'd love to hear about them. The goal, for me, is a practical and far-reaching resolution that meets the needs of as many people as possible.

I attempted to adopt your idea into the proposal, but I really don't wish to have admission fees to a library. Free information or literature available to people is a huge part of what an actual library is meant to accomplish and what the GL is attempting to accomplish.

It was not my intention to set the Global Library up as a driving force behind the resolution, in fact, I find the IGL more important. The actual physical structure, however, is a lot more difficult to create, which is why it runs on so long and why I've been trying to deal with it first and foremost.

As to your first point, the small library idea is perfectly ok, as the library is intended to be flexible to your needs. If you build a small library, you cannot house much of what the GL may in fact have to offer, so it balances out, hopefully in the GL's favor. If you think I should bump up the percentage paid, that's fine, but I really can only deal in percentages because of the physical incapability of naming a price - a million dollars means nothing in an international market that deals in ethereal doubloons and monkey tails. Also, a larger library (or a multitude of libraries, I have to put something in there about that) would be more beneficial to you now due to the fact that you share equally in the upkeep of the library with all other subsidiaries. And this is a small price - keep in mind that the GL is not intended to be huge and expensive, but rather economically suited to the U.N.'s situation and continually growing. It's an idealistic concept that maintains strength only if people support it, secondary to the more pervasive internet library.

I attempted to adopt your idea into the proposal, but I really don't wish to have admission fees to a library. Free information or literature available to people is a huge part of what an actual library is meant to accomplish and what the GL is attempting to accomplish.

I must have been unclear then. My intent was to create a museum to showcase various literary works from a subset of member nations that would be rotated every X months. The works in the museum would be extremely rare or ancient, like the oldest complete Kriovalian Book of the Gods. A small admission fee would be charged (could be low, with additional donations or individual memberships allowed) to view the collections, much as an art museum operates. This wouldn't cover the entire cost of maintaining such a collection, but it would defray a fair percentage of it.

Alongside the museum, I had imagined there would be a bank of access points to the "IGL", as it were, where translated copies of those rare and ancient books would be highlighted for public reading. There would be no charge for this, as it would be an adjunct of the GL system. Further, I had imagined that every entry into the virtual system would include a description of where the original is located, if one wished to look at the physical copy. The reason I suggested this is that, at the end of the day, a cheap paperback copy of an old work doesn't conjure any more satisfaction to me than a virtual copy. What I suggest is to integrate the two in a cost-effective manner. I don't even care if an admission to the museum is charged, as I could conceive of individual and corporate philanthropic gifts to supplement government contributions.

I just worry that the idea of a physical library is going to be an absolute nightmare in terms of logistics, and that it would probably be friendlier to the environment to keep much of the collection in electronic form. So I guess, in order of concern, my issues are:

1. Logistics
2. Cost
3. Environmental Impact
4. Ease of Access

I get your basic concept, and it is somewhat covered by the new draft although not in the form of a museum as much as the subsidiaries capability to hold rare books that shift from place to place on a weekly basis. However, while they hold them, I suppose I see no problem with introducing the idea of a government charging admission fees to those books specifically.

I'm hoping this resolution will manage your four concerns, but I really don't see the GL as a threat to the environment. It doesn't pollute, and though it takes up a bit of space there's plenty of that to go around. And I really don't believe that a single library, as large as it can become, is going to be a terribly expensive burden for 37,000 nations to help uphold, though I am doing what I feel is practical in lightening the burden.

I'm hoping this resolution will manage your four concerns, but I really don't see the GL as a threat to the environment. It doesn't pollute, and though it takes up a bit of space there's plenty of that to go around. And I really don't believe that a single library, as large as it can become, is going to be a terribly expensive burden for 37,000 nations to help uphold, though I am doing what I feel is practical in lightening the burden.

The environmental impact comes from all the copying and printing. I can't imagine the amount of clear-cutting that would be needed to make one, let alone multiple, copies of every book approved for the GL. Really, though, that concern pales in comparison to issues like funding. I'm truly concerned that, after repealing a money-hog proposal on basis of funding, we're going to have a problem pushing another proposal whose funding allocations are without limit and whose sources may dry up without warning.

I can see that you're very attached to the idea of a physical GL somewhere, and that's fine, but I honestly think it could sink the proposal before it goes anywhere unless it's fully hashed out before being submitted. It looks like we've got time on our side on this one; the Humanitarian resolution won't pass until tomorrow night, and then the repeal goes to a vote. That leaves us realistically until Thursday or Friday before this goes into the proposals list. I think that we need to continue brainstorming for a day or two before trying to crystallize the new GL proposal into its final form.

I would significantly de-emphasize the physical structure. the physical structure should, imho, focus on safe-keeping of fragile originals (like codexes), rather than on physically lending out books.

I think the main gist of the resolution should be electronic collection, searching, and distribution of written material. Physical distribution, if mentioned at all, should be for fantasy kingdoms like TilEnca that presumably have little electronic infrastructure.

My goal was always kind of the original global library proposal but without the Sci Fi and with realistic costs and funding.

Agreed. In fact, I would not be bothered if the physical structure was taken out entirely. I really do like the idea of the travelling museum, but I'd support the resolution even without it. However, I'm really uncertain about voting for a resolution with unnecessary economic detrements. Pojonia, even though you didn't say that the interstellar delivery would increase costs, it still will. Even if we require nations and worlds to send their own ships and pay for their own fuel and time, that will still take away from funding that might otherwise be paid to the Global Library. Speaking of which, we need to work on the funding issue. I am still in support of the subscription idea, and I'm curious to hear comments on that. Donation will not cut it, unless we completely scrap the idea of a stationary physical Global Library. If we do rely completely on the file-sharing network, it could be set up and maintained for an almost insignificant amount of money. In fact, Nargopia volunteers to fund the entire file-sharing project on the condition that the stationary physical Library idea is scrapped.

Also, one thing we have not addressed is the restriction of information. I like the idea of the Global Librarians (wouldn't that look impressive on a resume?) but we need to address copyright law. I propose that authors and artists have the full protection of the copyright law of their nation; also, I propose that until their copyright has expired, they are not required to submit their work to the Library without their consent.

Some more questions:

Would a traveling or a stationary museum be the better option? Should we include both?

Should UN headquarters be expanded so as to include access points to the virtual Library?

Should we restrict ability to donate to copyright holders? To nations? Both? Or should we base it off international copyright law, and then come up with a sweeping definition of international copyrights (please, dear Gods, make this a separate resolution if we go this route - please!)?

Should I just write up my ideal version of this resolution for sake of analysis and deconstruction?

Would a traveling or a stationary museum be the better option? Should we include both?
I vote traveling, and will continue to argue that a stationary structure is unnecessary.

Should UN headquarters be expanded so as to include access points to the virtual Library?
I don't believe the UN has a headquarters, and if it does, I have no idea where it is. Please let me know if you know any of this.

Should we restrict ability to donate to copyright holders? To nations? Both? Or should we base it off international copyright law, and then come up with a sweeping definition of international copyrights (please, dear Gods, make this a separate resolution if we go this route - please!)?
I think that each author/artist should have the rights of their nations' copyright law. As for restricting ability to donate -- please explain.

Should I just write up my ideal version of this resolution for sake of analysis and deconstruction?
Why not?

I loved the idealism of the original work even though some of its workings were to say the least, un workable.
I agree with Krioval in so far as the GL and all its subsidiaries should be large IT based units where all the data has been crunched onto a super computer and is continiously updated like a super massive back collection of national geographic magazines.
I recomend the buildings of any GL location should have extensive access to referencing computers, Printing machines and Disc burners so all information can be paid for copied and taken by the individual.
I do think that the ideal of capturing all the social and cultural history of this planet is indeed a noble ideal and i for one think funding should be sought from the governments of every nation in participation with voluntary donation accepted at a local level.
President Murphy,
The realm of Hibernia.

Well, let's try this then (things in brackets are not part of the text):

The UN Literary Awareness Project

Preamble: [add something inspirational]

To achieve this lofty aim, we propose the following:

1. To create a central United Nations Literary Museum to house original United Nations documents on a permanent basis and to include a rotating collection of rare or antique works of literature temporarily loaned to the United Nations. The primary branch is to be fixed in a neutral location which will be determined by a majority vote of member nations within one (1) month from the date of the adoption of this resolution. Expenses will be defrayed by an admission fee to be determined by member nations prior to the construction of the museum. The level of the fee is to be reviewed periodically at the discretion of the General Assembly, but must occur at least once every ten (10) years.

2. To allow individual member nations to create auxiliary branches of the United Nations Literary Museum under the auspices of the primary branch. Member nations will bear the expense for construction or conversion of an existing structure to house the auxiliary museum, fees will be set no higher than those approved for the central branch, and fifty percent (50%) of fees collected will be administered by the United Nations for maintenance of the musuem.

3. To create a virtual Universal Library in cooperation with all member nations

a) The library will be funded by a subscription service, and monies collected would pay for the services of archivists and translators to ensure the integrity of the collection. Subscription costs will be $(US)1 per person in that nation, charged annually. This cost is to be adjusted whenever the member nation submits the results a national census, which must occur at least every ten (10) years; submitting a census result in a calendar year after the year in which the census is conducted will require that nation to pay, retroactively, the difference in price for the years since the census was taken.

b) Works are to be submitted either by the primary author, be that source an individual, corporation, or government, or from the public domain. Any other submissions must be made in accordance with the copyright laws of the nation in which that work was first published; this provision can be waived by the primary author.

c) Works will be indexed by title, author, national origin, language of publication, and selected keywords. Submitters may include other data, such as where original copies could be located as well. All works are to be translated into at least one (1) language commonly spoken in each member nation. Further translations may be undertaken and submitted to the Universal Library as part of the public domain.

d) All works contained within the Universal Library are to be considered to be part of the public domain.

