NationStates Jolt Archive

Potomacia has noticed that there is a trend in the General Assembly voting of, at any one time, a margin of 200 votes, with the tally leaning against the repeal. Potomacia believes that the repeal is an excellent idea, as it repeals an earlier resolution that only extends free education to world citizens 16 years of age and younger. Since the later resolution extended that to 18 years of age and under, there is simply no point in retaining a redundant (and effectively nullified) resolution. Potomacia firmly supports the effort to decrease bureaucracy in the United Nations, and finds the repeal a sensible measure. Potomacia calls on all member nations opposing the repeal to re-evaluate its worth, and we urge all undecided member states to vote yes for the repeal.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #3
Education For All
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Otnemem

Description:
To give every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education

Votes For: 4,515
Votes Against: 1,081
Implemented: Wed Jan 8 2003

I don't believe in repeals only for the repealing. beuracracy isn't good argument as deleting existed thing only create more beuracracy.
if the resolution don't harm you or anger you, there is no need for repealing.
also, this resolution is safe guard for the free education. it has to be for ensuring it will be harder to repeal those resolutions in the future.
to me, this repeal arguments sound as "repeal it because we want" and that is useless.

The bureaucracy argument is not just a cliche. When the real world governments have redundant laws, they do what is called legislative "housekeeping." Although Potomacia is a steadfast supporter of free education, we do not support having replica resolutions in place to "bolster" other resolutions under repeal. If the General Assembly approves the repeal of that measure, that means that the majority of UN nations want what that resolution dictates removed from their laws. Therefore, the maintenance of redundant resolutions not only increases the bureaucracy of the United Nations, it handicaps the democratic power of the General Assembly to definitively decide on a resolution.

Makewaria is for repealing this piece of nonsense, and for getting rid of any such rubbish. This is a toothless piece of foolscap, and there is no means to it. Furthermore, the Resolution is question does nothing to quantify what constitutes "Education". Under the current Resolution, Makewaria could "educate" our youth in the fields of terrorism, money laundering, the Kama Sutra, or any other errant bits we choose. The only thing that could make this laughable piece of excrement more foolhardy would be to allow the UN to tax member nations for the purposes of funding it. A reasonable person would not hire a plumber under such vague terms!

I am undecided, but am leaning towards voting in favour of repeal on the basis of this discussion thus far.

In fairness to it, it is a very old resolution, and was written when UN resolution writing was less sophisticated than it is today.

so we have ancient vague toothless resolution, that you wish to repeal with another useless resolution, with the arguments of beuracracy and vagueness.
are you sure what you do now is not beuracracy?

good repeal should give answers for (at least) 2 questions:
A- why the original resolution should repeal?
b- what benefits the repeal proposal herself make?
personally, I can't see reason for repealing of resolution with great supporting (as principal), for reasons like beucracy and vagueness. I also can't see how increasing of the beucracy in more resolution would decrease the beucracy, and what the disadvantages of beucracy in system that aren't effected by it.

As all member nations should be aware, whenever a resolution is passed, laws are automatically brought into compliance with the resolution in each UN country. This has to do with the category and strength of the resolution. By having a copy of another resolution, one's laws are effectively remodeled twice, which is, in my opinion, silly. The repeal would make it so that one of the copies, in this case the less stringent one, would be lifted - thus eliminating the bureaucracy that deals with that resolution. As it stands now, there are people in UN members' governments that are enforcing both resolutions, consuming resources to do so. Enforcing only one resolution would yield the same effects, but with half the number of people involved in enforcement. That saves countries money and streamlines governments.

How can any one actually repeal Education For All. What happened to everyone having an education. The news is focused on the African debt and everything but with education for all, everyone need not worry about the costs because it will be spread between all the nations.

UNITED NATIONS REPEAL
Repeal "Education For All"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #3
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description:
UN Resolution #3: Education For All (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the merits of "Education For All" and the ideals behind it,

MAINTAINING the principle of free education for youth in member nations,

RECALLING "Free Education" implemented August 19, 2003,

ADMITTING "Education For All" as redundant due to the implementation of "Free Education",

DECLARING itself against waste and bureaucracy:

REPEALS "Education For All", originally implemented January 8, 2003.

Votes For: 1,479
Votes Against: 1,776
Voting Ends: Tue Mar 1 2005

All those nations in our game that are making a rallying call against "Free education for all" are avoiding the issues at hand and are therefore not making any suggestions for bettering the system. I for one, as a Democratic Socialist want to implement a more comprehensive education bill that would allow for "Free education for all" from Kindergarten through graduate school. Along those same lines, this new bill would provide amnesty of student debts (for college and university students). In principle, I'm against the repeal only because it's a safeguard for free education for those under 16 (and nations would have the option of not following the bill). Otherwise, I would've voted like all the rest in favor of repeal. Think about for awhile. If this new bill proposal sounds good to you, feel free to send a message my way.

Until the day that Balen-Collectivism prevails, I think you should not tell others how to run their nation. Do not simply assume that those voting against this issue have no reason to do so. If people value both the economy and their own education, they will pay for it.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #28
Free education
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: NASTIC 2

Description:
To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education

Votes For: 11,276
Votes Against: 3,264
Implemented: Tue Aug 19 2003

so we have ancient vague toothless resolution, that you wish to repeal with another useless resolution, with the arguments of beuracracy and vagueness.
are you sure what you do now is not beuracracy?

The current proposal is just as "useless" as all repeals. There's only one thing a repeal can do: repeal. If it goes beyond repealling an past resolution, it's illegal. If you deem this repeal is "useless" in the same way you categorize the original resolution as "vague, toothless" then it would seem that all repeals are useless according to your designations.


good repeal should give answers for (at least) 2 questions:
A- why the original resolution should repeal?

Because the original resolution is unnecessary due to a later resolution.

b- what benefits the repeal proposal herself make?

I assume you mean "what will the repeal itself benefit the UN?". If this is the case, then this repeal benefits the UN the same as every other repeal, by ridding us of a previous resolution we no longer wish to follow.

personally, I can't see reason for repealing of resolution with great supporting (as principal), for reasons like beucracy and vagueness. I also can't see how increasing of the beucracy in more resolution would decrease the beucracy, and what the disadvantages of beucracy in system that aren't effected by it.

Because UN members are brought to comply with every resolution the UN has passed. With the repeal of this redundant resolution, member nations no longer need to comply. Right now, the Compliance Ministry as enforcing laws in all 37,000+ member nations to bring them into compliance with this resolution. The Compliance Ministry is not a logic-based institution. It does not take into account your choices on daily issues or government type when forcing you into compliance. Thus it follows that the compliance ministry is currently enforcing both "Education for All" and "Free Education" in member nations.

This is a redundancy and a waste. I maintain that eliminating this double enforcement in the 37,000+ member nations by passing one document in the central UN codex will decrease UN waste and bureaucracy. It's removing tens of thousands unnecessary enforcements by adding one extra resolution.

Frankly, I'll take the one extra resolution.

Not everyone needs education.So, this proposal is redundant.Cluttering up the books.

Right now, the Compliance Ministry as enforcing laws in all 37,000+ member nations to bring them into compliance with this resolution. The Compliance Ministry is not a logic-based institution. It does not take into account your choices on daily issues or government type when forcing you into compliance. Thus it follows that the compliance ministry is currently enforcing both "Education for All" and "Free Education" in member nations.

Actually in the Confederated City States, there is no "Compliance Ministry" just like the leader of the NationStates UN is not named Kofi Annan or George Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger (I just randomly picked a few names ... they mean nothing naturally). In the City States, after the passage of a UN resolution, my office -- the CCSM Office of International Affairs, summarizes the resolution and analyzes the complete debate. My office works closely with the Mikitivity Chapter of the United Nations Association, in fact, any public records that Miervatian pages have recorded in this assembly are duplicated and turned over to Janet's club.

Mikitivity's Council of Mayors (our combined legsilative / executive branch of government) rarely actually adopts verbatum the text from NationStates UN resolutions, but rather adds the many subject matters discussed here for and then drafts national referrendum. Long before the CCSM reacts to UN legislation, public opinion in Mikitivity is often swayed by press releases (many of which come from Miervatia Today) and by often my office understands that your government's political / intelligence gathering groups are FORECASTING political and economic changes in my government. But these are just reports, and sometimes not entirely accurate. For example, do you really think there are over 1 billion people living in Mikitivity? Our small mountain villages could barely sustain 300 million! Um, living people, I'm not talking about zombies or the like (which the CCSM continues to deny exist, especially on the foot of Mount Delenn).

In any event, I felt it necessary to correct you here, as it sounds like you are implying how each of our governments works, when in reality I would guess that there are as many different policies concerning the UN as there are governments on NationStates. :)

Mr. Secretary-General, Resolution #3 has been superfluous since the adoption of Resolution #18, which is in a more appropriate category anyway. I voted in favor of Resolution #18 and today vote to remove the redundancy of Resolution #3.

I yield the floor.

Lord Evif begins to sit down and then bounds up again, his backside barely touching the chair. He starts to raise his hand but is interrupted.

The ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL. If the representative from Bawlmer wishes to yield the floor, he will please take his seat first.
Mr. EVIF. Okay, Mr. Secretary-General.
He sits down for about a second while glaring at the acting Secretary-General, a new deputy who he's unfamiliar with.
The ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL. Who seeks recognition?
Lord Evif rises and raises two fingers.
The ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL. For what purpose does the representative from Bawlmer rise?
Mr. EVIF. The action of rising and raising two fingers signifies that a representative or delegate wishes to vote. Look it up if you do not believe me.
The ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL. The United Nations will suspend for a vote from the floor.
The TALLY CLERK. The representative from Bawlmer?
Mr. EVIF. Aye.
The TALLY CLERK. Bawlmer's vote for Repeal "Education For All" has been noted.
The ACTING SECRETARY-GENERAL. Who seeks recognition?

Lord Evif sighed. He hoped the Secretary-General would get back soon....

Free education does not necessarily mean education for all. The two resolutions are not the same as one another, they complement each other. Also, this repeal recognizes the merits of it, yet wants it repealed? The repeal is so vague, even if I didn't support education for all, that I still wouldn't pass it on a linguistic basis.

#3 Education For All - To give every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education
#28 Free education - To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education

In light of the obvious overlap of the two resolutions my nation will be endorsing the new resolution to repeal Education for all.

#3 Education For All - To give every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education
#28 Free education - To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education

In light of the obvious overlap of the two resolutions my nation will be endorsing the new resolution to repeal Education for all.

Your government's position has been forwarded to the Council of Mayors, and based on this simple presentation, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity has changed its abstention to a vote in favour of the repeal.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports this repeal and will cast our votes in favor if the other members of our region allow us to do so.

I have already voted FOR this repeal. Good show, PC!

The current proposal is just as "useless" as all repeals. There's only one thing a repeal can do: repeal. If it goes beyond repealling an past resolution, it's illegal. If you deem this repeal is "useless" in the same way you categorize the original resolution as "vague, toothless" then it would seem that all repeals are useless according to your designations.
no it isn't. maybe I clearified my self better. if you repeal "sex worker safety act" (as example without any statement that I think it should repeal) your countrey would decide by herself if it will be legalized or baned. that is kind of effect. but when you repeal "education for all" your goverment still wouldn't stop to give free education since it is guarded by the other resolution. why is so important to repeal something that your goverment will have to obey for, even after the repealing?


Because the original resolution is unnecessary due to a later resolution.and it still aren't reason for the fact you are adding more beucracy for the reducing of beucracy.



I assume you mean "what will the repeal itself benefit the UN?". If this is the case, then this repeal benefits the UN the same as every other repeal, by ridding us of a previous resolution we no longer wish to follow.only here you will follow the resolution either you repeal it, or not.



Because UN members are brought to comply with every resolution the UN has passed. With the repeal of this redundant resolution, member nations no longer need to comply. Right now, the Compliance Ministry as enforcing laws in all 37,000+ member nations to bring them into compliance with this resolution. The Compliance Ministry is not a logic-based institution. It does not take into account your choices on daily issues or government type when forcing you into compliance. Thus it follows that the compliance ministry is currently enforcing both "Education for All" and "Free Education" in member nations. I think DLE say before some days, that the ministery of compliance change your laws (without letting your choices effect on your countrey), as some mod tell him. that mean this ministery has logic, which is unknown for us, and therefore he would easily move some people for one resolution enforcing to another. just as the "free trial", and the "description of free trial" (maybe I wrong in the name), shouldn't mean 2 enforcement forces, but describe the job the first resolution enforcement force will have to do.

This is a redundancy and a waste. I maintain that eliminating this double enforcement in the 37,000+ member nations by passing one document in the central UN codex will decrease UN waste and bureaucracy. It's removing tens of thousands unnecessary enforcements by adding one extra resolution.

Frankly, I'll take the one extra resolution.
I think that you aren't decrease UN waste, because it common sense, that the enforcement had moved to the "free education", just when it passed.
btw, lets take the argument of beucracy. if it was law that ban murder, and then other law ban the harm of another person, would you repeal the ban of murder just because harm of another person is prohibited, or stay with both of the laws, and give harder punishments to the ones who make things against the laws?
or if I take it further. let imagine you have vague law that say "no one should murder another person". may you repeal it on vagueness, or stay with it and try to make it better with other laws based on the principal of the first law?

fight in beucracy is usefull just when somebody is harmed because over-beucarcy (as sick peoples that die since they could gat their medicine only after hundreds of signs, and queue of 5 years). since it isn't the situation here, I prefer to vote with my principals, than against the beucracy.

Vastiva and our region support the repeal en masse. Less bureacracy is a good thing - and having less repetitive resolutions is a good idea.

*sigh*
i hate this, when people dont even bother to look up the resolutions up for appeal and simply vote against just for the sake of it.

resolution #3 Education for all is pointless ever since resolution #28 Free education came in, #3 gives all under 16's free aducation, #28 gives all under 18's free education... completly pointless i tell you

Legislative housekeeping (the reason given in this thread for the repeal of #3) is not the repeal of previous legislation. Instead the pieces of legislation are grouped into single legislative documents. As such, #3 should not be repealed. What should have been done is for #28 to be given a Mild rating, because it merely extends #3 to the age of 18 as opposed to the original age of 16.

Let it lie and keep both pieces of legislation. Demographika is voting No to the repeal.

We see no point of a standard at 16 if there is already a standard at 18.

Repeal of the excess is therefore good.

I think it's pretty foolish to have a resolution that has been superseeded still on the U.N. books. I am more surprised that there is a contingent of people who have been stupid enough to vote against this resolution. Perhaps they are not paying attention to the resolution itself, instead just looking at "Repeal education for all" and deciding they are against it.

I will personally aid Powerhungry Chipmunks in getting this proposal back up to the U.N. floor as many times as it takes for it to pass.

I will personally aid Powerhungry Chipmunks in getting this proposal back up to the U.N. floor as many times as it takes for it to pass.

I have a request ... I'm glad to see you back in the UN again! :)

Perhaps while seeking to get attention to this issue, could you conduct more polls and surveys? I actually was sad to see them stop.

I think it's pretty foolish to have a resolution that has been superseeded still on the U.N. books. I am more surprised that there is a contingent of people who have been stupid enough to vote against this resolution. Perhaps they are not paying attention to the resolution itself, instead just looking at "Repeal education for all" and deciding they are against it.

I will personally aid Powerhungry Chipmunks in getting this proposal back up to the U.N. floor as many times as it takes for it to pass.
great, you call me stupid because I have other opinions. now it sure that I vote for the repealing.

great, you call me stupid because I have other opinions. now it sure that I vote for the repealing.

There is no room for opinion in a resolution where the two issues are demonstrably true and not true. Resolution #18 is not affected in any way by resolution #3, and neither are any other resolutions, so resolution #3 is superfluous and a hinderence to enforce.

You also now appear to be voting not agains the new resolution but against Pilot, which is politically irresponsible.

Even though I support the idea of free education, there is very little point in keeping this one when another one does more than this equally well.

So I say repeal it :}

To repeal such a resolution is lunacy. In some countries in the UN where dictatorships are, without such a resolution their education systems would fall apart.

To repeal such a resolution is lunacy. In some countries in the UN where dictatorships are, without such a resolution their education systems would fall apart.

There is a resolution that enforces free education until the age of 18. And as such this resolution is pretty pointless.

In any event, I felt it necessary to correct you here, as it sounds like you are implying how each of our governments works, when in reality I would guess that there are as many different policies concerning the UN as there are governments on NationStates. :)

Yes, I think you're right, I probably did step a little too far out into individual nations' right to roleplay interaction with UN resolutions. It was a mistake made in haste, I knew as I wrote it that it wasn't entirely accurate for every nation. I didn't have the time at post to address the different ways that nations could interact with the legislation.

Still, if a nation does adapt UN legislation more logically--less verbatum(similar to the Council of Mayors)--this repeal would not increase bureaucracy in those nations as Green Israel is suggesting. If there's an increase in bureaucracy, it's fairly limited to the central vaults archives or whatever else of the UN. In member nations there would be a reduction or equal level in bureaucracy. Feel free to correct me again if I'm posting incorrectly or too generally. Again, I'm short of time to post here.

Potomacia is still astounded and frankly disappointed that the member nations are on a track to defeat the repeal. We would like to echo the concerns of other nations regarding the apparent lack of information awareness among many member states. It seems to us that most member states that oppose the repeal are unaware of the more recent and more comprehensive "Free Education" Resolution. Potomacia wonders whether or not the Secretary-General could enhance the front page of the United Nations link, so as to provide some sort of expanded information option. For example, the nation that authored the proposed resolution before the General Assembly could provide a succinct statement of the causes and effects of the resolution (i.e. Why repealing "Education For All" does not eliminate free education, since there is another resolution guaranteeing it). Potomacia respectfully defers any and all judgment of this idea to the Secretary-General, and would only wish to know if such a proposal were possible to implement.

All those nations in our game that are making a rallying call against "Free education for all" are avoiding the issues at hand and are therefore not making any suggestions for bettering the system. I for one, as a Democratic Socialist want to implement a more comprehensive education bill that would allow for "Free education for all" from Kindergarten through graduate school. Along those same lines, this new bill would provide amnesty of student debts (for college and university students). In principle, I'm against the repeal only because it's a safeguard for free education for those under 16 (and nations would have the option of not following the bill). Otherwise, I would've voted like all the rest in favor of repeal. Think about for awhile. If this new bill proposal sounds good to you, feel free to send a message my way.

