NationStates Jolt Archive

Distinguished Citizens of the UN,

It the interest of honesty & fair play I submitted this proposal to the floor for your consideration.

With the passing of the last 2 resolutions it has come to my attention that a certain level of dishonesty has entered our hallowed halls.

Although I am not certain if this deception was in fact intentional I believe it has harmed the integrity of our political organization.

What am I speaking of you ask?
What I speak of are resolutions that have raised our taxes without us ever having the knowledge it was going to happen.

A certain resolution that I think you are all aware of promised that it would get all it's funding from donations of a voluntary nature.

As the UN has no source for collecting donations from it citizens, it was left with a large bill to pay for the project that the resolution created.

So then how was it paid for?
It was paid for with the tax dollars of all citizens in the UN.

My proposal then is very simple. I submit that all future proposals honestly state what changes it will have on our individual governments

1) If taxes will rise from the bill, state taxes will rise.
2) If political freedoms are given or taken away, show honesty that this will happen.
3) If Nation’s economies will be hurt or helped, be honest & truthful.
4) If a nation’s Civil Rights are to be added to or taken away, be truthful & honest.

We the Nations of the UN have an obligation to be truthful to each other & like wise we have the right to be told the truth.

To enforce these rules I submit this proposal.
Any Delegate that finds a resolution to be a violation of “ The Truth in Resolution Act:” can submit a standard UN proposal stating the exact nature of the violation & ask that the offender voluntarily step down as their regional delegate.
The format will be as follows:
“We find that resolution Number (fill in blank here) is In violation of the Truth in Resolution Act & hereby request that the Delegate who created this proposal (fill in name of nation here) step down as the delegate of their region. (please state the nature of the violation here.)
At this point the Delegate can choose to step down & the proposal will be dropped. If not the following process will occur.
The general assembly of delegates will decide like with any proposal weather to support it or not. Once it gains the necessary votes like any other UN proposal it will go to the floor for the entire UN to vote on.
Again, If the UN votes “No”the resolution is not in violation, no further action on the measure will be taken. If the UN votes “Yes” the offending nation will again be asked to voluntarily step as your regional delegate.
Although the UN cannot force you to step down there will at least be a record that you were asked until a time when the ruling can be repealed.
I ask this motion that will limit our political freedoms for the sake of honesty & integrity be taken seriously
By the UN & I thank you for your time.

Oh I do so enjoy doing this....the UN forum is by far the funnest. :D

Distinguished Citizens of the UN,

It the interest of honesty & fair play I submitted this proposal to the floor for your consideration.

With the passing of the last 2 resolutions it has come to my attention that a certain level of dishonesty has entered our hallowed halls.

Although I am not certain if this deception was in fact intentional I believe it has harmed the integrity of our political organization.

What am I speaking of you ask?
What I speak of are resolutions that have raised our taxes without us ever having the knowledge it was going to happen.

Ummm...where does the proposal start? becuase this is all pointless rhetoric so far, highlighting your points but adding nothing of substance. The use of rhetorical questions does in no way improve a resolution. If this is the proposal, then surely the last two resolutions will be a confusing term for those studying international law? And also, think what will happen if those two are repealed- even worse. This all presupposes this is part of the proposal.

A certain resolution that I think you are all aware of promised that it would get all it's funding from donations of a voluntary nature.

No, pray tell.

As the UN has no source for collecting donations from it citizens, it was left with a large bill to pay for the project that the resolution created.

So then how was it paid for?
It was paid for with the tax dollars of all citizens in the UN.

Emotive language does not aid the legal writing style expected in NS proposal. I want facts, not rhetorical questions and the like.

My proposal then is very simple. I submit that all future proposals honestly state what changes it will have on our individual governments

1) If taxes will rise from the bill, state taxes will rise.
2) If political freedoms are given or taken away, show honesty that this will happen.
3) If Nation’s economies will be hurt or helped, be honest & truthful.
4) If a nation’s Civil Rights are to be added to or taken away, be truthful & honest.

It feels so wrong without words like reaffirm in caps. But anyway...

Must we make it so clear? perhaps we should state the exact intentions? And how do you define political freedoms or civil rights? OOC-One would suppose you are refering to the three statistics of your nation, but this is a games mechanics idea, not a real life one. Things don't fall so easily into those categories in real life.

We the Nations of the UN have an obligation to be truthful to each other & like wise we have the right to be told the truth.

Why must we do that? It takes all the fun out of politics.