4. A separate fund, to consist of voluntary contributions by individuals, corporations, and governments, will first be used to construct the central branch of the United Nations Literary Museum, as described in Section One (!) of this resolution. Further monies will be used to promote accessibility to the Universal Library in member nations currently unable to provide universal access. Donations are to be accepted in any branch of the United Nations Literary Museum created in Sections One (1) and Two (2) of this resolution.

Faithfully submitted for review,

Lord Darvek Tyvok
Ambassador to the United Nations, Krioval
United Nations Regional Delegate, Chaotica

Comments are most certainly welcome. Naturally, numbers in the proposal are tentative at best.

This has a much clearer description of some of your ideas and gives me a better idea of what to do with the language of the proposal. I have some issues with this, but for the moment I'll just plunder as I write up the third draft tomorrow.

Nargopia! The physical structure is NOT that big a project, it's a single building that while capable of reaching pretty large sizes isn't going to cost that much in the scope of 37,000 nations and could easily be funded by donations. I added some additional funding options in the second draft, pointed out that upkeep would be upheld by subsidiaries and not donation, but nonetheless you continue to talk about it as though it's going to be the same size as the IGLs informational scope or the original resolution.

The GL is simply not intended to hold information on the scope that the file-sharing system will, and I don't expect it to. I'll put in some stuff on size restrictions for it just to make this that much more clear, but for the last bloody time, its size is entirely based on who donates and therefore will be economically fine for however big the nations decide to make it. The IGL provides the freedom of information to all, the GL will be more diverted towards expanding literature and art based on U.N. members own choices, as I am obviously going to have to make abundantly clear. It's about, as Krioval put it, Literary Awareness (steal!). I'll put the construction of it in as second to the IGL, just so we're sure that it is not the driving force of the proposal.

Hmph. Guess my vacations over. Couldn't keep away from the U.N. anyways. Sorry about the grumpiness. Do any of you have any comments on the stuff I put in about the Internet Global Library (whose name I shall be changing shortly)? That would be a lot more helpful at this point.

I'd really like to hear which parts of my proposal are unsatisfactory. I mean, it did take me about half an hour to write all of that, and while I don't think it's the ultimate in refinement, I think it merits more commentary than I've got so far. Also, if large blocks of multiple people's ideas are going into a new draft of a proposal, it might be time to discuss co-authorship or dividing the proposal into separate miniaturized proposals based on what people think is more likely to pass.

Let me fisk it like I would a proposal I didn't care about.


The UN Literary Awareness Project

Preamble: [add something inspirational]

To achieve this lofty aim, we propose the following:

1. To create a central United Nations Literary Museum to house original United Nations documents on a permanent basis and to include a rotating collection of rare or antique works of literature temporarily loaned to the United Nations. The primary branch is to be fixed in a neutral location which will be determined by a majority vote of member nations within one (1) month from the date of the adoption of this resolution. Expenses will be defrayed by an admission fee to be determined by member nations prior to the construction of the museum. The level of the fee is to be reviewed periodically at the discretion of the General Assembly, but must occur at least once every ten (10) years.
Personally, I'm big on role-playability. The only voting mechanism NSUN has is the resolution queue. I'm not telegramming 500 delegates next month with the proposal that entrance fees be set to $4, or 17.349 Inflated Simoleans.

Name a curator and let the curator set the fees, subject to UN review. UN delegates should have free access ;)



2. To allow individual member nations to create auxiliary branches of the United Nations Literary Museum under the auspices of the primary branch. Member nations will bear the expense for construction or conversion of an existing structure to house the auxiliary museum, fees will be set no higher than those approved for the central branch, and fifty percent (50%) of fees collected will be administered by the United Nations for maintenance of the musuem.
I don't like the mention of fees in this one. Nope. I think member nations should provide the physical structure and pay the cost of reproducing and shipping whatever portions of the main library they want. Then they can charge whatever they want.



3. To create a virtual Universal Library in cooperation with all member nations

a) The library will be funded by a subscription service, and monies collected would pay for the services of archivists and translators to ensure the integrity of the collection. Subscription costs will be $(US)1 per person in that nation, charged annually. This cost is to be adjusted whenever the member nation submits the results a national census, which must occur at least every ten (10) years; submitting a census result in a calendar year after the year in which the census is conducted will require that nation to pay, retroactively, the difference in price for the years since the census was taken.
This is a huge amount of money. Make it 1 penny per person per year and a lot of nations will bite, but it would still be hundreds of billions.

How about basic mandatory subscriptions for each nation will be 0.00001% of GDP (1/10,000,000)? That would still raise billions.

So maybe say it will be determined by technocrats with a cap of 0.000001% of GDP.


b) Works are to be submitted either by the primary author, be that source an individual, corporation, or government, or from the public domain. Any other submissions must be made in accordance with the copyright laws of the nation in which that work was first published; this provision can be waived by the primary author.

d) All works contained within the Universal Library are to be considered to be part of the public domain.
You tangle with copyright, the resolution could very well die.
Regular libraries can have copyrighted material without problem, so there must be some kind of fair use provision available.

Really, the less said the better.


c) Works will be indexed by title, author, national origin, language of publication, and selected keywords. Submitters may include other data, such as where original copies could be located as well. All works are to be translated into at least one (1) language commonly spoken in each member nation. Further translations may be undertaken and submitted to the Universal Library as part of the public domain.

Perhaps the library should invest in translation software. No, that's going down the sci-fi road again.

Take out everything after the second sentence. I want those old latin folios and aramaic scrolls.


4. A separate fund, to consist of voluntary contributions by individuals, corporations, and governments, will first be used to construct the central branch of the United Nations Literary Museum, as described in Section One (!) of this resolution. Further monies will be used to promote accessibility to the Universal Library in member nations currently unable to provide universal access. Donations are to be accepted in any branch of the United Nations Literary Museum created in Sections One (1) and Two (2) of this resolution.

Faithfully submitted for review,

Point 4 weakens the resolution.




Look, here is the meat of Great Agnostica's proposal, that sailed through with hardly any effort:

This Resolution hereby say’s that we instate a system to put all human knowledge in to it. It will be called the Global Library. It will be Free and it will be accessible to all. The information that will be within the libraries are the News, All Books, Medicine Reports, Magazines, Laws of Every Nation and their Local Governments, and finally Biographies on some the most influential people during human history.

The secret of Agnostica's success is that everybody knows what a library is. Everybody knows how a library works. It doesn't need to be spelled out.

Which is lucky because Agnostica's spelling was execrable.

If you get people thinking about copyright, it'll just be an excuse for them to not support the library. Ditto the museum. Ditto funding details.

To quote Mies van der Rohe, Less Is More.
To paraphrase George Santayana, Be Brief.

I've been trying to keep this as simple as possible in part 1 of the GL for that reason, but to keep it both simple and idealistic while pragmatic enough to cover the concepts you guys have been bringing up is tricky, which is where the mounting frustration is coming from (in addition to lack of sleep). Your concepts are often wonderful, Krioval, and I'll adress them specifically later, but I'd prefer to be in a better mental state when I do it. Tomorrow I'll go over your sketch point by point if you feel the need and will also come up with a third draft that can hopefully integrate some of your ideas, simplify it a little so the issues are clear and concise, and add in the final concerns-and possibly one extra back-up for funding (Nargopia! Arr!). The internet portion seems to be completely unquestioned, but I'm going to expand on it anyways since it's intended to be more pragmatic and important in terms of specific effects and I don't want to leave it abstract.

Tomorrow, tomorrow, you're only a day away.

For shredding me apart, I feel like I came out pretty well intact.

Personally, I'm big on role-playability. The only voting mechanism NSUN has is the resolution queue. I'm not telegramming 500 delegates next month with the proposal that entrance fees be set to $4, or 17.349 Inflated Simoleans.

Name a curator and let the curator set the fees, subject to UN review. UN delegates should have free access

I was worried about that, to be honest. At the same time, a lot of the debate even before the resolution has been about funding, so I feel that the final resolution is going to need something in that direction. The details are unimportant to me. I'll take suggestions on curators and fees, and I agree with the point about delegates :D

I don't like the mention of fees in this one. Nope. I think member nations should provide the physical structure and pay the cost of reproducing and shipping whatever portions of the main library they want. Then they can charge whatever they want.

That's fine. At the same time, the rotating collection is part of a museum, not a library in the traditional sense.

This is a huge amount of money. Make it 1 penny per person per year and a lot of nations will bite, but it would still be hundreds of billions.

How about basic mandatory subscriptions for each nation will be 0.00001% of GDP (1/10,000,000)? That would still raise billions.

So maybe say it will be determined by technocrats with a cap of 0.000001% of GDP.

Fine. Numbers aren't really my first priority in a draft; I'm glad you can make it more realistic.

You tangle with copyright, the resolution could very well die.
Regular libraries can have copyrighted material without problem, so there must be some kind of fair use provision available.

Really, the less said the better.

Strike it then. It's fine by me.

Perhaps the library should invest in translation software. No, that's going down the sci-fi road again.

Take out everything after the second sentence. I want those old latin folios and aramaic scrolls.

That's fine too, but remember, everything in clause 3 refers to the virtual collection. Eh. Krioval's got universal translation. Let everybody else fend for themselves then. :p

Point 4 weakens the resolution.

It was a late addition. Strike it entirely.

(next post deals with personal feelings about the resolution that wouldn't fit too well here)

For shredding me apart, I feel like I came out pretty well intact.