IT is this simple - passed in August of 2003 was a bill (Free Edcuation) which ALREADY provided FREE EDUCATION for those 18 and under. This encompasses kindergarten to age 18. Why is there a need to have "double bills" declaring free education. IF ANYTHING the bill "Education for All" (the newest free education bill) TAKES AWAY from those 17 and 18 years old. WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO A FREE EDUCATION??? PLease repeal "Education for All" immediately and let the 17 & 18 years old KEEP THEIR RIGHT TO A FREE EDUCATION.
Thank you.
President Zion Judah of Lyncoya

It seems to the leaders of Whimception that in effort to remove a resolution which does nothing, you have made a resolution which does nothing. :headbang:

Rather than this repeal, Whimception proposes that we enact a new resolution which simultaneously extends free education literally to all and repeals all earlier resolutions made susequently redundant.

Until such time, we, the leaders of Whimception, urge a vote against this repeal, as a vote in its favor bears no consequence other than to blot one of our oldest resolutions with strikeout lines.

Rather than this repeal, Whimception proposes that we enact a new resolution which simultaneously extends free education literally to all and repeals all earlier resolutions made susequently redundant.

The problem with the above is that it's against the game rules.

Potomacia is still astounded and frankly disappointed that the member nations are on a track to defeat the repeal. We would like to echo the concerns of other nations regarding the apparent lack of information awareness among many member states. It seems to us that most member states that oppose the repeal are unaware of the more recent and more comprehensive "Free Education" Resolution. Potomacia wonders whether or not the Secretary-General could enhance the front page of the United Nations link, so as to provide some sort of expanded information option. For example, the nation that authored the proposed resolution before the General Assembly could provide a succinct statement of the causes and effects of the resolution (i.e. Why repealing "Education For All" does not eliminate free education, since there is another resolution guaranteeing it). Potomacia respectfully defers any and all judgment of this idea to the Secretary-General, and would only wish to know if such a proposal were possible to implement.
Who is this Secretary-General person you speak of?

Who is this Secretary-General person you speak of?
I'd like to know that too, the last one I heard of was kidnapped by DLE and pushed out an airlock without a spacesuit.

Memorandum

From: President, Commonwealth of Katherynians
To: Secretary-General, United Nations

Subject: REPEAL OF "EDUCATION FOR ALL"

WHEREAS the Commonwealth of Katherynians recognizes the government's obligation to provide for educational opportunities for all citizens through the age of 18, or up to graduation from high school, whichever occurs sooner;

WHEREAS the Commonwealth of Katherynians recognizes that UN Resolution #3 provides for government-funded education only through the age of 16;

WHEREAS the Commonwealth of Katherynians recognizes that UN Resolution #28 provides for government-funded education through the age of 18 while providing for all citizens covered by the earlier Resolution;

The Government of the Commonwealth of Katherynians hereby acknowledges UN Resolution #3, "Education for All" is obsolete and redundant, and pledges the full support of its repeal.

[signed]
Katheryne
President, Commonwealth of Katherynians

Upon review of both resolutions, The Elite Council of The Empire of Hathoria have chosen to vote AGAINST this resolution. Both resolutions are vague and, since they are so vague, imply that infants have the right to a free education by saying that every person under the age of 18 has a right to an education. Both result in unnecessary funding and a new educational resolution should be written to specify age and critera. Voting against this resolution will help keep the issue of education up for debate and hopefully a new resolution will be inacted.

Upon review of both resolutions, The Elite Council of The Empire of Hathoria have chosen to vote AGAINST this resolution. Both resolutions are vague and, since they are so vague, imply that infants have the right to a free education by saying that every person under the age of 18 has a right to an education. Both result in unnecessary funding and a new educational resolution should be written to specify age and critera. Voting against this resolution will help keep the issue of education up for debate and hopefully a new resolution will be inacted.
However you fail to realize that in order to enact a new resolution doing that we'd have to repeal both resolutions #3 and #18 first.:rolleyes:

Hogaland's residents having realized the redundency, and cost in having this redundency, ask all nations to help repeal these duplicate rules.

Hogland deeply values the rights of an high-quality education for its citizens, but the repetative nature of those two legistlative acts just costs our small population a significant amount each.

Please help to return some money to our pockets, without in any way lowering the quality of an education we can offer to our residents.

The citizens of Hogaland thank you all for supporting the repeal.

The only real reason for the repeal would be to extend the span of free education to 18 jears. It is obvious that they also need the possiblity to study. Any other reasons are not appropriate.
But why not change the issue instead of deleting?
A much more effective way would be to give ALL children free education till they reach the age of 16. If they work hard or show a real effort, then they would receive free education till 18. This is to avoid unnecessary investments in children who don't matter about working or planning to get a decent job.
In some cases it may even be a encouragement for children to study hard(er).
Although some nations give a very good reasons for he repeal, most of them don't even care. Therefore, I vote against the repeal.

I will vote for repeal. This is an old resolution now, and, as such, is obviously beginning to look a tad outdated. Obviously, new resolutions, such as the more recent education resolution have made this slightly redundant.

The only real reason for the repeal would be to extend the span of free education to 18 jears. It is obvious that they also need the possiblity to study. Any other reasons are not appropriate.
But why not change the issue instead of deleting?
A much more effective way would be to give ALL children free education till they reach the age of 16. If they work hard or show a real effort, then they would receive free education till 18. This is to avoid unnecessary investments in children who don't matter about working or planning to get a decent job.
In some cases it may even be a encouragement for children to study hard(er).
Although some nations give a very good reasons for he repeal, most of them don't even care. Therefore, I vote against the repeal.

Kids are already educated free until the age of 18 under another UN resolution.

Memorandum

From: Lady Excellentia, Republic of Excellentium
To: Secretary-General, United Nations

Subject: REPEAL OF "EDUCATION FOR ALL"

Afer having thoughtfully researched and considered the history of UN Resolutions #3 and #28, I have cast my vote in support of repeal.

It is the Republic of Excellentium's position that educational opportunities should be provided for all citizens through the age of 18.

Furthermore, I respectfully submit that UN Resolution #3, "Education for All," is both limiting and redundant in that it repeats, in part, what is already comprehensively provided through UN Resolution #28.

Additionally, Lady Excellentia would like to express her opinion that all voting members and delegates have a responsibility to fully investigate and consider the history of legislation, both proposed and implemented, rather than making a hasty decision.

Respectfully submitted,

[signed]
Lady Excellentia

Insequor Silentium Recipero Excellentia

I think the whole idea is absurd, but if it is decided that there is mandatory education, at least let the government decide whether or not it should be payed.

This has to do with the category and strength of the resolution. By having a copy of another resolution, one's laws are effectively remodeled twice, which is, in my opinion, silly. The repeal would make it so that one of the copies, in this case the less stringent one, would be lifted - thus eliminating the bureaucracy that deals with that resolution.


Enforcing only one resolution would yield the same effects, but with half the number of people involved in enforcement. That saves countries money and streamlines governments.

Utopiates votes FOR repeal.

This is neurotic. If anything should be repealed, it would be the right to utter ignorance. Repeal a resolution that won 4:1? Some people just want to stir up trouble around a resolved issue... Unless you have some powerful evidence and arguments, don't bother requesting an repeals... This is getting ridiculous, folks...

Forsyth County believes education is the only future the children have. Keeping children in school keeps them off the streets, which therefore translates to the potential of a lower crime rate. Education provides equal opportunity for everyone to succeed and mold the leaders of tomorrow. It is for these reasons that education should remain free for all.

ye we do need education but 4 god sake this is a game u people need 2 get a life u borin child rape artists any way who actualy wants 2 go 2 school i never did talk bout summit good 4 a change like halo :sniper:


If you think we're wasting our time then why did you come here and post about it?

Idiot.

Okay, let's run through this again.

The reason that we are repealing Resolution #3 is that it was made superfluous by Resolution #18. We support free education for all. We oppose pointless beaureaucracy.

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

Forsyth County believes education is the only future the children have. Keeping children in school keeps them off the streets, which therefore translates to the potential of a lower crime rate. Education provides equal opportunity for everyone to succeed and mold the leaders of tomorrow. It is for these reasons that education should remain free for all.

Krioval notes that the resolution targeted by the repeal guarantees free education for people until age 16. Krioval further notes that another resolution (#28) guarantees free education for people until age 18. Thus, it makes sense to Krioval that the first resolution be repealed, as it does nothing to promote education that is not already being done by the second.

The fact that this resolution is currently failing is irrefutable evidence of the all-pervasive power of the sheep.

Not really. I, myself, oppose this repeal on two seperate grounds, and for two seperate specific issues within the repeals wording.

I oppose on idealistic grounds: It's a repeal focused on getting rid of a resolution that guarantees free education. That's a bad idea, regardless of the second resolution in existence. The fact that we still have two resolutions regarding free education instead of a resolution regarding free education and a repeal of a similar resolution better shows the U.N.'s support for free education. Also, I oppose the U.N. going down a road where we repeal resolutions on account of "waste and bureaucracy" as opposed to the proposals actual concept.

