NationStates Jolt Archive

Similar to the RL Nobel peace prize

Category: Global disarmament
Strenght: mild

Approved by Myrth: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8295817&postcount=21

In order to promote the fraternity between the nations, the General Assembly shall istitute the United Nations Peace prize.

Statute:

1. The UN Peace prize shall be donated to the person or an organisation who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prize will be decided by a Committee. In awarding the prize no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize.

2. The Committee shall be formed by 10 persons of high morality and renowned for humanitarian diligence,elected by the most important international humanitarian organisations, recognized by the UN, every 7 years.

3. If a work that is being rewarded has been produced by 2 or 3 persons, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly.

4. To be considered eligible for the award, it is necessary to be nominated in writing by a person competent to make such a nomination. Each year the prize adjudication shall embrace such nominations as have been submitted during the preceding twelve months up to February 1.

5. Nominations should be explained and accompanied by the publications and other documents cited in support of them.

6. On the Festival Day of the UN Peace Prize Foundation, December 27, the Committee shall present to each prizewinner the diploma and the gold medal bearing the image of a group of three men forming a fraternal bond and the inscription "Pro pace et fraternitate gentium". It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded.

7. No appeals may be made against the decision of the Committee with regard to the award of a prize. Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged before 10 years.

The medal:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel/medals/peace.jpg

t'is a good idea but how will u b sure that the prize is awarded to the very best!

t'is a good idea but how will u b sure that the prize is awarded to the very best!

Obviously I can't, because the Commitee shall be formed by persons. But I think that the choise of its member is a good assurance.

sounds good, how will u decide on a fair commitee, will it be drawn from the UN delegates from different regions. this would be the best idea! :gundge:

t'is a good idea but how will u b sure that the prize is awarded to the very best!

What? Like the real one? (SMIRK)

sounds good, how will u decide on a fair commitee, will it be drawn from the UN delegates from different regions. this would be the best idea! :gundge:

Violation of the game mechanichs: see the proposal writing guide.

explain, nd dnt smirk, its ignorant!

United Nations Peace Prize (failed) (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Peace_Prize_(failed))United Nations Peace Prize
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Pax Romantica

In recognition and acknowledgement of those who strive to create greater world harmony and understanding, the Kingdom of Pax Romantica proposes the creation of a United Nations Peace Prize.

This Prize will be awarded annually to that individual, organization, group or nation that has done the most to further the cause of peace in the world, be it through politics, science, or the arts.

This Prize will bestow gratitude, honour and prestige upon the recipient from the world community. Additional benefits and privileges may be determined and added later.

The award process may be formalized in a number of ways, but the Kingdom of Pax Romantica recommends:

Nominations of potential recipients with sufficient explanation put forth by a given date each year by UN members.
A period of review of nominees and discussion of merits.
A brief period of voting to end on a given date by UN members, the nominee receiving the majority of the votes then being awarded the Prize.
The convocation of the UN to witness the presentation of the Peace Prize during an annual ceremony befitting the prestige of the award.

Peacemakers often labour beneath the radar of international attention. Let us reward and encourage these labours for the betterment of the world.


Votes For: 5672
Votes Against: 8542
Voting Ended: Sat Jul 5 2003 It's been tried before. Didn't make it. Maybe yours is better, maybe not. Just FYI.

i see, ok thn i am sorry i will let gt on with your idea, bt from the sounds of it, it may nt work to how 'u wnt it to. once again sorry for questioning your expertise!

United Nations Peace Prize (failed) (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations_Peace_Prize_(failed))It's been tried before. Didn't make it. Maybe yours is better, maybe not. Just FYI.

I didn't know this. BTW, an advise or a command? :D

how did it not work?

I didn't know this. BTW, an advise or a command?
Advice.