I'm trying to be constructive for a change, instead of just having fun shredding.

My main concern is this:

Pojonia wants a physical structure.
Nargopia wants absolutely no physical structure.
They are both very active in the repeal and redrafting effort.
What I want is next to irrelevant unless those viewpoints can be reconciled.

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

So, in the grand tradition of total ego tripping, I'll start with what I want despite that I've just said that it's irrelevant. Maybe I'll prove myself wrong.

1. Museum with rotating collection as substitute for physical structure.

It's not a library any more, at least physically. The goal is to "show off" books from various societies. It's a hell of a lot easier to finance though, which is my main impetus behind making it. Plus, it's a pretty cool concept from my position and it allows there to be some sort of physical structure. Individual auxiliary museums are independent of the central one. We're not talking about "one copy of everything" any more. We're talking about changing exhibitions just like an art museum has.

2. Library as a virtual environment.

The library portion is handled exclusively online. Yes, there are going to be nations who don't have network capabilities. But I highly doubt that they're going to be able to travel to a physical library halfway across the planet either.

3. This proposal as being different from what we're repealing.

I don't want this to look like a bait-and-switch operation. We're (mostly you're - you know who you are already and deserve loads of gratitude for getting this far) pushing to repeal a similar (on some level) resolution. Why this is being done will be debated to some level. If the primary issue is funding, the replacement proposal has to show better resource allocation. If the primary issue is ease of access, then we need to make the GL-substitute more accessible. And so it goes.

4. Compromise and a united front are important (to me, at least).

I don't want to work through 3 competing proposals. I don't think that any would pass. At the same time, I spend the past four days alongside other delegates to the UN debating the effect of the words "under tyranny" in a proposal that just passed. I'd rather not try to defend a proposal from one of the initial minds on this project because we couldn't come to an accord on how the physical structure of the GL-substitute should be laid out, or what an admission fee to a museum is acceptable.

Gods, I'm glad I'm not a real-life diplomat. This has got to be so annoying to do every day when lives are at stake!

Pojonia wants a physical structure.
Nargopia wants absolutely no physical structure.
They are both very active in the repeal and redrafting effort.
All true.
What I want is next to irrelevant unless those viewpoints can be reconciled.
I don't agree. While the issue of a physical library is definitely a major issue, you have been more than helpful with the contribution of ideas in other areas. If I have ever seemed less than thankful for this, I apologize.
1. Museum with rotating collection as substitute for physical structure.

It's not a library any more, at least physically. The goal is to "show off" books from various societies. It's a hell of a lot easier to finance though, which is my main impetus behind making it. Plus, it's a pretty cool concept from my position and it allows there to be some sort of physical structure. Individual auxiliary museums are independent of the central one. We're not talking about "one copy of everything" any more. We're talking about changing exhibitions just like an art museum has.
100% agree with this plan.
2. Library as a virtual environment.

The library portion is handled exclusively online. Yes, there are going to be nations who don't have network capabilities. But I highly doubt that they're going to be able to travel to a physical library halfway across the planet either.
Good point, that kind of nullifies the need for a central physical library anyway.
3. This proposal as being different from what we're repealing.

I don't want this to look like a bait-and-switch operation. We're (mostly you're - you know who you are already and deserve loads of gratitude for getting this far) pushing to repeal a similar (on some level) resolution. Why this is being done will be debated to some level. And we need to be unified and ready to respond to this debate before we formally submit any new proposal.

If the primary issue is funding, the replacement proposal has to show better resource allocation. If the primary issue is ease of access, then we need to make the GL-substitute more accessible. And so it goes.I honestly think both are easily important, and that both can be reasonably accomplished with the mix of ideas we have in this thread.

4. Compromise and a united front are important (to me, at least).

I don't want to work through 3 competing proposals. I don't think that any would pass. At the same time, I spend the past four days alongside other delegates to the UN debating the effect of the words "under tyranny" in a proposal that just passed. I'd rather not try to defend a proposal from one of the initial minds on this project because we couldn't come to an accord on how the physical structure of the GL-substitute should be laid out, or what an admission fee to a museum is acceptable.True again. See above comment about needing to be unified.

Gods, I'm glad I'm not a real-life diplomat. This has got to be so annoying to do every day when lives are at stake! Oh c'mon, I think this is loads of fun. But I agree, the job would be tremendously stressful.

I don't agree. While the issue of a physical library is definitely a major issue, you have been more than helpful with the contribution of ideas in other areas. If I have ever seemed less than thankful for this, I apologize.

I really didn't mean to come off as that self-deprecating. My main point is that some kind of compromise is going to be needed to provide a unified front, which I think is essential to passing a resolution like this. I think that the lion's share of the work has been handled by yourself, Pojonia, and Asshelmetta, and I've just recently joined the effort.

We need to provide a unified front for the repeal effort (easy - we're all in agreement) and then decide how the new proposal needs to be written. If differences are to be overcome, we need to overcome those before the repeal effort goes through.

[shameless plug]

The one advantage to my proposal (as opposed to Pojonia's) is that mine could head to the floor as everything stands, and even if the repeal fails, my proposal wouldn't conflict with the current set of resolutions, as it deals with a museum and a modified networked version of a "library".

[/shameless plug]

That said, I'm not nearly evil (nor stupid - I'd have next to no support) enough to try to force the issue without at least making a strong effort to reconcile the ideas on this thread. That would be grossly unfair to everybody who's already put in the grunt work for the repeal.

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

All that said, here are a few perceptions I have at this incredibly late hour:

First - The museum will probably never make quorum unless attached to the virtual library

Second - The virtual library could probably make quorum, and even pass, without any additional modification

Third - Funding is looking to be the critical factor if I'm to believe the motivations behind the repeal effort. Technology will come in second.

Fourth - The text of Res. 86 has nothing to do with virtual libraries or cultural museums, which leaves an attractive "out" if the repeal fails.

Fifth - I really, really want the repeal to pass.

My government has not yet read the text of the repeal that is about to come before this assembly, but at this time we'd appreciate it if the original author of the Global Library could be invited to participate in these discussions. As the author of a resolution that passed, before my government (which currently is neutral on this issue) can make a decision, we feel that it is only appropriate that the original authoring nation be given a right of reply to the repeal.

Of course my government will also be willing to discuss its position on this repeal over perhaps other issues such as the lowering of Spice Melange and alcohol tariffs. ;)

Fully agree, Mikitivity.

In fact, I'd like Agnostica's opinion on the replacement proposal even more.

I've telegrammed Great Agnostica.

Unfortunately, I don't know how active GA is now - last activity was 2 weeks ago, and GA is no longer a member of the UN.

We weren't making that stuff up about Agnostica opposing his own resolution on the grounds that it was a rough draft and wasn't ready for voting, btw.

I've telegrammed Great Agnostica.

Unfortunately, I don't know how active GA is now - last activity was 2 weeks ago, and GA is no longer a member of the UN.

I believe he uses a UN puppet called "America---." Either that, or this America--- was trying to take credit for the original resolution when he telegrammed me saying he'd report me for spam.

Krioval, some of your ideas are excellent, but your proposal really takes away from some of what I desperately want to see in the resolution - physical books and literature available freely to the populace. There's a spark of something wonderfully idealistic in the concept of a physical Global Library, and I have to keep that. However, it seems that we three nations each want something different: A physical library, a literary museum, and an internet file-sharing network. So, what about this?

The United Nations,

RECALLING Resolution number 86, the Global Library, and its subsequent repeal,

REAFFIRMING the idealistic strength of the concept of a global repository for knowledge,

AND RECOGNIZING the failures of the previous resolution,

Hereby establishes the grounds for a new Global Library.

The library shall be established in three separate forms, each with a specific goal.

Firstly, in the interest of creating readily available literature and promoting literacy, the U.N. establishes

1) The Global Library or Literary Awareness Act
The new Global Library shall consist of a small central structure built with expansion in mind created to store, protect and distribute works of literature. This housing will serve to protect works of literature in all forms, written, filmed or recorded. The library is open to the donation of literature and funding from any citizen, nation or region.
In addition to the central structure, any U.N. member nation who chooses to may establish a secondary library or series of libraries within its own borders on its own funding. If that nation pays a cost equivalent to an additional one-fourth that of the construction of their library to the project, these libraries will be declared a subsidiary of the Global Library and will be open to share and order any form of literature from the central library and its subsidiaries, provided that the library providing the book can retain at least one copy. Subsidiaries also will share equally in the upkeep of the central structure.

All subsidiaries must be free and open to the public, though late fees may be charged after one month and missing fees after two months. Late fees may not exceed more than ten percent of the price of a book per week. Libraries may reserve the right to refuse to check out rare or easily damageable texts. The library is non-profit save in the interest of promoting itself, and all money made from fees and subsidiaries goes directly into expansion through new wings, new subscriptions, and new purchases of literature

To ensure that the literature placed in the Global Library qualifies as of literary merit or credible information, a committee will be formed consistent of no more than two members of any U.N. member nation that wishes to participate. They shall act as the chief librarians of the Global Library and the Universal Library and are required to have actual experience in the field of literature or news. This committee serves to keep the library working and to take suggestions of books that should be ordered using excess funds. If both of a nations representatives feel that a work does not follow the standards listed, they may bring it before the committee as part of a list presented each month and disallow it under a seventy-five percent vote. Librarians cannot disallow a work based on offensiveness if that work still qualifies as of literary merit.

Secondly, in the interest of preserving historical texts and granting the public the right to view these texts, the U.N. also establishes

2) The United Nations Literary Museum or Historical Preservation Act
As an expansion upon the Global Library, an expansion will be built for the U.N. Literary Museum. The goal of this program is the preservation of rare or original texts and historical documents. These documents may not be removed by citizens, and the U.N. will assign the most credible of curators (a limit of two per nation) to ensure their protection.