I oppose on pragmatic grounds: This first resolution serves, as I may have mentioned before, as a fail-safe in case the second resolution ever gets attacked at a later date on account of, I don't know, shortness (they are both, after all, very short.). It's very presence makes it harder for the U.N. to repeal free education for children under 16, because that education is guaranteed by two resolutions.

But if you don't like either of my viewpoints, then lets look a little closer.

Issue: Bureaucracy

The resolution mentions that the U.N. is "against waste and bureaucracy." and that's the primary focus of the repeal (correct me if I'm wrong).

U.N. laws are, of course, immediately enacted by U.N. Gnomes in all member nations. If one is redundant, that means literally nothing. This isn't a significant enough reason to pass a repeal, especially if you're still maintaining the value of free education. Also, what bureaucracy? I mean, seriously. These are the two resolutions:

To give every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education
To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education

Heavens, can't you just feel the oppressive bureaucracy just weighing down the U.N.'s ability to function properly? That's funny. I can't.

Hang on, now I'm having fun with this.

Bureacracy: A type of administration characterized by specialization, professionalism, and security of tenure.

Max Weber's ideal type of organization that included a strict chain of command, detailed rules, high specialization, centralized power, and selection and promotion based on technical competence.

An organisation in which people are expected to operate within a defined role, not being swayed by or showing any emotion. Developed in the late nineteenth century by sociologists as the ideal organisational machine free from the paternalism and nepotism that characterised many organisations at the time. Bureaucracies only operate successfully where they allow emotions to play some part in actions, for example, the development of a mission statement, apologising with feeling to a complainant.

Hmm. But lets look at the more negative definitions of bureacracy, the ones I'm certain you're declaring yourself against...

n. (IC) An organization formed with ridged structure and inflexible rules of operation and authority which follows complex procedures impeding effective action.

a system that keeps you busy all the time so that you can be as unproductive as possible

You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Your very repeal is rather bureaucratic, in my own opinion. It's not really accomplishing anything new, but instead is laboring to cut back at the 'waste' by putting in a repeal longer than both the previous resolutions combined. It would essentially just get in the way when it came to trying to view or make laws according to other resolutions. In fact, I think that you're increasing, as opposed to decreasing, that excess waste. Your repeal is contradictory to its own declaration.

This proposal is an utter waste of time, it doesn't establish anything new and it doesn't get rid of anything old. It's just there. Annoying me.

Issue: Frivolity
Finally, I disprove of your repeal because of your choice of the word "as" as opposed to "is" in the ADMITTING section. That just really bugs me for no apparent reason.

Frankly, Krioval finds the arguments put forth by the Pojonian Puppet to be beyond shocking for the reason that we have worked with this nation on the Global Library repeal and subsequent efforts to work out a replacement, and the arguments put forth on those ventures by that nation were intelligent and coherent.

Contrast those statements with the ones above. Frankly, Krioval sees no reason for our tax rate to be raised twice to comply with two resolutions that provide the same exact service, except one resolution extends said service for two additional years per citizen. What is the point of that? What nation would voluntarily enact near-identical pieces of legislation to create a social program that ultimately taxes its citizens twice? What could possibly justify the logic behind such an argument?

Your very repeal is rather bureaucratic, in my own opinion. It's not really accomplishing anything new, but instead is laboring to cut back at the 'waste' by putting in a repeal longer than both the previous resolutions combined. It would essentially just get in the way when it came to trying to view or make laws according to other resolutions. In fact, I think that you're increasing, as opposed to decreasing, that excess waste. Your repeal is contradictory to its own declaration.

That'd be a big fat "no". The repeal would affect Krioval's (and everbody else's) tax rates by reducing them. We would no longer be paying for an unnecessary resolution. And what is the argument for keeping redundant legislation anyway? To tax me more?

This proposal is an utter waste of time, it doesn't establish anything new and it doesn't get rid of anything old. It's just there. Annoying me.

The same could be said of your entire post attacking it, for absolutely no reason.

In closing, Krioval would just like to "thank" people for reading the word "education" in the proposal and voting against the repeal, as well as those who don't understand how the UN enforcement rules work, and thus vote against the repeal. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

However you fail to realize that in order to enact a new resolution doing that we'd have to repeal both resolutions #3 and #18 first.:rolleyes:
However, you are wrong. #18 was enacted without the repeal of #3 so I don't see why a new resolution cannot be proposed as was done previously. :rolleyes:
And if this was repealed now, Education would go unnoticed so a new resolution would never be enacted.

wow!

wasnt the idea behind this repeal simply to remove it as it is in effect redundant as it is covered by Education for All???

I have just seen the recent results of the voting and while i am Heartened that Education is held most high by the nations of the UN i am surprised that this is currently falling short by over a thousand votes!

if it is defeated and i hope it isnt, Maybe the fact that it is to remove duplicated resolutions, should be in big bold letters so the speed readers get the gist of it.

As President of the Realm of Hibernia i have instructed our delegate to vote for the repeal asap.

Frankly, Krioval finds the arguments put forth by the Pojonian Puppet to be beyond shocking for the reason that we have worked with this nation on the Global Library repeal and subsequent efforts to work out a replacement, and the arguments put forth on those ventures by that nation were intelligent and coherent.


Ouch. Mean!


Contrast those statements with the ones above. Frankly, Krioval sees no reason for our tax rate to be raised twice to comply with two resolutions that provide the same exact service, except one resolution extends said service for two additional years per citizen. What is the point of that? What nation would voluntarily enact near-identical pieces of legislation to create a social program that ultimately taxes its citizens twice? What could possibly justify the logic behind such an argument?

That'd be a big fat "no". The repeal would affect Krioval's (and everbody else's) tax rates by reducing them. We would no longer be paying for an unnecessary resolution. And what is the argument for keeping redundant legislation anyway? To tax me more?

You can't be taxed twice for providing free education. There's no rational reason that the government would allocate twice the funds to two different resolutions on the same subject. It's also physically impossible, unless money just disappears in your nation.

By these two resolutions, the government is forced to provide free education for everyone under 18 and under 16. While that is redundant, it has nothing to do with paying twice as much. Nobody is getting double the education here, so taxes don't go up.

In fact, if you were allocating twice the taxes towards education, I'd still stand wholly in opposition of the repeal, because it would mean education would be getting twice the minimum amount of money needed to keep it free and public - which is a pretty good sum for ensuring a good education in addition to a free one. That's not, in fact, the case, but if you absolutely insist that your tax rates are going to go up, then in mind that that is the reason your tax rates would go up.

The same could be said of your entire post attacking it, for absolutely no reason.

The irony does not escape me. In fact, it amuses me. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered explaining my vote.


In closing, Krioval would just like to "thank" people for reading the word "education" in the proposal and voting against the repeal, as well as those who don't understand how the UN enforcement rules work, and thus vote against the repeal. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

I recognize the complaint. However, I studied this repeal very carefully before providing argumentation as to why there is no reason to pass it, and I am well aware of the U.N. enforcement rules as well as the convoluted inner workings of governmental taxation. Your refutation as to why my arguments are untrue is either pure insult and malice or not at all related to what I said. *Thanks* for that. Mooooooooooooooo.

You can't be taxed twice for providing free education. There's no rational reason that the government would allocate twice the funds to two different resolutions on the same subject. It's also physically impossible, unless money just disappears in your nation.

You do realize that every resolution reflects a change in the statistics of every UN member, right? Thus, a "significant" Human Rights AND a "significant" Social Justice resolution currently overlap to provide one benefit, but the cost is doubled. Really, I'd expect an intelligent person to comprehend how the game mechanics work. Passed resolutions lead to changes regardless of the content of those resolutions. Hence, if the moderators let me pass a resolution whose text said, simply "Moo oink squee squee" under the heading Human Rights: Strong, the stats would be altered even though the (literal) M.O.S.S. proposal does absolutely nothing, but my taxes would probably rise to provide for the cost of "improving human rights".

The irony does not escape me. In fact, it amuses me. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered explaining my vote.

So it's all right for you to waste my time but not all right for people to debate resolutions that they feel are important. Does your nation always require everything to revolve around itself, or have I simply been unlucky enough to witness two incidents in which that is the case?

I recognize the complaint. However, I studied this repeal very carefully before providing argumentation as to why there is no reason to pass it, and I am well aware of the U.N. enforcement rules as well as the convoluted inner workings of governmental taxation. Your refutation as to why my arguments are untrue is either pure insult and malice or not at all related to what I said.

Apparently you haven't, or you haven't been bothered to actually consider the impact of double resolution (a practice that is no longer allowed, I might add). Your arguments as they stand are irrelevant to the issue and existed only to inflate your ego. As to your contention that I am insulting and malicious, I may remind you that you were the first to post a petty and sarcastic comment about the resolution that was also devoid of factual information. If that isn't insulting (to my superior intelligence) and malicious (toward the superior intelligence of those voting for the resolution, including me), I don't know what is. Though I can try:

If you see people in brightly-colored uniforms pillaging your coffers, they're my soldiers working diligently to see that you pay for the double taxation you feel you have the right to impose on Krioval. Please don't interfere in their work; they're on a tight schedule.