From the look of it, yours skirts the edge of requiring the establishment of a UN organization, considered to be game mechanics by the UN proposal rules. Clauses 2, 4, and 6 are so specific that they might be interpreted as a requirement that somebody create a forum topic or the game create some specific event. That's not allowed. However, I'm not a Game mod, so I won't be ruling on it.
how did it not work?
More people voted against it than for it. :D

From the look of it, yours skirts the edge of requiring the establishment of a UN organization, considered to be game mechanics by the UN proposal rules. Clauses 2, 4, and 6 are so specific that they might be interpreted as a requirement that somebody create a forum topic or the game create some specific event. That's not allowed. However, I'm not a Game mod, so I won't be ruling on it.


Myrth approval (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8295817&postcount=21) from the old thread.

explain, nd dnt smirk, its ignorant!

I was merely suggesting that the real life prize has been given to some questionable people. And I was smirking at the suggestion that it will always be given to the best person, rather than the one who it would be most "benificial" to give to.

But this is not a place to get in to a debate about the ins and outs of real world politics and stupidity, so I will leave it there :}

For what it's worth, I've endorsed it.

If my nation gets deleted, I'll ask whoever replaces me as delegate to endorse it too.

IC: while i like the idea...
OOC: i dont know how this would work. there is nothing in the game mechanics for individuals or organisations. so how on earth could they select one to accept it?

Approved.

Nope!

I'm not into giving incentives toward what should be standard ethical practice or behaviour. No one person is responsible for any progression toward peace, or technological 'advancement' anyway. Acknowledge an area of advancement or research not a person, that's just false.

I don't see the point. It's diplomatic and political grandstanding and showmanship.

Nope!

I'm not into giving incentives toward what should be standard ethical practice or behaviour. No one person is responsible for any progression toward peace, or technological 'advancement' anyway. Acknowledge an area of advancement or research not a person, that's just false.

I don't see the point. It's diplomatic and political grandstanding and showmanship.

So you think that persons/bodies like IRC, M. L. King, Amnesty International, Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Arafat & Rabin, Medicins sans frontieres had never made something for the entire world?

So you think that persons/bodies like IRC, M. L. King, Amnesty International, Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Arafat & Rabin, Medicins sans frontieres had never made something for the entire world?

Arafat was condemmed as a terrorist. I have no doubt that in today's climate King would be condemmed as a terrorist as well. Mother Teresa was a pretty evil person in some respects, as was Gorbachev. Nelson Mandela was actually a terrorist. And I am quite impressed you didn't mention Henry Kissinger :}

But since this is not real life, none of that really matters.

My respect for their efforts should be reward enough. I oppose this. Many people and organisations work hard for the cause of peace and yet you will select one as the one that has done the most. I do not think that work of this nature should have a formal reward.

So you think that persons/bodies like IRC, M. L. King, Amnesty International, Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Arafat & Rabin, Medicins sans frontieres had never made something for the entire world?

Well, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say in response to Culai, but I'll have a shot.

A 'body' is more than one individual, Medicines Sans Frontiers is not one individual, and the rest of the ones that you mention are products of religious, political or social institutions that have been ongoing for some time -each with their own ideology, mythology and political power. The individuals themselves are figureheads.

Read carefully what Culai actually said.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say in response to Culai, but I'll have a shot.

A 'body' is more than one individual, Medicines Sans Frontiers is not one individual, and the rest of the ones that you mention are products of religious, political or social institutions that have been ongoing for some time -each with their own ideology, mythology and political power. The individuals themselves are figureheads.

Read carefully what Culai actually said.

The Humanity needs symbol, remember this. It's more simple to remember a person as symbol of a movement instead the entire movement. Like Landmarks.

BTW, now the proposal is on the floor and ends on Sunday.

6. ... the gold medal bearing the image of a group of three men forming a fraternal bond and the inscription "Pro pace et fraternitate gentium".

Her Supreme Loveliness, Queen Smukke XIII, cannot possibly approve of such a measure. First, it assumes that all peace-keepers would be men. Second, it assumes that they would necesssarily be human. Many nations are led by women, and women have a history of being more peaceful than men (the puppet state of Militaristic Babes notwithstanding). Furthermore, many other nations are populated by nonhuman races, my neighbor of Slobberstan being a good example. Why would the gold medal not include a woman and a dog?