To enforce these rules I submit this proposal.

This is very silly. You cannot submit a proposal based on an unpassed proposal. It would be better to combine the two of these proposals into one.

Any Delegate that finds a resolution to be a violation of “ The Truth in Resolution Act:” can submit a standard UN proposal stating the exact nature of the violation & ask that the offender voluntarily step down as their regional delegate.

Illegal in so many ways I could scream. Who is submitted to? Who judges if it is correct or not? Why are you mucking about with game mechanics?

The format will be as follows:
“We find that resolution Number (fill in blank here) is In violation of the Truth in Resolution Act & hereby request that the Delegate who created this proposal (fill in name of nation here) step down as the delegate of their region. (please state the nature of the violation here.)

Nice form....

At this point the Delegate can choose to step down & the proposal will be dropped. If not the following process will occur.
The general assembly of delegates will decide like with any proposal weather to support it or not. Once it gains the necessary votes like any other UN proposal it will go to the floor for the entire UN to vote on.
Again, If the UN votes “No”the resolution is not in violation, no further action on the measure will be taken. If the UN votes “Yes” the offending nation will again be asked to voluntarily step as your regional delegate.
Although the UN cannot force you to step down there will at least be a record that you were asked until a time when the ruling can be repealed.
I ask this motion that will limit our political freedoms for the sake of honesty & integrity be taken seriously
By the UN & I thank you for your time.

No such voting system exists. No such general assembly exists. This would require a lot of extra coding to be done, something Salusa has said probably won't happen to NS1. Despite all this, the vote still does *nothing* to punish anyone convicted of lying by any Tom, Dick and Harry, for reasons you have defined which seem specious at best to me- you're meant to work out the ramifications for your country yourself.

In case you haven't guessed, NO.

I would like to add that one need not be a regional delegate to submit a proposal. So this would be enforceable for only 2,495 of the 38,449 UN member nations. That is, your proposal affects less than 6.5% of UN member nations!

Very good point indeed.

So delegates can escape harm merely by getting a nation from their region to submit it.

And if you extend it to all nations, then...have you checked the silly proposals thread? You'd have hundreds each month accused of lying.

Unworkable.

-snip- I believe this proposal is illegal on the grounds that it tries to alter game mechanics. We can't force regional delegates to "step down" in actuality (it could be RPed, but even then it'd be consensual).

Perhaps starting a discussion about the lack of honesty in resolutions would produce more change in the UN.

-snip-
Ummm...where does the proposal start? becuase this is all pointless rhetoric so far, highlighting your points but adding nothing of substance. The use of rhetorical questions does in no way improve a resolution. If this is the proposal, then surely the last two resolutions will be a confusing term for those studying international law? And also, think what will happen if those two are repealed- even worse. This all presupposes this is part of the proposal.


First, I've looked it up, and the entire post is the proposal.

Second, just to be a tack-in-the-chair, it could be argued that there is no such thing as "pointless" rhetoric, merely successful and unsuccessful rhetoric. Just about all the resolutions passed were either written or won by use of rhetoric--which isn't a dirty word, as you seem to imply. Rhetoric is simply the art of presenting your side of the story to an audience, attempting to convince them of your interpretation of reality. If Botswombata is going to convince us that there is dishonesty in recent resolutions, which it appears we are unconvinced of yet, then he is doubtless going to employ rhetorical devices, just as anyone who tries to counter him will.

More to the point, drawing attention to another's use of rhetoric directly is a pretty weak and self-destructive argument. Both sides of anything will use rhetoric to dress up data or evidence to convince the audience that their respective side is "right". To point out another's use of rhetoric in a discussion forum--or world politics game--is like declaring “everyone here’s crazy!” in the middle of a psych ward.


A certain resolution that I think you are all aware of promised that it would get all it's funding from donations of a voluntary nature.

No, pray tell.


I think he/she's referring to "The Global Library" from earlier in the year.

This would not be a rules change!
A. Only delegates can submit UN proposal read the rules of the game.
B. This is only for resolutions not proposals. Resolutions that have passed & change the way our governments function without truthful concent.
C How would this be a rules change? A delegate already has the power to submitt a proposal. This would just be another form of proposal.
D. If you think it's fun to lie & cheat you've missed the point & there is nothing I can do for you.
E. I think it is perfectly valid to preface the nature of my proposal with references of misdoings.

Yes I am refering to the bold face lies in the global library!