You can't be taxed twice for providing free education. There's no rational reason that the government would allocate twice the funds to two different resolutions on the same subject. It's also physically impossible, unless money just disappears in your nation.

By these two resolutions, the government is forced to provide free education for everyone under 18 and under 16. While that is redundant, it has nothing to do with paying twice as much. Nobody is getting double the education here, so taxes don't go up.
The argument here is that the game mechanics made it so both of them did raise taxes. At least, that's my understanding of it, that what you say is correct in that it makes no sense to raise them twice, but it happened anyway.

I agree, the fact that "Free Education" should have also repealed "Education for All" since it replaced it...

Now, on non-game mechanics terms.

Paperwork has to be filed to show compliance with both of these. Which means all paperwork demonstrating compliance with "Education for All" is redudant.

IF game mechanics are raised to say that your statistics (social justice) and statistics (human rights) are both raised, that does not automatically mean that your taxes are going to go up. I'd like to see exactly where it says that the game mechanics will force taxes up in each nation. As an active member, I've never heard of this before in any explanation of the U.N. and it doesn't surprise me that other voters haven't either.

But, since I may very well be misinformed, I'll accede that point for a moment. Instead, lets look at it this way.

IF taxes are being raised specifically as an effect of the resolution,
THEN those raised taxes are going towards education for all. Remember what I said earlier? Well, you didn't respond to it, but here it is again anyways.

In fact, if you were allocating twice the taxes towards education, I'd still stand wholly in opposition of the repeal, because it would mean education would be getting twice the minimum amount of money needed to keep it free and public - which is a pretty good sum for ensuring a good education in addition to a free one.

When your taxes are raised, that money has to go somewhere. There is, unfortunately, no alternate dimension where money raised for M.O.S.S. proposals goes to (if there was, I'd find it and never have an "imploded" economy again). Instead, that money has to go directly to where the resolution allocated it - education. For once, I can actually validate that the stupid voters ("Dur... I'm for education, so I'm against this repeal") are right, as much as it pains me. This repeal takes money away from education by your own twisted and confusing logic.

Also, how does this disprove A) the idealistic standpoint I presented, B) the pragmatic standpoint I presented, C) the excess bureacracy issue I adressed, D) the complete frivolity I put forth (nyehehe), and how, exactly, does it apply to the repeal itself? I don't recall the repeal pointing out these weird flaws in game mechanics, just declaring themselves against waste and bureacracy. And I seem to have put forth a lot of evidence showing it is not a waste or a bureaucratic problem to have these resolutions in place.

Finally, lighten up a bit! I don't regard this repeal as a huge issue in comparison to so many others, but that's no reason to get mean and nasty or put up such a wide variety of ad hominem abusive (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8228769&postcount=154) . I am assuredly egotistical in nature, but I can only reaffirm that it's because everything does revolve around Pojonia. It's been proven from scientific studies that would make your obviously superior intellect boggle, if not explode (we're still cleaning the scientists off the walls).

If you see people in brightly-colored uniforms pillaging your coffers, they're my soldiers working diligently to see that you pay for the double taxation you feel you have the right to impose on Krioval. Please don't interfere in their work; they're on a tight schedule.
We're in a pocket dimension just south of the South Pacific, approximately the size of a small atom to the naked eye. Good luck getting in, surviving the infinite wastes surrounding us, avoiding the overly large and somewhat unrestricted Pojo population (who are very attracted to bright colors), getting what little money we have from our coffers (if you could, I think there's about 2,000 debt receipts in there as well), avoiding the enraged populace, and getting out.

Man, my ego's just on a feeding frenzy today...

Now, on non-game mechanics terms.

Paperwork has to be filed to show compliance with both of these. Which means all paperwork demonstrating compliance with "Education for All" is redudant.

I don't believe paperwork has to be filed to show compliance. That just depends on whether or not your government is for or against bureaucracy. Pojonia (and its puppet) provides free education for everyone under 18, is therefore in compliance with international law, and probably lost the paperwork in an alternate dimension if it ever existed at all.

When your taxes are raised, that money has to go somewhere. There is, unfortunately, no alternate dimension where money raised for M.O.S.S. proposals goes to (if there was, I'd find it and never have an "imploded" economy again). Instead, that money has to go directly to where the resolution allocated it - education. For once, I can actually validate that the stupid voters ("Dur... I'm for education, so I'm against this repeal") are right, as much as it pains me. This repeal takes money away from education by your own twisted and confusing logic.

Do try to keep up. Currently, the UN mandates that two "compliance agencies" need to exist in each country to "promote education". One needs to ensure that all citizens under 18 are educated, and the other needs to ensure that all citizens under 16 are educated. As you can see, the second agency would be completely superfluous. It would make more sense to repeal this resolution and pass a proposal mandating additional education funding if education is really a priority for you. As it stands, a position on the second "agency" is a waste of money. Education is not being improved by Resolution 3 since the passage of Resolution 28. All the tortuous claims otherwise are baseless and simply to deconstruct.

Also, how does this disprove A) the idealistic standpoint I presented, B) the pragmatic standpoint I presented, C) the excess bureacracy issue I adressed, D) the complete frivolity I put forth (nyehehe), and E) the repeal itself? I don't recall the repeal pointing out these weird flaws in game mechanics, just declaring themselves against waste and bureacracy. And I seem to have put forth a lot of evidence showing it is not a waste or a bureaucratic problem to have these resolutions in place.

That's because the proposer of this resolution assumed that people would be able to:

1. Read,
2. Critically analyze the information presented, and
3. Not resort to knee-jerk sentimentality since the word "education" is involved.

Sadly, that seems to not be the case, and apparently you're arguing simultaneously for a shorter resolution with the "this is too long" point AND a longer resolution with the "why aren't issues [x], [y], and [z] included?" point. So far, you've only promoted your own view that somehow, a repeal with more text than the original resolution is automatically devalued. Well, where does that place your GL repeal? That was longer than the repealed resolution (at least in surface area).

Finally, lighten up a bit!

Wait a second. This coming from the nation that nearly had a collective heart attack when the original GL replacement was actually rebutted? Please. I've had far more than enough hypocrisy for the day.

Man, my ego's just on a feeding frenzy today...

Par for the course, really.

Do try to keep up. Currently, the UN mandates that two "compliance agencies" need to exist in each country to "promote education". One needs to ensure that all citizens under 18 are educated, and the other needs to ensure that all citizens under 16 are educated. As you can see, the second agency would be completely superfluous. It would make more sense to repeal this resolution and pass a proposal mandating additional education funding if education is really a priority for you. As it stands, a position on the second "agency" is a waste of money. Education is not being improved by Resolution 3 since the passage of Resolution 28. All the tortuous claims otherwise are baseless and simply to deconstruct.

Again, cite your source. I'd be glad to see exactly where these rules exist and why they apply to the repeal. I don't know where it would state "compliance agencies" and "promote education" in a way that you could quote it.

Again, if you're putting money into education, even through two agencies, you're doubling the money towards education. Sure, the means is nonsensically odd, but it's there and it works. It seems a waste to repeal and then rewrite it in this case. My argument isn't baseless just because you say so, I'm afraid.

That's because the proposer of this resolution assumed that people would be able to:

1. Read,
2. Critically analyze the information presented, and
3. Not resort to knee-jerk sentimentality since the word "education" is involved.

Sadly, that seems to not be the case, and apparently you're arguing simultaneously for a shorter resolution with the "this is too long" point AND a longer resolution with the "why aren't issues [x], [y], and [z] included?" point. So far, you've only promoted your own view that somehow, a repeal with more text than the original resolution is automatically devalued. Well, where does that place your GL repeal? That was longer than the repealed resolution (at least in surface area).
Again, I'm not just posting the knee-jerk reaction, I'm debating on two different fronts which you've ignored. Again, I've presented you with evidence as to why this resolution is fruitless bureaucracy in itself, which you've written off because my response is bureaucratic. If you force me to look up the logical fallacy associated with that, I shall hate you till the end of time. Again, you're attacking my personal credibility and not my argumentations credibility (ad hominem abusive). Also, my repeal actually did something useful, if bureaucratic. And yes, you caught me on the not being able to read part. I are sad now.

Wait a second. This coming from the nation that nearly had a collective heart attack when the original GL replacement was actually rebutted? Please. I've had far more than enough hypocrisy for the day.
You use words without understanding the full implications of those words. "Bureaucracy" can be beneficial in addition to detrimental, one of the reasons I oppose this repeal (See my original post on the pragmatic perspective, and how this resolution acts as a failsafe). "Ego" is actually a very important concept that should not be used to refute argumentation, as any Randian scholar will tell you (You'd have to be absolutely insane to pick it up on my advice, but I'd recommend Atlas Shrugged). Calling my response "Hypocrisy" doesn't mean that my argumentation is untrue, though it could mean that I, myself, have changed.

Also, I'll have you know I had seventeen collective heart attacks and most of them were associated with you proposing your own resolution within my resolutions thread. Since we're drifting from the original topic.

Par for the course, really.
Does that make this a birdie or a bogie? And what's your score?

Children are the future and we need them educated, Personally, I think that all those who can't afford to goto a university, should have the opportunity to get a free college education (at a government regulated school).

Repeal it?