The proposal, on its very face, is sexist and speciesist. We cannot possibly approve it as such. We wish that our 'brothers' in the UN could have more sensitivity to gender and species issues.

Her Supreme Loveliness, Queen Smukke XIII, cannot possibly approve of such a measure. First, it assumes that all peace-keepers would be men. Second, it assumes that they would necesssarily be human. Many nations are led by women, and women have a history of being more peaceful than men (the puppet state of Militaristic Babes notwithstanding).


I respect your idea, but this is not right: how about Elizabeth I, Joan d'Arc or Catherine of Russia? Not so nice women, I think.

About the prize:

1. The UN Peace prize shall be donated to the person or an organisation

Then a person is a man or a woman, I think.

Why would the gold medal not include a woman and a dog?

Because I don't think that a dog can "have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

About the medal, I think that men were historically simbol of nations/peoples, and for this I had choised them.

I'll certainly vote in favour of the resolution. Much better than the last one, eh Freedonia?

I'll certainly vote in favour of the resolution. Much better than the last one, eh Freedonia?

:p

Freedonia is forgetting, perhaps, that NS is not Earth. In NS, many nonhuman species, including those of the canine or even (gasp) feline variety, may have their own nations and appeal for peace, engage in international commerce or go to war. A nation of dogs could, for example, have humans as its national animal.

As written, the proposal is extremely racist and sexist and thus offensive to the very concept of the United Nations.

Freedonia is forgetting, perhaps, that NS is not Earth. In NS, many nonhuman species, including those of the canine or even (gasp) feline variety, may have their own nations and appeal for peace, engage in international commerce or go to war. A nation of dogs could, for example, have humans as its national animal.

As written, the proposal is extremely racist and sexist and thus offensive to the very concept of the United Nations.

I think that you must be against more of the current passed resolutions, then.

Take #25, as example. We talk about human rights in it.

I approve your proposal, as it will make ''good'' people more known.

how did it not work?

If you ar e referring to the failure of "United Nations Peace Prize" in July 2003, one of the principal reasons for its defeat was that most people disagreed that it should be a "Political Stability" resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Last votation.

Approvals: 135 (Kevin Islands, Mearas, Robin Lori and DJ, Bitewaldi, Flibbleites, Littlechefia, Windleheim, Wegason, Blijia, Park Slope-estan, Gaiah, Stransworthe, Crack Pottia, Drizuz, Jonathalia, Knuckles Promised Land, Yelda, Saysomething, WZ Forums, Consors, Krioval, Selat, New Schaffhausen, Kadield, King Charles I, Monadnock, Montplaisir Street, Brausi-mausi, Tupackia, East shaw, Gusev Crater, Khanrad, Cowschickens, Ojacid, Los Gringos Locos, Sclafani, New Happyworld Land, Steenia, Caer Rialis, Hysnia, The Isle Lothlorian, Soviet Pembroke, Jlegrys, Cockeysville, Finbergia, Aztec National League, Zouloukistan, The Fro Royal Family, Izalium, Pixiedance, Baudrillard, Kentucky Franco, Fantasyworlds, Honey Swiss, Scoopy, Thordavia, The Cariebbean, Victoria the First, Noxx, Blonde Chixs, Hoo-Doo, Our Lord Spenser, BLACKGRUE, Alomogordo, Pharan, San Ardor, Rufionia, JayRoddia, Brunelian BG advocates, Rat Gardens, Kemdoph, Northern Keldavia, Viana do Castelo, America---, Svenstenberg, Purpleation, Longcore, The Bruce, Faceless Assassins, Mcaffery, Mansvera, Heinz 57, Jontan, Nueva Space, Kumpulandia, Wiccam, Joshisha, Ardchoille, The Red Lair, Alindale, Anishinabek, Luna Amore, Brahumptia, Incompetent Lunacy, Tomatoe, Republic of Freedonia, Klashonite, Defenestrate, North Duke, Vampirist, Saqqara, The Hidden Dagger, Phychoastricy, Lanneson II, Palidor, Irlynn, Spartanna, Spyderiom, Kamikastan, Los Loskos, Tresifs, LeFault, James Machiavelli, Charles Henry Peare, Dizziness, Jaghur, Something626, Chronosburg, United Necromancers, Annenburg, Lynners, Zhukhistan, Wojcikiville, Lesser Jersey, Fu Su Lu, United Drewtopia, Appleface, Danabunga, Looplyness, Hesterland, The Dog God, Aldoar, Moonstarpeople, Oleria, Melaenis)

And now another time on the floor!