Any individual member nation will be allowed to create auxiliary branches of the Literary Museum. These nations will bear the expense for the construction of(or conversion of an existing structure to) a building to house the texts contained in the Literary Museum. The U.N. will cycle its texts through any nation who chooses to build an auxiliary museum on a weekly basis, rotating and spreading the works through these museums. The nation may charge admission fees to these museums, fifty percent of fees collected will be administered by the United Nations for maintenance of the museum. Profit will be administered equally to expand the three projects.

Thirdly, in the interest of promoting the spread of information to all citizens through the growth of technology, the United Nations establishes

3) The Universal Library, or Virtual Freedom of Information Act.
The Universal Library shall consist of an organized storehouse of digital information collected from member nations. In addition to scans of the texts held by the Global Library (subject to regulation), files may be submitted by any nation of informational merit. These files are automatically added to the system and may be removed or edited later. The IGL will be located in servers established in any U.N. Member Nations, and each Member Nation must pay a subscription fee of 0.000001% of their annual GDP.

The IGL is freely open to any citizen with computer access, and will function as a research tool and source of free information and literature.

Copyrighted material may not be submitted to the IGL without the approval of the nation whose laws dictate the copyright or the author of the work. Actual submission to the IGL is limited to citizens granted the right to submit, again the choice of the national government. Finally, after information is submitted, it is subject to the regulatory procedures of the Universal Library Committee, formed using the same methodology as the Global Library Committee.

So, I think this properly establishes a profitable museum that can share funding with the other projects to reduce cost, a Global Library of modest size and proper funding, and a Universal Library of the virtual persuasion. I'm going to outsource some of the details to cover all three as opposed to saying "similar to the GL" and other such nonsense, so that the three are of primarily equal size.

The change in format has likely created some flaws, but please remember that we're in no hurry. We don't have to establish a new GL immediately after the old one is repealed, so I want to make sure we have something that will appeal to each of us before anything is submitted.

What would be of great help right now, actually, would be to co-write this proposal. Krioval, what would you like to add to the Literary Museum? Nargopia, what would you like to add or change in the Universal Library area? Both of you have a lot of ideas and I'm worried I haven't been as fair to them as I wished to be. I, myself will work on cutting the Global Library concept down to a more manageable size in addition to refining the superstructure of the proposal.

I think a straw poll might be useful at this stage as well. It might be important to gauge people's reactions to the repeal and the replacement. I mean, for all those "yes" and "no" votes, I'd really like to know the thought process behind them. It might turn out that people are really attached to the idea of a physical library. It might turn out that they'd rather have only a virtual one. These things would be really nice to know so we don't debate a point to death when 80% of the voting nations feel very strongly on that issue.

Pojonia, I would love to contribute more concerning the virtual library. I will get started on a clause outlining my ideas and others from this thread immediately.

Krioval, I think that that some polls are actually a great idea. No point arguing about something that's clear cut on whether it will pass.

Pojonia, I would love to contribute more concerning the virtual library. I will get started on a clause outlining my ideas and others from this thread immediately.


Excellent! All three of these seem like great ideas, both of excellent ideals and pragmatic implementations, and I see no reason why we can't push all three of them. While real-life examples can't be used, I found a link to a similar project, which you might be able to derive some inspiration from. Project Gutenburg (http://promo.net/pg/history.html)

If the three of us are working on constructing the various parts of this proposal, I'd ask Asshelmetta to start tearing it down. Criticism will hopefully make the three-pronged resolution far stronger, please offer up any objections you might still have.

Right off the top:

You guys are talking about 3 separate proposals.

Think a bit which one(s) could stand on their own, and which are subsidiary.

Right off the top:

You guys are talking about 3 separate proposals.

Think a bit which one(s) could stand on their own, and which are subsidiary.

Maybe a disinterested view like yours would help discern that better than, say, my view, which obviously favors my version.

This will be the basis of your and my resolution.


There will be one building known as The Global Library Center place in whatever nation the UN see fit. There will also be one Library for each nation. The Global Library Center will be where all information will be put into the system and this will be where the system will be held.

In order to get information to the system there will be a newly invented technology known as Stationary Display Touch Screens a.k.a. SDTS's. These screens are specifically made for the library. You will be able to send information to your computer and be able to scan or print documents at these stations. You will also be able to unhook the screens from there slots to hold them in your hand for better surfing. If someone decides to steal the screen, which means cutting the chain the SDTS’s will immediately, activate a GPS device to locate the SDTS. The SDTS's will also have adult locks on them. So there is adult pictures or adult content the adult must put in his or her code*. These SDTS's will be put throughout the cities, villages, and towns. For great access to the system.
*The code will be talked about later in this resolution.

This will be paid for by all nations. For the third world countries, small payments will be accepted. This is the only way to pay for the program. We will pick one newspaper from each city that has a population of 800,000 or more into the system randomly. Which means if that are one more newspapers per city, we will randomly pick one?
There will be a committee instated to oversee that all factual information that is put into the computer has a reasonable view and discuss problems with an author of any publish work.

All books will be put into the system a year after they are published. If the author wishes to take his or her book out of the system, the books will be taken out and will be put back in at date to be decided between the Global Library Committee and the author.
There will be a code give to all adults given every person. They will be given out from the Global Library Center when the library starts up. If you lose it, you will be able to get it from your local bank or grocery store. The reason for codes is so that children cannot access adult pictures or adult content.

This Resolution will hopefully help people that do not have access to knowledge and for people that want to
learn more.

Krioval acknowledges the representative from Great Agnostica and the idealism instilled into Resolution Eighty-Six. Further, we are heartened that the repeal measure is at least tacitly supported by said representative. However, and I speak for myself only at this point, I do not like being told what will or will not be part of a resolution in which my nation's name is attached. I would prefer that only one replacement resolution be attempted, but I am not completely averse to considering separate proposals where ideas cannot successfully be integrated into one coherent proposal.

Ultimately, I see any new attempt at a GL-type resolution to be a collaborative effort at this point. Individuals are free to make whatever proposals they wish on this issue, and they will be judged by Krioval based on their merits. But any collective effort that involves Krioval must include a sincere desire to compromise on issues that individual proposers may otherwise consider sacrosanct. That, of course, is the whole point behind collaborative efforts; some issues are going to be dealt with in ways that some indivudal members may dislike, but the overall product should be something in which everybody finds satisfaction.

I am sorry if I sounded pushy but I did come up with the idea.

I am sorry if I sounded pushy but I did come up with the idea.

I'll assume that you and Great Agnostica are the same, and respond accordingly. Let me know if that's untrue.

I don't want to dissuade you from contributing. I think that any attempt at a replacement should involve your input. At the same time, my last proposal posted to this thread looks nothing like the Global Library in Resolution 86 nor your more recent version. I guess my main point is that we either reconcile all the versions floating around out there, or else determine where lines get drawn between separate resolutions. Then we decide what to endorse and how best to get things passed. The whole project's just become too big for one person to effectively handle, in my opinion.

I am sorry if I sounded pushy but I did come up with the idea.
Note: I presume that I am addressing a puppet of Great Agnostica.

No-one's denying that you came up with the idea. However, as is often the case, many different ways of dealing with your original idea are being mooted at the moment. Some are advocating the Library to be run completely through the Internet, others think a permanent structure/s is the best idea, while others are in favour of a museum with extensive archives.

In this type of proposal discussion, it is nice to listen to many different views, and then to decide (communally) on the best course. Of course, there is nothing stopping you simply submitting your own idea independent of what other people want, but that can result in the current situation - a resolution facing a repeal attempt, while a replacement is being planned. Same happened for the original Legalise Prostitution resolution - passed, repealed, then passed in a different form.

I recognize your right of reply to this repeal, but quite frankly have no interest in your ideas on implementation at the present time. Indeed, I already knew about these, as I was present when you began to change your mind and begin talking about touch-screens. I made this resolution in the interest of keeping the cost and the structure pragmatic, and I think I've achieved that in part because it doesn't use such technology.

I just feel that I should be the one running this project and my new idea should be the basis for any new Global Library resolution.

As the person who introduced the resolution we now have to repeal, you seem the least qualified to write a new one.

Right off the top:

You guys are talking about 3 separate proposals.

Think a bit which one(s) could stand on their own, and which are subsidiary.

3 proposals is actually what I'm shooting for, as each of us has a different idea of what could work and I think all of them have their own validity

The Global Library project fulfills the concept of "Library" and creates an idealistic reason to vote.

The Universal Library project fulfills the concept of worldwide information sharing and creates a pragmatic reason to vote (you may notice that a balance between pragmatic/idealistic is a theme I am particularly fond of).

The Literary Museum fully completes the Global Library concept and provides a serious method of funding for all three projects.

It's also entirely possible to split this into three different proposals, but I like the way they uphold each other and think it would be much stronger to have them all in one resolution. Your thoughts?

I just feel that I should be the one running this project and my new idea should be the basis for any new Global Library resolution.

Again, with all due respect, this project has grown beyond the capacity for one person to control it. And as I have said earlier, my idealized version of a "replacement" proposal looks nothing like yours. If you would prefer to submit a non-collaborative proposal, you are free to do so. However, I am currently unwilling to simply subordinate my work on this project to another delegate simply because said delegate was the motive force behind the original proposal. That said, I believe we are in agreement that the original resolution needs modification, but whether minor, major, or total remains to be decided. As your current proposal stands, I do not believe it to be cost-effective enough to pass. Also, I see several unnecessary details in the revised proposal that appear likely to draw fire from dissenters. I will post more in depth on this later.