The BEST argument AGAINST repealing it is simply -

WHY? What is it hurting by keeping it on the books?

I'd agree that the UN should have amended the ORIGINAL resolution rather than passing a second resolution...

But since BOTH resolution are well established, "on the books", so to speak, to repeal ONE in favor of the other would be foolish and wasteful...

Since they are NOT identical in their wording -

To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education - UN Res. #28
To give every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education - UN Res. #3

Given that in a diverse and complex world of many races and beliefs the words "child" and "person" can mean different things, WHY take a chance that even one child and/or person get's "hurt" by something that is in fact unnecessary and ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING...

GWiz

Grand Wizard of The Allied States of Wise Wizards

Repeal it?

The BEST argument AGAINST repealing it is simply -

WHY? What is it hurting by keeping it on the books?

I'd agree that the UN should have amended the ORIGINAL resolution rather than passing a second resolution...

But since BOTH resolution are well established, "on the books", so to speak, to repeal ONE in favor of the other would be foolish and wasteful...

Since they are NOT identical in their wording -

To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education - UN Res. #28
To give every child under the age of 16 the right to a free education - UN Res. #3

Given that in a diverse and complex world of many races and beliefs the words "child" and "person" can mean different things, WHY take a chance that even one child and/or person get's "hurt" by something that is in fact unnecessary and ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING...

GWiz

Grand Wizard of The Allied States of Wise Wizards

Fine. In the interests of exploiting vagueness to the highest degree, Krioval has decided that 16 and 18 refer to hours after birth, rather than years. Does that now present a case for repeal?

Fine. In the interests of exploiting vagueness to the highest degree, Krioval has decided that 16 and 18 refer to hours after birth, rather than years. Does that now present a case for repeal?

Absolutely. That's a perfectly solid reason to repeal something. Put it in a repeal and send it in. I'll fall behind a repeal that declares one of them null and void because it is too abstract. But the reasons given in the current repeal and parts of your own argumentation disagree with me.

One sentence resolutions shouldn't be trusted, however. Cause they're... erm, short. Like midgets. I don't trust midgets.

The citizens of Pojonia apologize for any derogatory comments about midgets that may have been included in this post. They assure that those are the opinions of their leader and leader only, who will shortly be sacked and replaced with a clone exactly like the previous.

Repeal it?

The BEST argument AGAINST repealing it is simply -

WHY? What is it hurting by keeping it on the books?


It is a technical / administrative motion really.

Do keep in mind that repealed resolutions are still recorded in history (on the official page they are listed via a strikethrough font), so the motion isn't to remove it from the books, but rather to emphasize that the other resolution, which applies to a larger group of people (18 and under instead of 16 and under) takes priority.

However, you are wrong. #18 was enacted without the repeal of #3 so I don't see why a new resolution cannot be proposed as was done previously. :rolleyes:
And if this was repealed now, Education would go unnoticed so a new resolution would never be enacted.
No, I'm right. The rules have changed since resolution 18 was passed.

The problem with the above is that it's against the game rules.
The above refers to a suggestion made by Whimception, which has historical precedent in UN Resolution #20 and would work beautifully.


A cleaner alternative would be a resolution stating that compliance with Resolution #28 constitutes compliance with Resolution #3. This would also afford an opportunity to clarify any vague wordings.

The above refers to a suggestion made by Whimception, which has historical precedent in UN Resolution #20 and would work beautifully.


A cleaner alternative would be a resolution stating that compliance with Resolution #28 constitutes compliance with Resolution #3. This would also afford an opportunity to clarify any vague wordings.

That would work outside of the restrictions placed upon us by the NS game engine just fine, but we're sadly constrained by the NS game engine. Thus, we can't modify proposals - repeals only, then a new one, and all resolutions automatically modify our stats. Adding a third resolution would further modify our stats. I'm starting to think that both the earlier resolutions should be pulled and a new resolution written specifying that the education is to be free up to the age of majority in each member nation - if a nation wants ten-year-olds as adults, let them choose that.

Right now we've got at least one, and possibly two, ineffective resolutions on the books.

Since Resolution #3 increased Social Justice with a cost in terms of taxes, would repealing it reduce Social Justice while reducing taxes?

If so, this:
It seems that in game terms the text of the resolutions is irrelevant; all that matters is the category and strength. Since the text is irrelevant, the redundancy is irrelevant and the question becomes "do we want to repeal a resolution which increases Social Justice?"
Whimception urges a vote against such a repeal.

Since Resolution #3 increased Social Justice with a cost in terms of taxes, would repealing it reduce Social Justice while reducing taxes?

If so, this:
It seems that in game terms the text of the resolutions is irrelevant; all that matters is the category and strength. Since the text is irrelevant, the redundancy is irrelevant and the question becomes "do we want to repeal a resolution which increases Social Justice?"
Whimception urges a vote against such a repeal.
Ah, so you're one of the players who works entirely based upon statistics. While that is a valid way of playing this game, I really have to say that I find it limiting - why play only for statistics? Surely much more fun can be had when you take the wording into account?

We see no harm in both resolutions being on the books.

We in fact would like to see a resolution supporting grants for mature students in Nations of the UN which would complement these two resolutions.

Mature students help to reduce unemployment statistics and may eventually benefit the economy of a nation through their qualifications. It also keeps the oldies out of mischeif.

Not really. I, myself, oppose this repeal on two seperate grounds, and for two seperate specific issues within the repeals wording.

I oppose on idealistic grounds: It's a repeal focused on getting rid of a resolution that guarantees free education. That's a bad idea, regardless of the second resolution in existence. The fact that we still have two resolutions regarding free education instead of a resolution regarding free education and a repeal of a similar resolution better shows the U.N.'s support for free education. Also, I oppose the U.N. going down a road where we repeal resolutions on account of "waste and bureaucracy" as opposed to the proposals actual concept.


No, the fact that we still have two resolutions regarding free education is a testament to the difficulty of passing a repeal when 25 identical repeals are in the proposal list. As repeals all have the same name, unless yours is the first on the list, you cannot refer delegates to your proposal via the search function. The only other realistic way I've seen of refering delegates to your proposal is through a hyperlink. That only works for a day, if that (with all the deleting of illegal proposals, and moving up in the list yours will likely do).

It's a sign that repeals are hard to pass, altogether. They've been around for a short time according to UN standards, and it may just take that long for circumstances to align themselves for a repeal to make it to the floor, and be voted in. Seemingly everyone agreed that "Fight the Axis of Evil" should be repealed, the resolution had little to no support. Yet still, it took several weeks for a repeal to come to vote. If we were to interpret that the way you're interpretting the fact that these two still exist, we would assume that there are oodles and oodles of people out there cheering for "Fight the axis of Evil". There aren't.

And, even if it were signaling support in the UN for the two, that is being decided as we speak by the vote on the floor, which is much better than any illusion of support you might conjure.


I oppose on pragmatic grounds: This first resolution serves, as I may have mentioned before, as a fail-safe in case the second resolution ever gets attacked at a later date on account of, I don't know, shortness (they are both, after all, very short.). It's very presence makes it harder for the U.N. to repeal free education for children under 16, because that education is guaranteed by two resolutions.


Actually, the second repeal (should this one pass) would be for all people under 18. "Fail-safe"s and government run-around are obstacles to democracy, not tools to further it. Above all, the UN should be representative of its members. If the membership says they do not like being required to provide free education, then it is right that they be able to say that--without molestation of the democratic process. If you don't like what the membership decides--even though I hate people saying it incessantly--"you're free to leave the UN".


Issue: Bureaucracy

The resolution mentions that the U.N. is "against waste and bureaucracy." and that's the primary focus of the repeal (correct me if I'm wrong).

U.N. laws are, of course, immediately enacted by U.N. Gnomes in all member nations. If one is redundant, that means literally nothing. This isn't a significant enough reason to pass a repeal, especially if you're still maintaining the value of free education. Also, what bureaucracy? I mean, seriously. These are the two resolutions:

[emphasis added]

That all depends on how you interpret the actions of the UN to bring nations into compliance. My opinion:

If you think compliance in the UN is a mechanical, robotinc matter, then your nations (along with all other nations which comply in this manner) are currently housing two laws doing the same thing. The UN has brought you into compliance with both of them, without logically eliminating one because it's covered by the other. The repeal will eliminate the waste of two resolutions being enforced upon you

If you think compliance in the UN is more thought-out/deliberated upon, then you haven't been brought into compliance with both since your nation just augmented the laws enacted in the "Education For all" when the "free Education" came out. However, likewise, you won't need any changes to bring yourself into compliance with the repeal either. So there is no "increase" in bureaucracy when the repeal passes.

In one group there's a decrease of waste and bureaucracy, in the other there's no change. Overall that's a net decrease in waste and bureaucracy.


Your very repeal is rather bureaucratic, in my own opinion. It's not really accomplishing anything new, but instead is laboring to cut back at the 'waste' by putting in a repeal longer than both the previous resolutions combined.

Length of the proposals is not at issue here; how many times the UN is making nations comply with one law is. Horita's "Rights of Indigenous Peoples" is a very long resolution, but nations are only brought into compliance with it once. "Fight the Axis of Evil" was incredibly short, and nations were still required to comply with it. The length of the proposal is entirely irrelevant.