I wish to note that this proposal, "UN Peace prize", has now received 150 endorsements, which is the total amount necessary to achieve quorum. It therefore appears that it will be posted for a vote on Sunday, the third of April.

However, I, for myself and others, make a point of order that section 2 of the proposal violates Game Mechanics, as expressed in the ruling by Cogitation on the Olympic Games resolution of 27 August 2004. Specifically, Cogitation ruled as follows at NationStates v. Hersfold (52) (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6909172&postcount=52):
As far as the in-game United Nations and UN proposals are concerned, the people who sit on "committees" don't hail from any nationstate, but rather magically pop out of the ground as fully-formed, mature adults loyal only to the United Nations.
The specification of "10 persons of high morality and renowned for humanitarian diligence,elected by the most important international humanitarian organisations, recognized by the UN, every 7 years" violates this precedent, and also fails to provide for a method for the United Nations to recognize "the most important international humanitarian organizations". It is impossible for the United Nations to recognize such an organization by resolution (a point of order would lie against such a resolution as a writ of attainder), and the plain text of the proposal seems to indicate that the recognition must be conferred by the full United Nations and not just a part of it.

I thank the Presiding Officer for his consideration of my point of order, as well as any other parliamentary issues that may arise from the text of "UN Peace prize".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

After consulting with the Parliamentarian, I withdraw my point of order.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

[ooc: Which means it's been ruled legal by the moderators, per IRC. So don't bother trying to get it ruled illegal.]

UN Peace prize
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Republic of Freedonia

Description: In order to promote the fraternity between the nations, the General Assembly shall istitute the United Nations Peace prize.

Statute:

1. The UN Peace prize shall be donated to the person or an organisation who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prize will be decided by a Committee. In awarding the prize no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize.

2. The Committee shall be formed by 10 persons of high morality and renowned for humanitarian diligence,elected by the most important international humanitarian organisations, recognized by the UN, every 7 years.

3. If a work that is being rewarded has been produced by 2 or 3 persons, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly.

4. To be considered eligible for the award, it is necessary to be nominated in writing by a person competent to make such a nomination. Each year the prize adjudication shall embrace such nominations as have been submitted during the preceding twelve months up to February 1.

5. Nominations should be explained and accompanied by the publications and other documents cited in support of them.

6. On the Festival Day of the UN Peace Prize Foundation, December 27, the Committee shall present to each prizewinner the diploma and the gold medal bearing the image of a group of three men forming a fraternal bond and the inscription "Pro pace et fraternitate gentium". It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded.

7. No appeals may be made against the decision of the Committee with regard to the award of a prize. Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged before 10 years.

Votes For: 64

Votes Against: 25

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Thu Apr 7 2005

I object to the fact that this rewards the reduction of standing armies. Peace comes through superior firepower, even though you don't necessarily have to use it, and to encourage nations to eliminate standing armies is to encourage them to invite plotting enemies to open fire.

This is one of the more naive proposals I have seen. Noble peacemakers have in the past counted on armies to ensure justice and peace, and they are as worthy of a peace prize as the breadgivers.

I submit my opinion to the floor, and hope this floor recognizes the importance of standing armies to the peace process and votes NO on this proposal.

--Welsh, Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer, and UN Delegate for the Militaristic Legions and Plans

I object to the fact that this rewards the reduction of standing armies. Peace comes through superior firepower, even though you don't necessarily have to use it, and to encourage nations to eliminate standing armies is to encourage them to invite plotting enemies to open fire.

This is one of the more naive proposals I have seen. Noble peacemakers have in the past counted on armies to ensure justice and peace, and they are as worthy of a peace prize as the breadgivers.