I just feel that I should be the one running this project and my new idea should be the basis for any new Global Library resolution.
I find it convenient that you resurface only after the repeal is on the floor with a majority of pro votes. You said earlier that you would be the one to spearhead the repeal, and you would be the one to draft a replacement immediately. In reality, you proposed no such repeal and seemed to vanish as soon as the original resolution passed. Not only that, but you replied to my telegram campaign for the repeal saying that you were offended and that you would report me for spamming. You actually tried to hinder the repeal process, and now you wish to lead the replacement? I for one say no. You can contribute ideas, yes. You can criticize other drafts, yes. In fact, you can even submit your own replacement if you wish, but I seriously doubt it would pass. However, sir, you will not lead this replacement.

Firstly, I'd like to say that my confidence in your organizational skills are extremly low.

I've read the "I'm Back" thread which gave some ideas, but no real proposal, was told to come here to reply, and was met by another incomplete proposal for the Global Library.

As for your ideas in the "I'm Back" thread. You are merely replacing one non-existent technology in my nation for another non-existant technology but even further out of our reach.

As far as I'm concerned, your half written proposals are even more useless than the origional Global Library proposal.

Firstly, I'd like to say that my confidence in your organizational skills are extremly low.

I've read the "I'm Back" thread which gave some ideas, but no real proposal, was told to come here to reply, and was met by another incomplete proposal for the Global Library.

As for your ideas in the "I'm Back" thread. You are merely replacing one non-existent technology in my nation for another non-existant technology but even further out of our reach.

As far as I'm concerned, your half written proposals are even more useless than the origional Global Library proposal.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that the "I'm Back" thread, belonging to the Great Agnostica, has no association with this repeal proposal and I am rather irritated by your assumption that they have anything to do with each other. Place your arguments against non-existent technology there, this proposal uses existing technology to establish a rather effective three-pronged library. Secondly, we have a finished draft of the proposal and have had one since the repeal hit the floor, as I promised. I can understand your confusion, as I haven't bothered to put it in the main thread topic, but I've changed that now, and the third draft is now visible both on later pages of the thread (where it always was, had you bothered to look) and at the beginning.

As a note to everyone else, I'll be working on a fourth draft tonight. I've decided to rid the proposal of the central structure as best I can, therefore simply setting up a program for nations to build libraries that will have access to other libraries publications and information (and a central fund) - for the technophobes, underdeveloped nations, and the citizens of nations who enjoy a good book on paper more than a good book on screen. That way, funding no longer becomes an issue and nations will be able to choose between internet subscriptions, additional libraries, or both. The Literary Museum project will remain in its original place for the fourth draft, but I'd like some discussion as to whether we need it or should split it off into a seperate proposal.

Finally, I thought up an excellent method of additional funding for the project: removing the money that has already been donated to Resolution 86. Is this a violation of any game mechanics or any other such issues?

I would like to offer my apologies to all the nations who've been participating, I've been rather snippy for quite a while in defense of the library and I must admit that a central structure isn't necessary. I hope you can continue to place your faith (and your criticism) in this proposal.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that the "I'm Back" thread, belonging to the Great Agnostica, has no association with this repeal proposal and I am rather irritated by your assumption that they have anything to do with each other.

Perhaps you should then address that thread that you have no association with, as it tells a reader to come to THIS thread to reply.

but I've changed that now, and the third draft is now visible both on later pages of the thread (where it always was, had you bothered to look) and at the beginning.

Just as I am not inclined to go skimming through the proposal list for a proposal, I will not go skimming through a long thread for your updated proposals.

Perhaps you should then address that thread that you have no association with, as it tells a reader to come to THIS thread to reply.Just so everyone knows, please post these ideas in "The New Global Library" thread if you haven't yet. Much thanks!
Jeianga, it's a bit unreasonable of you to blame Pojonia for a post made by Nargopia. Last time I checked, only the posting nation was responsible for the contents of a given post.

Here is my latest proposal based from my earlier attempt and incorporating Asshelmetta's suggestions:

The United Nations Literary Awareness Project

The ability to rapidly acquire and exchange information has become a critical goal to achieve in this modern age. Markets rely on accurate data to ensure products and services are available to consumers. Scientists need to quickly communicate with one another across vast differences to allow their collaboration to reach a breakthrough. Diplomats must be constantly apprised of conditions both in their host nation and at home. Entire nations must be able to converse and learn from one another to promote peace, trade, and international stability. These things require a strong commitment to improving both literacy and accessibility of information to the public.

To facilitate this commitment and to promote stronger cultural awareness between member nations, [we*] propose the following:


1. To create an electronic database, called the Universal Library that will operate as follows:

a) Literary works or documents can be submitted by any member nation for inclusion.

b) Works will be indexed by title, author, national origin, language of publication, and selected keywords.

c) Submitters may include other data, such as where original copies could be located as well.

d) All member nations will be allowed unrestricted access to the Universal Library.


2. The Universal Library will be funded by a contribution of 0.00001% of each nation's gross domestic product (GDP), assessed annually.


3. To promote cultural awareness through the creation of United Nations Literary Museums.

a) Each member nation may construct or designate a site as a museum for rare or ancient works. That nation is responsible for the maintenance of the museum and the security of the exhibits.

b) Nations participating in the UNLM project will temporarily lend rare or ancient works to the UNLM for exhibition in other nations' museums.

c) Collections will be rotated every six months to facilitate exposure of material to other cultures and to maintain interest in the museum.


Faithfully submitted for review,

Lord Darvek Tyvok
Ambassador to the United Nations, Krioval
United Nations Regional Delegate, Chaotica

* we = co-sponsors of this resolution

1) It's always a good idea to include Proposal Category and Strength / Effect when describing a proposal. It may not matter to everyone, but it's vital when evaluating a proposal's legality and appropriateness.

2) I can't stand it when people include their nation name or national leaders in the text of the proposal. Do you see "by The Right Honorable <official of your choice>" in any of your national laws? No? Then why include them here?

Per #2 ("a contribution of 0.00001% of GDP"), it's nice to see someone post a realistic value for once instead of 2% or similar idiocy. However, Sophista and I danced around both the Game Mechanics illegaility and the tax issue in the UN Funding Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725) discussion, and finally gave up on whether it would fly or not. For something like this, I'd just go for the usual "unfunded mandate" that we UNers like so much.

1) It's always a good idea to include Proposal Category and Strength / Effect when describing a proposal. It may not matter to everyone, but it's vital when evaluating a proposal's legality and appropriateness.

2) I can't stand it when people include their nation name or national leaders in the text of the proposal. Do you see "by The Right Honorable <official of your choice>" in any of your national laws? No? Then why include them here?

Per #2 ("a contribution of 0.00001% of GDP"), it's nice to see someone post a realistic value for once instead of 2% or similar idiocy. However, Sophista and I danced around both the Game Mechanics illegaility and the tax issue in the UN Funding Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725) discussion, and finally gave up on whether it would fly or not. For something like this, I'd just go for the usual "unfunded mandate" that we UNers like so much.

As for the first, I guess it would probably be Human Rights and Significant.

As for the second, maybe I roleplay too much, but a Kriovalian would almost always put something like that on a piece of legislation. But if it's disliked, it can be deleted too.

As for the third, the contribution level was Asshelmetta's suggestion that I incorporated. Would it count as a tax if it was worded like a subscription service?

I'll assume that you and Great Agnostica are the same, and respond accordingly. Let me know if that's untrue.

I don't want to dissuade you from contributing. I think that any attempt at a replacement should involve your input. At the same time, my last proposal posted to this thread looks nothing like the Global Library in Resolution 86 nor your more recent version. I guess my main point is that we either reconcile all the versions floating around out there, or else determine where lines get drawn between separate resolutions. Then we decide what to endorse and how best to get things passed. The whole project's just become too big for one person to effectively handle, in my opinion.
That's not my opinion.

You could handle it - you just need to relax about it and try to find ways to interpret flames as constructive criticism, competing proposals as enhancement ideas, death threats as invitations to think outside the box.

As you said, this is going to be a group effort. If only because there are so many of us involved already, it would be silly for one person to try and run with it.

What we need is a conciliator, a moderator, someone who can take all these various ideas and viewpoints and help us coalesce towards a consensus proposal.

You've been doing a great job of that so far. Nevermind the bollocks.

My replies to Agnostica and my harshing of his proposal are on his other thread.
Bear in mind that I asked him to come back and help us on this.

I do not in the slightest support excluding Agnostica from the discussions on a replacement proposal.

As I maybe said elsewhere, he worked as hard as any of the rest of us to get us to where we are today. He's put more thought into a Global Library than any of the rest of us. He has the vision that created a runaway success last time around.

The repeal hasn't even passed yet. Please let's discuss this cordially and try to get consensus.

Pojonia do you have msn messenger or yim? If so can I have your id so we can talk. Ty

I just feel that I should be the one running this project and my new idea should be the basis for any new Global Library resolution.
Your idea already is the basis for our work.

Indeed, we all felt strongly that your original proposal had strong merits in spite of its fatal flaws.

I begin to wonder... After Powerhungry Chipmunks got Legalized Prostitution repealed, he wasn't really involved in the efforts to write and pass Sex Industry Workers.

I don't remember Groot Gouda being active in the repeal arguments, either. Certainly not as active as I was.

Groot came in and drew together many of the disparate streams of thought. He wrote a new proposal that addressed as many of the objections as he could, without losing the heart of it, then listened to flames from all sides as we all tried to tear it down. The result was a resolution far better than the original, better than I had imagined would be proposed as a replacement, better (i'm guessing) than Powerhungry Chipmunks had counted upon.

That's what we need for GL II.