And repeals, by their very nature, don't do anything new. They aren't allowed to; it's a rules violation to legislate new things from a repeal.

It would essentially just get in the way when it came to trying to view or make laws according to other resolutions. In fact, I think that you're increasing, as opposed to decreasing, that excess waste. Your repeal is contradictory to its own declaration.

Repeals don't "get in the way" of anything. In fact, it is they that clear the way for new proposals. Consider legalize prostitution, its repeal, and its replacement. Granted this one doesn't allow for new legislation as its "replacement" is already in force, but it certainly doesn't "get in the way" of anything.

Also, with the elimination of this resolution and RBH we can honestly point new players to the past resolutions page without suggesting to them that double legislation is within the rules. The elimination of an unnecessary resolution here makes the UN just that much more accessible to the general population.


This proposal is an utter waste of time, it doesn't establish anything new and it doesn't get rid of anything old. It's just there. Annoying me.

Issue: Frivolity
Finally, I disprove of your repeal because of your choice of the word "as" as opposed to "is" in the ADMITTING section. That just really bugs me for no apparent reason.

I'm not here to satisfy your whim or to heed your annoyance. Sorry.

enducation is the single most important thing ever for humankind

and not to go bush bashing or anything but bush once called it "edumacation"

I can't believe it's being voted against >_<;

Maybe next time just say clearly why you want to repeal it? Say clearly it's redundant and paste both resolutions inside so people can read that they ARE redundant and that's why we want res 3 erased?

I don't know, it's my only explanation, that people is not understanding that res 3 is redundant. People must believe this is to just delete those rights, and not just a cleaning.

I would like to urge you all to vote yes and repeal that "education for all" garbage. We need an uneducated, poverty-stricken, desperate workforce to fuel the world economy and to allow the rich to have a basis of comparison, and plenty of obvious observable reasons why we are superior! Granted, this resolution won't really accomplish this, but it's a good step in the right direction.

Sincerely,
Karl Rove
Democratically-elected President
The United States of Stupid Jerkwad Land
"Bombs don't cost money; they make money!" :mp5:

No, I'm right. The rules have changed since resolution 18 was passed.
Perhaps you can cite where it says that. I've read the rules regarding UN Proposals and no where does it say that a former proposal pertaining to the same subject must be repealed first. All it says is taht older resolutiions cannot be changed.

Ah, so you're one of the players who works entirely based upon statistics. While that is a valid way of playing this game, I really have to say that I find it limiting - why play only for statistics? Surely much more fun can be had when you take the wording into account?
This is far from an accurate portrayal of the position of Whimception.

A vote in favor of the Resolution under discussion would replace one useless resolution with another useless resolution. In RP terms, the only remaining reason to favor the Resolution is in opposition of Education spending. The Resolution does not do this, either in RP terms or in game-mechanics terms. In game-mechanics terms, the Resolution decreases Social Justice spending.

Whimception stands opposed to each of the following:

An RP reduction in Education spending.
An RP reduction in Social Justice spending.
A game-mechanics reduction in Social Justice spending.
Replacing one useless Resolution with another useless Resolution.

Most of you people who vote against this resolution do not have a valid reason why you think this resolution is wrong. "Education for All" is exactly the same thing as "Free Education" except for the different age groups. Other than that there is no "hidden meaning" as some of you people would talk about. "Education for All" is redundant and obsolete and therefore, must be removed.

Cabinia stands amused at the irony of the waste and bureaucracy involved in the repeal of Resolution #3 on the grounds of avoiding waste and bureaucracy. Resolution #3 was already rendered redundant with the approval of Resolution #18. The effort to repeal it is therefore pointless, and we register our disdain for the process by refusing to vote either way.

By these two resolutions, the government is forced to provide free education for everyone under 18 and under 16. While that is redundant, it has nothing to do with paying twice as much. Nobody is getting double the education here, so taxes don't go up.
Unfortunately, that's not quite true. Granted, your government allocation for education would not increase, but your government would allocate more funds to administer both resolutions; which means you are paying for two separate government agencies to provide nearly identical services - one more effectively than the other. Repealing the lesser of the two resolutions would reduce your government's administrative overhead in that you wouldn't have to fund these two separate agencies, and would still provide the exact same quality of education to your citizens - PLUS, your reduced overhead means you can pass on some much-needed tax relief to your citizens as well!

Repealing UN Resolution #3 is a win-win situation for everybody!

enducation is the single most important thing ever for humankind

and not to go bush bashing or anything but bush once called it "edumacation"
And not to go Speedness bashing or anything but Speedness once called it "enducation."

GWiz,

I could very simply reword your arguments AGAINST and turn them into arguments FOR repeal.

Bottom line is it's all in your point of view.

You ask "why repeal it if it's redundant and useless?"

I ask "why keep it on the books if it's redundant and useless?"

Resolution #3 goes beyond being redundant, it's been totally superceded by resolution #28. By any defintion, the word "person" is much more encompassing than the word "child", and with the increased age range, #28 affects more people, while including every person covered by #3.

You see something useless and wonder why bother removing it. I see something useless and wonder why bother keeping it around.
While you most assuredly retain the right to your opinion I must humbly disagree...

There are indeed societies that do NOT recognise a "child", born of a parent, as a "person", having a specific individual status, until certain rituals or tests have been passed and/or complete... While to someone not in tune with some specific "rule" or understanding of a "custom" quite foreign to their own beliefs it non-the-less exists... I simply state that if even one "child" loses their rights because of someone assuming that a child and a person were the same thing, is it worth it?

I won't even get into "societies" where there is racism or even slavery, in which case a whole peoples or entity could be excluded from recieving "rights" granted to "persons" because in such a "society", segments would never achieve "person" status...

- WORDS -
“Words, whether written or spoken, in and of themselves have no meaning.
It is only when the reader or listener attributes meaning to words that they become meaningful.
Unfortunately, quite often attributing meaning to the words quite different than what the writer or speaker intended. Think about that when attributing meanings to words.”
-TimeWizard ©

In my most humble opinion, BOTH current resolutions remain severely flawed and should be AMENDED into ONE more all encompassing and comprehensive resolution that covers all manner of beings under the age of xx in standardized earth years...

Because of a small difference between the two current resolutions that exist, the net effect, of one upon the other, is to make both resolutions just a wee bit better than either without the other...

In peace and friendship always,

GWiz (aka TimeWizard)

Grand Wizard of The Allied States of Wise Wizards

In my most humble opinion, BOTH current resolutions remain severely flawed and should be AMENDED into ONE more all encompassing and comprehensive resolution that covers all manner of beings under the age of xx in standardized earth years...

Because of a small difference between the two current resolutions that exist, the net effect, of one upon the other, is to make both resolutions just a wee bit better than either without the other...

And here I'd agree with you - an amendment would be great. But the mechanics clearly state that you can't amend a resolution in effect. So basically, to "amend" them, you'd have to repeal both the current ones and then pass a new resolution containing the amended text. Hence part of my impetus to repeal Res. 3; at some point, someone may come up with a really strong education proposal, and it's a lot easier to repeal one resolution at a time than two.

And here I'd agree with you - an amendment would be great. But the mechanics clearly state that you can't amend a resolution in effect. So basically, to "amend" them, you'd have to repeal both the current ones and then pass a new resolution containing the amended text. Hence part of my impetus to repeal Res. 3; at some point, someone may come up with a really strong education proposal, and it's a lot easier to repeal one resolution at a time than two.
A well made point... However I still feel that keeping BOTH resolutions already "on the books" currently provides the best safety net for a "child" until a substantially BETTER proposal for resolution comes along...

It is also much more economically viable for member nations NOT to repeal a resolution that at this point COSTS NOTHING to keep it... Only the REPEAL can trigger added costs to a Nation by engaging a beaurocracy to REMOVE IT from the books...

Sorry to say, this entire issue is a waste of TIME and money that it has been brought up at all...

And not to go Speedness bashing or anything but Speedness once called it "enducation."
bwaaa!

ow. that's harsh.

A well made point... However I still feel that keeping BOTH resolutions already "on the books" currently provides the best safety net for a "child" until a substantially BETTER proposal for resolution comes along...

It is also much more economically viable for member nations NOT to repeal a resolution that at this point COSTS NOTHING to keep it... Only the REPEAL can trigger added costs to a Nation by engaging a beaurocracy to REMOVE IT from the books...

Sorry to say, this entire issue is a waste of TIME and money that it has been brought up at all...

Again, to address your point, we would have to repeal both resolutions to even consider a new one (officially, anyway). Personally, I would be interested in working with you to craft a new proposal that would clarify any issues you feel need to be clarified.

Wow, suddenly there are now more votes FOR this resolution!!!!

YAY!!!!!!

:p

Wow, suddenly there are now more votes FOR this resolution!!!!

YAY!!!!!!

:p

Credit (or blame) the "Pacific tsunami". I think the largest was a 600+ delegate.

Is the time right to try a telegramming campaign to convince the opposed delegates?