I submit my opinion to the floor, and hope this floor recognizes the importance of standing armies to the peace process and votes NO on this proposal.

--Welsh, Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer, and UN Delegate for the Militaristic Legions and Plans

And that is exactly the kind of thinking that could lead to a massive arms race or a giant war that wipes out countless smaller countries and innocent people. I would submit that this prize would do wonders for strengthening the relationships between UN nations and between UN and non UN nations, something that is in no way detrimental to peace. My countries only concern is how the UN would fund this, tax rates in Triberon are high enough without having to pay more for this peace prize.

Trey Zimmger,
representative of the Democratic Republic of Triberon.

While we all throw away our weapons, our enemies will get more. :sniper:

While we all throw away our weapons, our enemies will get more. :sniper:
Then don't throw away your weapons, you just won't win the prize. It's an award for promoting peace, not a decleration that all nations must disarm themselves.

Trey Zimmger,
representative of the Democratic Republic of Triberon

Although it says no consideration is to be given to nationality, it ineveitably will be swayed by the relative actions of nations. I'm not sure this resolution is specific enough - but we like the idea.

My countries only concern is how the UN would fund this, tax rates in Triberon are high enough without having to pay more for this peace prize.

Trey Zimmger,
representative of the Democratic Republic of Triberon.

Where is written that there is a money prize?

About the reduction of armies, it seems that only countries with armies can make war...

Celtiga is becoming more and more armed in recent times, but this hasnt stopped me from voting for this to be passed. Nations with the courage to disarm in the name of peace deserve to be rewarded!

It isnt forcing the reduction of arms, just praising those who do so!

I think this should and will pass!

And that is exactly the kind of thinking that could lead to a massive arms race or a giant war that wipes out countless smaller countries and innocent people. I would submit that this prize would do wonders for strengthening the relationships between UN nations and between UN and non UN nations, something that is in no way detrimental to peace. My countries only concern is how the UN would fund this, tax rates in Triberon are high enough without having to pay more for this peace prize.

Trey Zimmger,
representative of the Democratic Republic of Triberon.
And that is exactly the kind of thinking that could lead to the invasion of countries without weapons by those with causing the death of innocent people. I submit that nations respect power and those that dont respect power will be takin over by those that do. Tell you what, instead of worrying about paying for this peace prize, why dont you pay a slightly smaller protection fee, so to speak, to a country that will fight?

Then don't throw away your weapons, you just won't win the prize. It's an award for promoting peace, not a decleration that all nations must disarm themselves.

Trey Zimmger,
representative of the Democratic Republic of Triberon

Representative Zimmger, you're basically admitting here that this is more a prize for throwing your defense away! That is not how you obtain peace! Peace is met through understanding of your enemies, searching a common ground, working from there, opening dialogue and seeing eye-to-eye!

Have you ever made peace with a bully by putting your fists down?

--Welsh, Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer, and UN Delegate for the Militaristic Legions and Plans

The Armed Republic of Methyr has been forced to vote against this resolution. If a nation cuts thier military man and firepower, what are we to do about those nations that do not reside within the UN and go on to attack my nation. If the nation has somewhat military strength, surly the odds would be against me on any occasion. The Armed Republic has military strength and does not wish to give it up.

Delegate Viktor Neroskivitz, Department of Foreign Military Affairs, The Armed Republic of Methyr.

Ok fine lessen your armies, BUT don't make me. Giving people insentive to is fine then I can kill them all. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

MWAHAHAHAHA see you all in hell! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: DIE DIE DIE 3 TIMES MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH BWAHAHAHAHAHA

The Armed Republic of Methyr has been forced to vote against this resolution. If a nation cuts thier military man and firepower, what are we to do about those nations that do not reside within the UN and go on to attack my nation. If the nation has somewhat military strength, surly the odds would be against me on any occasion. The Armed Republic has military strength and does not wish to give it up.

Delegate Viktor Neroskivitz, Department of Foreign Military Affairs, The Armed Republic of Methyr.

We in the The Real Nova Scotia are an open election and freedom loving, patriotic, monarchistic lot and never take lightly to extremism of any kind.