[ooc: I'm just considering America---'s posts to also be by Great Agnostica for RP purposes. It's easier ICly.]

I have always voted on resolutions based on the actual text of the resolution, not on the sponsor. I am troubled by the representative from Great Agnostica's suggestion that he should have a privileged voice in these discussions, when past experience has shown that he is more interested in introducing outlandish technology that will inconvenience our national budgets then actually producing results. Note that Goobergunchia has, in only a short period of time, led the development of a fairly decent online encyclopedia (which may be found at http://www.nswiki.gg (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php)) and paid only server maintenance costs for it. Therefore, I am extremely wary of any proposal that would introduce unnecessary hurdles into a Global Library.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Current UN Nation: Bawlmer

As for the first, I guess it would probably be Human Rights and Significant.

As for the third, the contribution level was Asshelmetta's suggestion that I incorporated. Would it count as a tax if it was worded like a subscription service?
1. Human Rights, Mild.
Heck, "Education For All" was significant. This is a lot less significant than that.

3. It was my suggestion, but I didn't like it then either. Maybe something about a combination of private funds and minimal subscription services in the proposal, and an analysis showing costs for a "typical" nationstate in the supporting thread.

Firstly, I'd like to say that my confidence in your organizational skills are extremly low.

I've read the "I'm Back" thread which gave some ideas, but no real proposal, was told to come here to reply, and was met by another incomplete proposal for the Global Library.

As for your ideas in the "I'm Back" thread. You are merely replacing one non-existent technology in my nation for another non-existant technology but even further out of our reach.

As far as I'm concerned, your half written proposals are even more useless than the origional Global Library proposal.
Jeianga, I apologize if I ever implied that we had a finished replacement. This thread was designed to let every nation have input and opinions on the half-written replacements we have here so that we can create a strong, united replacement resolution. Seeing as the repeal hasn't even passed yet, I see no problem with getting multinational input before presenting a single resolution.

[ooc: I'm just considering America---'s posts to also be by Great Agnostica for RP purposes. It's easier ICly.]

I have always voted on resolutions based on the actual text of the resolution, not on the sponsor. I am troubled by the representative from Great Agnostica's suggestion that he should have a privileged voice in these discussions, when past experience has shown that he is more interested in introducing outlandish technology that will inconvenience our national budgets then actually producing results. Note that Goobergunchia has, in only a short period of time, led the development of a fairly decent online encyclopedia (which may be found at http://www.nswiki.gg (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php)) and paid only server maintenance costs for it. Therefore, I am extremely wary of any proposal that would introduce unnecessary hurdles into a Global Library.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Current UN Nation: Bawlmer
I am inclined to disagree with your opinion that Agnostica shouldn't have a privileged voice in these discussions, but maybe that's just a matter of degree. I think the discussions of this thread will form the basis of the new proposal. I think a bunch of us have a privileged voice in these discussions, including Agnostica, Pojonia, Nargopia, Krioval, and myself. I also will highly value the input of yourself, Enn, Mikitivity, Frisbeeteria, and... the list goes on and on.

I'm intrigued by your experience with NSWiki and the insight it gives you into the proposal.
Like you, I am interested in a low-cost solution that gives people as few reasons as possible to vote against it.

What do you see as the cost drivers of the proposals being discussed in this thread?

What do you see as the operational bottlenecks?

How would you propose synchronization of data between the main global library and branches? Would you recommend distribution of data?

What problems do you see likely to arise in data exchanges between global libraries on the 7 Earths, and between them and various member alien space empires?

1. Human Rights, Mild.
Heck, "Education For All" was significant. This is a lot less significant than that.

3. It was my suggestion, but I didn't like it then either. Maybe something about a combination of private funds and minimal subscription services in the proposal, and an analysis showing costs for a "typical" nationstate in the supporting thread.

I'd like to debate the first point briefly, but I'm inclined to just let it go in the interests of not getting lost in the details. I considered the proposal "significant" because it's likely to push some nations past the center in terms of civil rights. It certainly isn't "strong". I can deal with "mild". Thus ends the debate from my position.

As to the funding issue, I really don't care so much where the money comes from so long as we state somewhere where it's coming from. If the cost was, say, about $37 billion, that's about a million dollars per nation. I'm sure there are even individuals and corporations who would give just to generate positive press (and ultimately enrich themselves more).

ah, but what if the cost is 370 trillion?

we can only get away with not caring where the money comes from if we can say it's not a lot of money.

i figured that out in the Tsunami Warning debates.

Jeianga, I apologize if I ever implied that we had a finished replacement. This thread was designed to let every nation have input and opinions on the half-written replacements we have here so that we can create a strong, united replacement resolution. Seeing as the repeal hasn't even passed yet, I see no problem with getting multinational input before presenting a single resolution.
I think maybe she was talking to Agnostica.

Boy, everybody's got short fuses around here today!

ah, but what if the cost is 370 trillion?

we can only get away with not caring where the money comes from if we can say it's not a lot of money.

i figured that out in the Tsunami Warning debates.

Good point. What do we have to pay for?

1. Data storage. I am not in favor of making this akin to a P2P network rife with misspellings, multiple copies of the same thing, truncated or mislabeled selection, and so on.

Krioval certainly has the technology and storage capacity to maintain a node of the complete collection. I would imagine that any FT nation should be similarly able to host a "regional" or "planetary" node of the collection. But how much does that cost?

2. Electricity. This thing isn't going to power itself. Individual nations are responsible for their own power consumption, but the primary nodes are going to be UN-owned - or are they? Personally, I think that they should be considered UN property if only because a node controller could decide to withdraw from the project and take the archive with them. That leads to all manner of diplomatic nightmares.

3. Archiving and occasionally maintenance of the collection. If submissions are going to be made by individual nations, that's free, but someone should probably verify that the data is, in fact, what it appears to be before it's allowed onto everybody's network. Otherwise we have the same problems as in part 1, plus some nation could upload a supervirus that cripples international communications. That would really suck.

4. Anything else?

I have created a poll (Physical Global Library Poll) with the intention of getting some public opinion about a physical structure.

Krioval, would you be in favor of some type of oversight committee to handle your questions about the virtual library?

I have created a poll (Physical Global Library Poll) with the intention of getting some public opinion about a physical structure.

Krioval, would you be in favor of some type of oversight committee to handle your questions about the virtual library?

Oversight committee? Could you explain what that would be? I'm a little slow tonight.

1. Data storage. I am not in favor of making this akin to a P2P network rife with misspellings, multiple copies of the same thing, truncated or mislabeled selection, and so on.
I agree with this. This would only create confusion, especially since anyone could do something like "edit" The Bible an re-introduce it under the guise of the real thing.
Krioval certainly has the technology and storage capacity to maintain a node of the complete collection. I would imagine that any FT nation should be similarly able to host a "regional" or "planetary" node of the collection. But how much does that cost?
That depends. I assume you are talking about a type of space station (if you aren't I apologize). The cost of these would depend on whether they would store copies of information, or just serve as transfer points.
2. Electricity. This thing isn't going to power itself. Individual nations are responsible for their own power consumption, but the primary nodes are going to be UN-owned - or are they? Personally, I think that they should be considered UN property if only because a node controller could decide to withdraw from the project and take the archive with them. That leads to all manner of diplomatic nightmares.
I agree that the nodes should be owned by the UN. I can't really think of any solution to the electricity problem except one, and I don't really know if this would work. Nargopia is able to harvest huge amounts of solar energy during the daily Nargopian eclipse (it's a long explanation as to how, TG me if you're really that curious). Currently, we sell our excess energy to a number of other nations, but we could perhaps sell this energy to the UN Global Library instead. Seeing as the UN has no World Bank, however, this would have to be done through Global Library subscription fees (or however we decide to get funding). I'm not even sure if this is within game rules, but I think it would be an interesting way to power the virtual library.
3. Archiving and occasionally maintenance of the collection. If submissions are going to be made by individual nations, that's free, but someone should probably verify that the data is, in fact, what it appears to be before it's allowed onto everybody's network. Otherwise we have the same problems as in part 1, plus some nation could upload a supervirus that cripples international communications. That would really suck.
This is what I was talking about with the oversight committee. It could serve to monitor uploaded information and to maintain the system as needed. Maybe "committee" is the wrong word.
4. Anything else?
I don't believe we have addressed censorship. I, for one, am vehemently opposed to any kind of censorship with respect to uploaded data; however, the individual nations should establish which types of files their citizens are allowed to download.

I don't believe we have addressed censorship. I, for one, am vehemently opposed to any kind of censorship with respect to uploaded data; however, the individual nations should establish which types of files their citizens are allowed to download.
Agreed. Our Frisbeeterian shrimp fishermen would be very unhappy if someone arbitrarily denied them access to prawnography.

Agreed. Our Frisbeeterian shrimp fishermen would be very unhappy if someone arbitrarily denied them access to prawnography.
I don't know whether to laugh, or cry myself to sleep...

I assume you are talking about a type of space station (if you aren't I apologize). The cost of these would depend on whether they would store copies of information, or just serve as transfer points.

It doesn't have to be a space station. Dig into the bedrock somewhere in a floodproof (effectively) area and install the bank of servers. For example, the city of Telekar could put in such an installation deep under the Parliament building. It's going to be as secure as most other places, and pretty safe from natural disasters. The idea is that the data need to be somewhere for them to be accessible. As crass as this might otherwise sound, I would hate to lose access to Frisbeeterian histories of shrimp fishermen because an inconvenient tsunami wiped out their electronic databanks. But if there were additional sources of those works, Kriovalians could kick back and learn all about that subject while I debate exactly how much foreign aid I need to budget that year.