This would not be a rules change!
A. Only delegates can submit UN proposal read the rules of the game.


Finally, you can propose your own resolutions. If approved, these go in the queue to be voted on by the entire UN. You may, however, be required to possess a minimum number of endorsements first.

It doesn't say that you have to be a Delegate. I've proposed and passed resolutions while not a delegate.


B. This is only for resolutions not proposals. Resolutions that have passed & change the way our governments function without truthful concent.

The question is of course begged: Who determines a resolution as having "truthful content"? I'm certain that there are too many different views on what would constitute "truthful content" for any sort of consensus to be reached.


C How would this be a rules change? A delegate already has the power to submitt a proposal. This would just be another form of proposal.

Because it would require a change in the code. Max Barry said it best:

Can I make a UN resolution to add war to the game?

No. Well, you can, but I'm still not going to add war. The UN is not there to request new game features. I admit this would be nice: propose a change, vote it through, and BAM! The game gets better. But then, I would have to make the BAM! part happen, so this won't fly. It would require me to spend so much time rewriting game code that I wouldn't be able to pursue my real passion, which is earning enough money to buy food, and staying sane.

UN resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on a particular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, or whatever. Don't suggest game improvements there. They just clutter up the place. And they make people think, "Hey, yeah, that would be cool! Why doesn't that bum Max Barry get off his ass and do that?" I get e-mails.


E. I think it is perfectly valid to preface the nature of my proposal with references of misdoings.

It is, but asking questions at the biginning of a resolutions is on the way out. There's a handy thread right here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) that 's called "Before you make a proposal... [READ THIS BEFORE SUBMITTING OR GET EJECTED FROM UN]". Then there's the new draft here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405360) (the new draft has suggested not allowing entirely rhetorical/semi-rambling proposals, including the outlawing of questions in proposals).

These along with the other stickies at the top of the UN forum are the most helpful guides (besides a real person) to what is and isn't allowed for proposals.

Point taken about rhetoric in politics.

However, this is a NSUN proposal- I expect legal, hard, terms which spell out exactly what they mean and do. Rhetoric, by your own admittance, does not do this. Quite ironic that a proposal on keeping things true and honest uses such a device.

You've already put down the latest round of counter arguments, well done. However, I would not as well that

B. This is only for resolutions not proposals. Resolutions that have passed & change the way our governments function without truthful concent.

This causes all sorts of confusion. Say someone makes a proposal that contains such 'lies'. They then realise that, and try to go back on what they saiud. Regardless, the proposal is still passed. Example-The Global Library. The Author was eventually convinced of its lack of worth, and 'repented'. Would he still be expeceted to lose his delegacy?

Also, are you referring to the Universal or Global Library proposal? The Global Library was repealed.

However, this is a NSUN proposal- I expect legal, hard, terms which spell out exactly what they mean and do. Rhetoric, by your own admittance, does not do this. Quite ironic that a proposal on keeping things true and honest uses such a device.

Yes, there is need for more informative language in proposals (otherwise they'll end up as "Legalize Euthanasia", or "Stem Cell Research"), but there is still rhetoric in resolutions previously passed, it's just been a little more transparent/hard/legal or whatever term you prefer.

This proposal, were it legal, could be adapted into the rhetorical section of clauses, RECOGNIZING, DECLARING, NOTING, etc., (derived from his/her rhetorical questions and other appeals) of a proposal. On top of that, as you say, there'd need to be something actually done by the proposal ("DECLARES pigs as supreme beings in the world" or whatever), but the proposal's current rhetoric could still be utilized in the ING section of a future proposal. Well, if it weren't an idea that contradicted the rules.

Overall, I think that this is at best a discussion point (more honesty needed in UN proposals). Makatoto's right in that it's an illegal proposal.

I believe this proposal is illegal on the grounds that it tries to alter game mechanics. We can't force regional delegates to "step down" in actuality (it could be RPed, but even then it'd be consensual).

Perhaps starting a discussion about the lack of honesty in resolutions would produce more change in the UN.



First, I've looked it up, and the entire post is the proposal.

Second, just to be a tack-in-the-chair, it could be argued that there is no such thing as "pointless" rhetoric, merely successful and unsuccessful rhetoric. Just about all the resolutions passed were either written or won by use of rhetoric--which isn't a dirty word, as you seem to imply. Rhetoric is simply the art of presenting your side of the story to an audience, attempting to convince them of your interpretation of reality. If Botswombata is going to convince us that there is dishonesty in recent resolutions, which it appears we are unconvinced of yet, then he is doubtless going to employ rhetorical devices, just as anyone who tries to counter him will.