The delegates with the most votes against are (in order):

Nendeln 123
Westaway 64
Orioni 2 63
Zapvilla 60
The Bruce 48
The Derrak Quadrant 44
Free Soviets 31
Comunas 26
La Commune Quebecoise 23
The NUP Party 23
The New 100 Donuts 23
The PHRF Pacific 20
Ameliastan 20
Mandlandia 19
Noriko Nakagawa 19
Mowitz 18
King Charles I 16
Sameerland 16
Cheerio 16
Folkestone Bloke 15
Versuta 15
Nerrethans 13
Lehaim 13
Pinconning 13
StrudelNinja 13
Diakatra 13
Laueria 12
Sante Fe 12
The United Hughdom 12
Seamus McCaffrey 12
Assington 12
Atlantic Districts 12
Maltese Falcon 11
Catanacia 11
Spartans mark2 11
UndergroundRacing 11
The Great Mount 11
The Cariebbean 11
Binzer 11
Penguitalia 11

I already got the first 4 on the list, so don't go crazy on them.

I think just doing those first four should be fine. There's a 900-vote difference right now, so anybody after those four will probably make no difference.

I'd just like to point out that this vote gives the lie to all the people who complain about UN delegates not doing their jobs.

This is a well-written and well-reasoned repeal proposal, and 650 delegates have taken the time to read it and decide to vote against it. Another 800 UN members have also read it and decided to cast their individual votes against it.

Hundreds of delegates and hundreds of members have also voted for it.

These are not knee-jerk reactions, or the vote would not be so close. These are 3,000 individuals doing what they signed up here to do.

And unfortunatly my region wanted me to vote against it. But since it's passing by such a large margin I don't feel so bad about following my regions wishes.

i cum here 2 piss people off like u u fag get a fucking life u bore bet u wanna them people that sit at home and count their pubes u idiot :sniper:

Eh - at least he is honest.

i cum here 2 piss people off like u u fag get a fucking life u bore bet u wanna them people that sit at home and count their pubes u idiot :sniper:

Yeah, that must be it. Good thing you have enough of a "life" to come here and waste your time on this forum (as apparently we're wasting our time).

The sudden turnaround of almost 2,000 votes in the most recent election is very strange. Does anyone suspect any sort of voter fraud?

The sudden turnaround of almost 2,000 votes in the most recent election is very strange. Does anyone suspect any sort of voter fraud?

No.

I suspect that if you count the total number of delegate votes in the Pacific Regions it totals around 2,000 or so (The West Pacific has around 546 for example).

1. I don't know how voter fraud would work in NationStates unless one of the Admins went in and changed votes around, and I'm not sure whether they would ever waste the time to do something like that.

2. I'm glad to see that common sense has caught up with people in regards to this bill, giving it a 2,000+ vote margin. It's excellent to see.

3. To those inquiring: I will start conducting polling again and making predictions (through PUNNS, of course) as well as drafting a new proposal, so yes, Pilot will be back in the face of the U.N. in short order.

The sudden turnaround of almost 2,000 votes in the most recent election is very strange. Does anyone suspect any sort of voter fraud?

No, I don't think there's any way for voter fraud to occur unless a nation owns more than one UN nation, in which case it's more of identity fraud than anything.

The reason for the turnaround, like TilEnca said, is from the Pacific regions. They wield at least 2000 votes: Pixiedance 600~ish, Caer Rialis 400~ish, Zetaone 620~ish, and Infinite Loop 400~ish. That's not including Kandarin (Rejected Realms: approx. 100), NewTexas (Texas approx. 100), Unlimited (The Pacific ~?) and a few more. As long as the margin were fewer than 700 favoring AGAINST, it's easy to imgaine the large user-created and feeder regions caused the change.

Just goes to show (added to the evidence of "legalize prostitution" and "40 hour Workweek") that You NEED the Pacific regions support for a repeal to pass.

3. To those inquiring: I will start conducting polling again and making predictions (through PUNNS, of course) as well as drafting a new proposal, so yes, Pilot will be back in the face of the U.N. in short order.

Great! I've missed having those prediction and information a lot. That's great to hear!

I don't want "free education" ("free" as in: no costs, because I am all for education free of religious indoctrination when the government is footing the bill, private schools on a religious basis are (reluctantly) allowed), I want "accessible education for all <24". That means: the financial position of the parents or the person receiving the education should be taking into account. Why let the community pay for the education of kids from rich families? They have an edge already.

The sudden turnaround of almost 2,000 votes in the most recent election is very strange. Does anyone suspect any sort of voter fraud?

Right.... the vote count goes in the "wrong" direction so naturally there must be voter fraud. Since the natural order of keeping bad resolutions around has been upset. This obviously has been voter fraud. How blind of us all to miss this! Everyone stop before its too late, cant you see that Karl Rove/George Tenant/Donald Rumsfeld are plotting to hack nationstates and change the vote to favor those evil righties. Those Bastards. hahahaha! How absurd.

Right.... the vote count goes in the "wrong" direction so naturally there must be voter fraud. Since the natural order of keeping bad resolutions around has been upset. This obviously has been voter fraud. How blind of us all to miss this! Everyone stop before its too late, cant you see that Karl Rove/George Tenant/Donald Rumsfeld are plotting to hack nationstates and change the vote to favor those evil righties. Those Bastards. hahahaha! How absurd.


I guess it all depends on what "direction" the voting is going when this "fraud" takes place. When did hypersensitivity and complete assurance that ones believes are truth take the place of logic and common sense. Repealing a duplicate resolution harms no one, but merely cleans up the UN's plate. Ujio's demon population made a point, when someone and it appears Sclafani believes so strongly about keeping redundant resolutions that a conspiracy must be in place to thwart them. I would have figured a simple repeal like this would more forth with little friction, until it begins to grate against the clearly uninformed.

Krioval would like to thank:

The Powerhungry Chipmunks for proposing the repeal
The delegates from several of the Pacific Regions, Rejected Realms, and New Texas who voted for the repeal
Krioval for being a total egomaniac and post whore (admission is the first step toward recovery?)

It's good to see common sense prevail over the hypersensitivity and "OMG it's an attack on education" arguments.

It's good to see common sense prevail over the hypersensitivity and "OMG it's an attack on education" arguments.

I take it if the next repeal attempt is the remaining free education resolution you will be more happy to accept the attack on education arguement?

I take it if the next repeal attempt is the remaining free education resolution you will be more happy to accept the attack on education arguement?

I'd be more likely to support efforts to defeat a repeal of the remaining free education resolution unless there was a strong replacement waiting in the wings. I guess the short answer would be "yes".

An epic day of voting, and a remarkable turn around in fortunes, the free education act has been repealed. Hurrah! My though, it was a close call.

*gaveling sound*
The SECRETARY-GENERAL. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the first day of March, 2005, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #95. Repeal "Education For All", proposed by Powerhungry Chipmunks, to repeal the previously passed resolution numbered 3 and categorized under Social Justice.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: the resolution Repeal "Education For All" was passed 9,339 votes to 7,530. Therefore, the resolution adopted by this body on January 8, 2003, is hereby repealed. The clerk will redesignate Education for All.

The UN regulars who are watching applaud loudly.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #3, repealed by Resolution #95. Education For All, proposed by Otnemem, to significantly reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote. All officers of the United Nations are instructed to cease enforcement of "Education for All" effective immediately.

To all those who supported this endeavour, either in this or previous attempts, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I am glad to have been of any service in the passage this repeal, in starting dialogues for replacing older proposals, and in facilitating discussion about key issues involving the limitations of UN authority.

To any nations who fear that I, or any others FOR this repeal, are interested in as repeal of "Free Education" next, don't worry: if a repeal reaches quorum I promise to do everything in my power to fight it. I value education, and though I fear the UN infringes too often (which infringiment is, of course, entirely legal and permissible) on nationally sovereign decisions, this is not a case in which I feel that way. People have rights inherently, just from being people; free education, the opportunity to achieve are among those. I don't feel it's a member nation's right to deprive them of that.

Yet another foolishly decided issue. Are people simply not looking closely enough at the topic at hand?

A good and Noble thing has been done here. The resolutions need to be made straight and kept shipshape.

Good work all involved.

Yet another foolishly decided issue. Are people simply not looking closely enough at the topic at hand?

What interpretation do you believe UN members would come to if they were "looking closely enough at the topic at hand"? I'm not asking in an accusatory tone, I'm interested in what it is you think people are seeing, and what they aren't seeing.

It seems that voting against these kind of issues is written off as tyranical or ridiculous. What is good for the people, and for the party, these things must be concidered before we delve into these "human rights" issues. Why is it that the thought of non-universal education is seen as ridiculous?

Congratulations on your success. Your repeal was very well thought out, and probably deserved to pass.

I enjoyed this debate quite thoroughly, hopefully we'll continue to receive solid resolutions such as this one to argue about. Still, I'd ask that both sides refrain from broad generalizations about the opposition next time (depending on the resolution, of course) - they're wholly unfounded, as both sides had their reasons for voting.

It seems that voting against these kind of issues is written off as tyranical or ridiculous. What is good for the people, and for the party, these things must be concidered before we delve into these "human rights" issues. Why is it that the thought of non-universal education is seen as ridiculous?

You read the part where we still give free universal education to 18 because of another resolution, right?

Where that later resolution made this one redundant?

Ok, as you know that, where's your difficulty with this?

I am outraged! We must begin an effort to craft a replacement resolution immediately!




Oh, wait. There's already one on the books?