Currently, we sell our excess energy to a number of other nations, but we could perhaps sell this energy to the UN Global Library instead. Seeing as the UN has no World Bank, however, this would have to be done through Global Library subscription fees (or however we decide to get funding). I'm not even sure if this is within game rules, but I think it would be an interesting way to power the virtual library.

I don't see the problem as generating the energy but the cost of the energy. Plenty of nations can increase power production or divert current excesses to this project. It's that the power is going to be a cost somewhere (it may be covered by donations, but I'd like to convert every expense into an actual "dollar amount" where possible). Also, power needs will fluctuate depending on volume and size of submissions, archiving, or periodic software/hardware upgrades. It's not that I think we need to micromanage each of these events, but we need to have a coherent cost analysis for them, in my opinion.

This is what I was talking about with the oversight committee. It could serve to monitor uploaded information and to maintain the system as needed. Maybe "committee" is the wrong word.

Sure, but who gets to be on it?

I don't believe we have addressed censorship. I, for one, am vehemently opposed to any kind of censorship with respect to uploaded data; however, the individual nations should establish which types of files their citizens are allowed to download.

I think "no malicious code" should cover most of it. The rest is allowed so long as it's properly indexed. Individual nations can decide what their citizens can and cannot access by simple use of network blockers or filters. Their nightmare, not mine, and not the UN's.

Forgive me for sounding a little selfish, but has there been any commentary whatsoever on my own new draft? I've been trying to adapt to the various commentary on the subject, but that's somewhat tough when there isn't any. I did create this thread in the interest of drafting my own proposal, taking into full consideration the ideas of others. But I'm beginning to feel as if my own project is being taken over as Krioval gradually refers to his proposal as Co-authored and receives all of the criticism I need to finish this proposal. I apologize if I've been getting a little frustrated, but that seems no reason to yank this resolution out from under me.

I'm working on drastically restructuring the entire concept so as to minimize the physical structure to something similar to the internet system without the impersonal attitude of computers - in addition to putting the internet library first and foremost where it belongs. Here's a smidgeon of the new format of the fourth draft (not the entire resolution). I'm still tinkering with it (and wrestling with my bullet point editor) but your criticism is, as always, welcome and encouraged.

1) Universal Library
a) The Universal Library shall consist of an organized storehouse of digital information collected from member nations. In addition to scans of the texts held by the Global Library (subject to regulation), files may be submitted by any nation. These files are to be archived by the Universal Library Committee, as formed in section 4.
b) Copyrighted material may not be submitted to the Universal Library without the approval of the nation whose laws dictate the copyright or the author of the work. Actual submission to the Universal Library is limited to citizens granted the right to submit, again the choice of the national government.
c) The Universal Library will be located in servers established in any U.N. Member Nations, and each Member Nation must pay a subscription fee of 0.000001% of their GDP, assessed annually.
d) The Universal Library is freely open to any citizen of a U.N. member nation with computer access, and will function as a research tool and source of free information and literature.
Secondly, in the interest of creating readily available literature and promoting literacy, the U.N. establishes
2) Literary Awareness Act
a) The Literary Awareness Act serves to protect physical works of literature in all forms, written, filmed or recorded. The library is open to the donation of literature and funding from any citizen, nation or region.
b) To create such an act, the Resolution forms a central fund for this specific purpose.
c) As opposed to books being stored in a primarily central structure, any U.N. member nation who chooses to may establish a secondary library or series of libraries within its own borders on its own funding. At a cost equivalent to one-fourth the net price of this library, these libraries will be declared a subsidiary of the Global Library project and will be open to share and order any form of literature between its own subsidiaries.
d) Each library shall have equivalent funding based off of the libraries profitable ventures. All subsidiaries must be free and open to the public, though late fees may be charged after one month and missing fees after two months. Late fees may not exceed more than ten percent of the price of a book per week. Libraries may reserve the right to refuse to check out rare or easily damageable texts.
The library is non-profit save in the interest of promoting itself, and all money made from fees and subsidiaries goes directly into new subscriptions and new purchases of literature, to be shared amongst nations who request them.

Krioval, looking at your version of the Literary Museum, I'm starting to find it a nightmarish concept. For one, it seems by the wording to force nations to give up historical documents so that they can be cycled around the universe, and it gives no method of splitting them up so as to ensure that at least some of them are protected in case of a disaster. I think you need to worry about that in particular, not the funding. A subscription fee still seems like a workable idea, despite what Frisbeetaria said, especially when it is not enforced on all nations

i'm not sure about literary museum either.

i'll fisk your proposal tomorrow evening, poj - i can barely keep my eyes open now.
i was waiting for you to resubmit. sorry i missed it before.

Forgive me for sounding a little selfish, but has there been any commentary whatsoever on my own new draft? I've been trying to adapt to the various commentary on the subject, but that's somewhat tough when there isn't any. I did create this thread in the interest of drafting my own proposal, taking into full consideration the ideas of others. But I'm beginning to feel as if my own project is being taken over as Krioval gradually refers to his proposal as Co-authored and receives all of the criticism I need to finish this proposal. I apologize if I've been getting a little frustrated, but that seems no reason to yank this resolution out from under me.

On one hand, I most certainly understand your frustration. On the other, I think it's completely unjustified. Nobody's trying to take over the resolution. I posted my draft so that all the ideas would be right there, on the table. I'm not going to feel guilty if my arguments turn out to be more convincing. At the same time, if your arguments turn out to be the convincing ones, that's how it works. I doubt that anybody, let alone every poster to this thread, is going to emerge 100% satisfied with the result of our deliberations.

Ultimately, this proposal is going to be a co-sponsored one. Its fate was set when this thread was opened and five different ideas flooded in. So in a sense, it's not "your proposal" any more than it's "my proposal" or "Great Agnostica's proposal". The credit for synthesizing a proposal belongs to all the people who debate and modify, and debate again.

Krioval, looking at your version of the Literary Museum, I'm starting to find it a nightmarish concept. For one, it seems by the wording to force nations to give up historical documents so that they can be cycled around the universe, and it gives no method of splitting them up so as to ensure that at least some of them are protected in case of a disaster. I think you need to worry about that in particular, not the funding.

Looking closely at the proposal, the museum is completely voluntary. I simply promote the idea and leave individual nations to decide whether they would want to contribute or not. I would expect that since museums around the world manage to exchange parts of their collections with other museums that this organization could do the same thing. Further, nothing in that clause stipulates that the museum be run directly by the government of that nation; it could be a for-profit enterprise as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather let individuals, rather than the UN, decide how they wish to go about the exchange.

Now for the good stuff - your proposal itself:

b) Copyrighted material may not be submitted to the Universal Library without the approval of the nation whose laws dictate the copyright or the author of the work. Actual submission to the Universal Library is limited to citizens granted the right to submit, again the choice of the national government.

Libraries carry copyrighted material all the time. If somebody is really worried about their work being compromised, they aren't being forced to submit it. Ditto for national governments. Thus, I think the above is unnecessary.

a) The Literary Awareness Act serves to protect physical works of literature in all forms, written, filmed or recorded. The library is open to the donation of literature and funding from any citizen, nation or region.
b) To create such an act, the Resolution forms a central fund for this specific purpose.

I continue to be of the opinion that individual donations won't necessarily keep the physical structure maintained.

c) As opposed to books being stored in a primarily central structure, any U.N. member nation who chooses to may establish a secondary library or series of libraries within its own borders on its own funding. At a cost equivalent to one-fourth the net price of this library, these libraries will be declared a subsidiary of the Global Library project and will be open to share and order any form of literature between its own subsidiaries.

Likewise, I think the expense of having to ship physical materials around the world on command (I shudder to consider the cost of interplanetary shipments!) would break the project.

d) Each library shall have equivalent funding based off of the libraries profitable ventures. All subsidiaries must be free and open to the public, though late fees may be charged after one month and missing fees after two months. Late fees may not exceed more than ten percent of the price of a book per week.

I honestly think that this is superfluous, and distracts from the main points of your resolution, for the same reasons Asshelmetta dinged me - too much detail will sink a resolution.

I would definitely like to hear more about the review committee.

I'm starting to feel a fool.

The more I look at these past drafts, the more ridiculous they seem to me. In the rush to preempt arguments that never appeared, I started to drift away from what a library actually is, in its most basic form. I've been doing a little research, and through the course of that research I've been relearning what I already knew from the beginning but neglected to include.

Starting tomorrow morning, after a little sleep and a lot of school, I'll be scrapping what I have and working on a new proposal, which will focus on making this resolution fit with what it is that those nations originally passed while making it truly pragmatic in its function. This proposal doesn't need to be so excessively unwieldy in any of its applications, and I am certain I can peel it down to something that people will both vote on and enjoy the benefits of for years to come. I'm beginning to find common ground between the virtual and physical concepts that should make this resolution something to be proud of.

I'll try to have it up by a little earlier than this time tomorrow evening. Thank you guys for all of your help thus far. LP out.

Check out the Global Library Coalition Thread for some excellent ideas for the Virtual Library.

Pojonia, I like your optimism and I like your replacement proposal. You definitely get my vote. hope the repeal passes (even though I voted against it) and hope your replacement resolution passes. As i said, you have my vote.

Lord Lestat de Lioncourt,

Pontifex Maximus and Political Leader of the Incorporated States of Marius and Lestat

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda has kept quiet in this discussion, because most of what we think is already said by others. In short, our feelings about the new Global Library:

- What should be in it? Remember that that has to be multiplied by all UN member nations! Storage costs, especially physical.