More to the point, drawing attention to another's use of rhetoric directly is a pretty weak and self-destructive argument. Both sides of anything will use rhetoric to dress up data or evidence to convince the audience that their respective side is "right". To point out another's use of rhetoric in a discussion forum--or world politics game--is like declaring “everyone here’s crazy!” in the middle of a psych ward.



I think he/she's referring to "The Global Library" from earlier in the year.
Note the difference between being asked to stepped down & forced out.
This proposal asks that they step down. Does not demands it.

So therefore, it is entirely useless.

You're in a lose lose situation-You either have an illegal proposal, or a useless one.

I'm sorry, but this cannot work the way you have proposed it.

Makatoto places great emphasis on the importance of Semantics, and would not like petty concepts such as the truth or honesty to get in its way.

So therefore, it is entirely useless.

You're in a lose lose situation-You either have an illegal proposal, or a useless one.

I'm sorry, but this cannot work the way you have proposed it.

Makatoto places great emphasis on the importance of Semantics, and would not like petty concepts such as the truth or honesty to get in its way.
If the Resolution is found guilty ther will be a recorded account of this just like a UN resolution. people will then be able to look & beware voting for one of their proposals in the future.
It's a preventative measure.

[QUOTE=Makatoto]So therefore, it is entirely useless.

You're in a lose lose situation-You either have an illegal proposal, or a useless one.

I'm sorry, but this cannot work the way you have proposed it.

Makatoto places great emphasis on the importance of Semantics, and would not like petty concepts such as the truth or honesty to get in its way.
Plus it's a nice selling point whenn it comes time to repeal a bad resolution if the entire UN finds it to be dishonest.
As feel good as the Unversal Library was it was downr ight dishonest in it's approach. There needs to be some concequence even if they are small.

If the Resolution is found guilty ther will be a recorded account of this just like a UN resolution. people will then be able to look & beware voting for one of their proposals in the future.
It's a preventative measure.

A recorded account? Found guilty? These sound like changes to the way the game functions. Right now it functions that only the original text of resolutions go onto the recordbooks and there is no referendum vote on resolutions. Any changes to that sort of thing would have to come about through communication with programming staff.

I'm not saying that I'd like a way of learning from past resolutions' failures, I'm just saying that putting up a recorded account would be a change in the game's mechanics, a call for additional code, which, as stated in the FAQ, Max and others are unwilling to accomodate.

A recorded account? Found guilty? These sound like changes to the way the game functions. Right now it functions that only the original text of resolutions go onto the recordbooks and there is no referendum vote on resolutions. Any changes to that sort of thing would have to come about through communication with programming staff.

I'm not saying that I'd like a way of learning from past resolutions' failures, I'm just saying that putting up a recorded account would be a change in the game's mechanics, a call for additional code, which, as stated in the FAQ, Max and others are unwilling to accomodate.
There is no new programing involved here. There is already a record of passed resolutions for anyone to view. You would just be able to view these with the other resolutions.

In this thread Botswombata listed the last two resolutions one of which i Authored and it is only fair i reply in the case of the UNWODC.

Botswombata's accusation that the proposals lied is false in the case of the UNWODC where it is clearly stated....

Calling on the Nations of the UN to increase funding for both governmental and non governmental organisations charged with the implementation and administration of the UNWODC,

And.....

Funding for the UNWODC shall be sourced from the coffers of the International Community, By way of increased governmental funding and fund raisers held locally by the IRCO and other relief and charitable organisations.

The source of funding for this is primarily to be sourced from the International Community eg the United Nations.

I believe this is clearly stated.

Further to this may it be noted that Botswombata was against the Resolution at Approval and voting stages of the Passing of this Resolution and was a signitary in the recent failed repeal of the Resolution.

I rest My case.

As well to propose that the decisions of the UN Gnomes be made public, and their methodology be subject to peer review.


Oh wait, that's not such a bad idea... I didn't really understand how Universal Library Coalition could have the tax impact the gnomes assigned to it.

What was it, 2% of every UN nation's GDP? Preposterous.
I thought we put a lot of thought into how to keep the cost negligible.

There is no new programing involved here. There is already a record of passed resolutions for anyone to view. You would just be able to view these with the other resolutions.

Hold on. Maybe you should re-iterate what exactly this proposal proposes. I may have misunderstood what it did, so maybe you should explain before we get so lost in a morass of lists and precriptions that we can't see straight.

If you want to know my thoughts, check the Silly Proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8570697&postcount=428) topic, I don't feel like reposting it.

As well to propose that the decisions of the UN Gnomes be made public, and their methodology be subject to peer review.


Oh wait, that's not such a bad idea... I didn't really understand how Universal Library Coalition could have the tax impact the gnomes assigned to it.

What was it, 2% of every UN nation's GDP? Preposterous.
I thought we put a lot of thought into how to keep the cost negligible.

Like some issues don't have truly bizarre impacts on the tax rate? Somehow eliminating the speed limit caused a 3% drop in taxes? As if nearly seven percent of my government budget was used to enforce speed limit laws.

Man...er...humanity...er...sentient beings other than the coders were not meant to know these things.

Like some issues don't have truly bizarre impacts on the tax rate? Somehow eliminating the speed limit caused a 3% drop in taxes? As if nearly seven percent of my government budget was used to enforce speed limit laws.

Or else the drop was caused by not getting the fines for speeding anymore.

Or else the drop was caused by not getting the fines for speeding anymore.

I'd expect the opposite, then. If I'm suddenly without a source of non-tax revenue, taxes should rise to compensate (assuming nothing else is changing). If I cut a service (like traffic cops), I'd expect my taxes to fall, just not quite so dramatically, unless my government just decided to pocket the extra revenue.

What I speak of are resolutions that have raised our taxes without us ever having the knowledge it was going to happen.

This is a function of you not knowing the code for the Resolutions. Of course, no player knows the code; therefore they can't say what, exactly, will happen. This has nothing to do with 'honesty'.

As the UN has no source for collecting donations from it citizens, it was left with a large bill to pay for the project that the resolution created.

The UN has no 'citizens'.

My proposal then is very simple. I submit that all future proposals honestly state what changes it will have on our individual governments

MetaGame violation. Proposals cannot mandate the behavior of future Proposals. This is just as illegal as a Proposal requiring all future Proposals to be run through a spell checker.

1) If taxes will rise from the bill, state taxes will rise.

Players don't have access to game code. They do not, and can not, know if taxes will rise.

2) If political freedoms are given or taken away, show honesty that this will happen.
3) If Nation’s economies will be hurt or helped, be honest & truthful.
4) If a nation’s Civil Rights are to be added to or taken away, be truthful & honest.

See above.

Any Delegate that finds a resolution to be a violation of “ The Truth in Resolution Act:” can submit a standard UN proposal stating the exact nature of the violation & ask that the offender voluntarily step down as their regional delegate.

No, he can't. MetaGame violation. UN Proposals are not to be used against singular nations as they affect all UN nations.

The format will be as follows:
“We find that resolution Number (fill in blank here) is In violation of the Truth in Resolution Act & hereby request that the Delegate who created this proposal (fill in name of nation here) step down as the delegate of their region. (please state the nature of the violation here.)

MetaGame. See above.

At this point the Delegate can choose to step down & the proposal will be dropped.

Game Mechanics. Delegates cannot 'step down'. They must leave the Region, leave the UN, or have their endorcements taken back. Furthermore, Proposals are not 'dropped'.

The general assembly of delegates will decide like with any proposal weather to support it or not. Once it gains the necessary votes like any other UN proposal it will go to the floor for the entire UN to vote on.
Again, If the UN votes “No”the resolution is not in violation, no further action on the measure will be taken. If the UN votes “Yes” the offending nation will again be asked to voluntarily step as your regional delegate.
Although the UN cannot force you to step down there will at least be a record that you were asked until a time when the ruling can be repealed.
I ask this motion that will limit our political freedoms for the sake of honesty & integrity be taken seriously


More of the same. The UN can't do this.

In this thread Botswombata listed the last two resolutions one of which i Authored and it is only fair i reply in the case of the UNWODC.

Botswombata's accusation that the proposals lied is false in the case of the UNWODC where it is clearly stated....



And.....



The source of funding for this is primarily to be sourced from the International Community eg the United Nations.
I believe this is clearly stated.

Further to this may it be noted that Botswombata was against the Resolution at Approval and voting stages of the Passing of this Resolution and was a signitary in the recent failed repeal of the Resolution.

I rest My case.
Yours is clean & not a resolution I was refering to but its a moot point now anyway.