- Physical structure? No. At least, not mandatory. Use the existing libraries all over the world as access points, and make the global library more virtual. It's the infrastructure that should matter. Think about access as well. A Global Library on a single point, even if each nation has one, won't do a lot for literacy. The barrier to visit it is simply too great.

- Copyrights. Basically, if someone has allowed a work to be available in a local/national library, there shouldn't be a problem in publishing it through a global library. However, royalties would have to be considered, or at least something included about respecting copyright. This could turn out to be a controversial point.

- Costs. We're talking storage, perhaps a physical structure with millions of books, librarians, special climatic conditions...a nightmare to pay for all that. You're going to have to explain very well why this proposal justifies those costs, or make it cheaper. And where is the budget going to come from?

That's most of my nation's concerns. We are looking forward to an actual proposal that we could comment on, to steer the discussion, because so far the new Global Library is as much just air as the old Global Library.

Check out the Global Library Coalition Thread for some excellent ideas for the Virtual Library.

Nargopia, you really need to stop shamelessly diverting threads. We can find the proposal on our own, we don't need an advertisement stuck right in the middle of the topic. To mention that there's a new proposal is one thing, to post a sentence like this is just rude.

Nargopia, you really need to stop shamelessly diverting threads. We can find the proposal on our own, we don't need an advertisement stuck right in the middle of the topic. To mention that there's a new proposal is one thing, to post a sentence like this is just rude.
Are both threads not about the same topic? All I'm trying to do is make sure everyone sees all of the available ideas. Furthermore, I believe that I was the original major proponent of a complete virtual library, and thus mentioning this thread is designed only to strengthen that particular point. Please tell me why this is rude, I'd really like to know.

Look, we have several options available to us at this point. We're not done discussing the entire issue. And as I predicted, nobody's going to be 100% satisfied. I know I'm not. I'm likely going to have to delay or give up the idea about the museums, and the category was set to Social Justice, which I think is incorrect. Also, I worry about co-sponsorship and who will eventually get credit for doing what. Ultimately, I'm willing to ignore the few differences I have with what Mousebumples is proposing since my comments on that thread have been exceptionally well-received.

With two more proposals coming down the pike, we're blessed with a lot of time to continue the discussion, but at the same time, I'd like to think we're moving past the preliminary stages and starting to really nail down the details of this thing. Naturally, people are allowed (and even encouraged) to disagree if the disagreement can provoke positive change, but I'd rather not see disagreement for the sake of disagreement at this point.

the category was set to Social Justice, which I think is incorrect.
I know that this is referencing the other thread, but since it was originally posted here, I thought I'd reply here. I don't mean to get all OT or anything on anyone.

Krioval, like I said before, I really don't know what category it fits in best. If you want to discuss/debate the issue with Frisbeeteria, please go right ahead. I just figured that since I *believe* he's a mod, he might have a better idea of what mods think each category means. That's one reason I changed it. The original "Global Library" proposal was for the furtherment of democracy, which I can understand, but which I don't think completely fits. But that's a discussion for the other thread. Anyhow, I need to do some searching around for a good description of what each category means. If memory serves, there was a thread floating around here with a better description.

Here, Here;

A well written resolution, I see here, and it will do, apparently we will have a better system. Although my vote against the repeal stands.

It's not a big deal (and I did weigh in on the other thread about it) - it's just something that went in a way that I didn't necessarily want, which is the spirit of compromise. It was simply a convenient thing to mention about how these processes work. Nobody walks out with "everything". There's always some "little thing" that someone thinks should have been added or deleted. That's all that I was trying to say there.

Hmm.. I thought I would give up on this, but since I'm still getting positive commentary on it from people other than the four we have involved, I might as well continue to draft it as a backup to Mousebumples. I'm still going to be much more inactive in the forum for a bit, though.

Nargopia, "Furtherment of Democracy" actually still fits, and may in fact be the best fit.

"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
— Andrew Carnegie
"The public library has been historically a vital instrument of democracy and opportunity in the United States.... Our history has been greatly shaped by people who read their way to opportunity and achievements in public libraries."
— Arthur Meier Schlesinger

Tis rude because this is a discussion thread for one particular resolution, somewhat different from the Global Library Coalition and by a different author. I've had problems with this already, which has led me to conclude that a thread should be as linear as possible and should follow the same topic it started with - otherwise those who are just reading the thread will get horribly confused or just give up. Finally, it's a form of shoving aside ideas, introducing a new topic to trod over the old and detract the attention it rightfully deserves. Therefore, if a new thread is started, it's the thread author's choice to link to it (which I would've, given a chance). And you weren't very subtle about it, either, which is the part that struck me as particularly rude.

Look, we have several options available to us at this point. We're not done discussing the entire issue. And as I predicted, nobody's going to be 100% satisfied. I know I'm not.
I'm going to be 100% satisfied.

I can pretty much guarantee that.

I know that this is referencing the other thread, but since it was originally posted here, I thought I'd reply here. I don't mean to get all OT or anything on anyone.

Krioval, like I said before, I really don't know what category it fits in best. If you want to discuss/debate the issue with Frisbeeteria, please go right ahead. I just figured that since I *believe* he's a mod, he might have a better idea of what mods think each category means. That's one reason I changed it. The original "Global Library" proposal was for the furtherment of democracy, which I can understand, but which I don't think completely fits. But that's a discussion for the other thread. Anyhow, I need to do some searching around for a good description of what each category means. If memory serves, there was a thread floating around here with a better description.
Frisbee is a forum mod.

He's always been quite clear that he's speaking as an experienced proposal writer and an active UN member, not as a mod.

If you feel it's really critical, get Hack's opinion. Otherwise I'd say you won't go to far wrong listening to the most experienced players.

I apologize, Pojonia. My intent was never to trod on your ideas or replace them with those of Mousebumples, it was merely to bring in a fresh approach to the resolution. To be honest, the last thing on my mind right now is paying attention to who authors specific proposals. I'd like to see all ideas gathered into one, and then I don't particularly care who gets credit. What's important to me is the resolution itself, and my only reason for referring to the other thread was to improve the resolution. Once again, I apologize if I came off as rude.

I apologize, Pojonia. My intent was never to trod on your ideas or replace them with those of Mousebumples, it was merely to bring in a fresh approach to the resolution. To be honest, the last thing on my mind right now is paying attention to who authors specific proposals. I'd like to see all ideas gathered into one, and then I don't particularly care who gets credit. What's important to me is the resolution itself, and my only reason for referring to the other thread was to improve the resolution. Once again, I apologize if I came off as rude.

It's not really a problem here. But I figured you should be a bit more careful about it in the future. Just a heads up.

I would still like to see my museum concept integrated into the final proposal if that's possible.

I would still like to see my museum concept integrated into the final proposal if that's possible.

It's still a sound concept, and I'll keep placing it in until convinced otherwise.

Krioval, keep in mind that if the museum doesn't fit with the rest of the resolution (I'm in no way suggesting that it doesn't) that you can always submit it as a separate resolution. You've got our backing.

Pojonia, best of luck on this newest draft. I have much confidence that this will be quite impressive indeed.

Krioval, keep in mind that if the museum doesn't fit with the rest of the resolution (I'm in no way suggesting that it doesn't) that you can always submit it as a separate resolution. You've got our backing.

It's cool. I'm not terribly worried, but I want the matter to stay alive somewhat. On the other thread, I'm wrangling over ideology (completely friendly, BTW) with Mousebumples. I'm sure it'll work out one way or another.

I am also eager to see your new draft, Pojonia.


And watch out, those god-damned monkeys bite you, I'll tell you.

I'll be working on it off and on this weekend. I may have to change nations to submit it, however, as I was just ejected from my beloved position for holding two nations in the U.N.. Laugh at me while it lasts, I'm going to try to get this appealed... and I'll never invite my brother to join the U.N. with me again. We probably would have been fine if we didn't use matching Japanese good luck/bad luck flags.

I'll be working on it off and on this weekend. I may have to change nations to submit it, however, as I was just ejected from my beloved position for holding two nations in the U.N.. Laugh at me while it lasts, I'm going to try to get this appealed... and I'll never invite my brother to join the U.N. with me again. We probably would have been fine if we didn't use matching Japanese good luck/bad luck flags.

OOC: I think they determine UN multiing by looking at IP addresses.

OOC: I think they determine UN multiing by looking at IP addresses.
And login times. One of my friends had two UN nations, and he accessed each from a different computer. He also had dial-up, so IP doesn't apply. But they caught him anyway, and I think it's because he would log on to Nation A on PC 1, then logoff and immediately log on to Nation B on PC 2.

Well, hopefully I can convince them we are, in fact, seperate, on account of the fact that I've been posting humorous fictional newsbits on the regional board for Neraphims benefit before any other nation came to the Dark Realm, which I can prove through my regional happenings and regional message board. If we were the same person, I would be basically talking to myself.

Well, hopefully I can convince them we are, in fact, seperate, on account of the fact that I've been posting humorous fictional newsbits on the regional board for Neraphims benefit before any other nation came to the Dark Realm, which I can prove through my regional happenings and regional message board. If we were the same person, I would be basically talking to myself.
Do appeals ever work?

That's really too bad. You can probably at least get a new nation admitted to the UN.

Well, hopefully I can convince them we are, in fact, seperate, on account of the fact that I've been posting humorous fictional newsbits on the regional board for Neraphims benefit before any other nation came to the Dark Realm, which I can prove through my regional happenings and regional message board. If we were the same person, I would be basically talking to myself.
Good luck, but I honestly wouldn't count on it. I had some members of Monkey Island run into that same problem almost a year ago (brothers, sharing one computer). Both were ejected, and one left the region. The other is still around and really the one Islander consistently placing in the top 10, *globally* for United Nation Reports. Still, I hope you have more success than they did!