I quite agree, we in The Democratic Monarchy Of Smelly Sunday Tweed, and moreover the whole of the region of The Real Novia Scotia are in complete agreement with these values. Peace will not come through weakness. Peace is not something which is chosen by your state of armament, rather by your international relations with those around you. What are you to do if you 'fall out with' one of those around you who does happen to have a few thousand more missiles than you because you gave them up for a few votes, a position in a group and a peoce of worthless paper (which incidentally holds only the meaning of 'hey guys, come and invade me because I have no weapons - woohoo').

Well, woo hoo indeed!

But on the other hand, if we use the auspices of this award idea to lower NUCLEAR armament, then I can see all praise and glory for it. I would then change my vote for it to be voted for. Nuclear arms ARE the world most hated danger, and are the biggest danger for all in it.

I say change the wording and others will change their voting accordingly.

Up with arms, down with nuclear arms! I may sound two faced, but believe me, some arms are better than none, and nuclear arms are worse than any other.

King Euan the Wise - Benevolant, Venerated and Revered of The Real Nova Scotia.
:sniper: :headbang: :confused:

Peace is not the absence of any military at all. If only lowering military status will win you the prize, many countries may do it. these countries, howerver, just opened their borders to those who are not so concerned about peace. if you need peace, first you need war to get rid of the bad guys. it is likee when you really clean a room, you have to make it dirtier first. :sniper:

Practically speaking, such a resolution would make no sense unless it could be extended to include non-UN member nations—that is, unless a UN member can convince other non-UN states to follow the same laws, which will be difficult. Although the RL UN has done a lot for peace in the past few years, sometimes it best made peace by making war. And look what happened in the 1940's. The UN condemned Japan's invasion of Manchuria, but did nothing (in the interests of peace) and over 6 million people died. Is that what we want?

This should be interesting ... as there once was a prior resolution which failed on Jul 5, 2003 titled "United Nations Peace Prize".


UNITED NATIONS FAILED RESOLUTION
United Nations Peace Prize
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: Pax Romantica

Description:
In recognition and acknowledgement of those who strive to create greater world harmony and understanding, the Kingdom of Pax Romantica proposed the creation of a United Nations Peace Prize.

This Prize will be awarded annually to that individual, organization, group or nation that has done the most to further the cause of peace in the world, be it through politics, science, or the arts.

This Prize will bestow gratitude, honour and prestige upon the recipient from the world community. Additional benefits and priviledges may be determined and added later.

The award process may be formalized in a number of ways, but the Kingdom of Pax Romantica recommends:
1) Nominations of potential recipients with sufficient explanation put forth by a given date each year by UN members.
2) A period of review of nominees and discussion of merits.
3) A brief period of voting to end on a given date by UN members, the nominee receiving the majority of the votes then being awarded the Prize.
4) The convocation of the UN to witness the presentation of the Peace Prize during an annual ceremony befitting the prestiage of the award.

Peacemakers often labour beneath the radar of international attention. Let us reward and encourage these labours for the betterment of the world.

Votes For: ????
Votes Against: ????
Voting Ended (failed): Sat Jul 5 2003

all other national safety issues aside (since i think that the *concept* of a peace prize makes sense and is quite laudable), i voted down this resolution because it is simply infeasible. who are these "people of high morality?" how are we to holdsuch elections? and, seeing as this game has only been around for 2 and a half years, does it really make sense to say that these people will be elected every 7 years?

these are technicalities. at its core, this resolution is unenforcible and unreasonable. why do you think it was already shot down once?

There are too many complecations.

First, as a military disarment resolution EVERYONE will have their defense budgets reduced! :mad:

Second, what if the work was done by 4 or more people? :eek:

Third, define "high morality" people can have "high morality" but be very different about issues. :headbang:

And fourth, no appeals? What if it is proved the person did not do the work but stole credit from someone else? :(

And finally
You UN people really seem to enjoy screwing yourselves, without military power non-UN nations (which by the way do NOT HAVE TO follow your laws) will invade you... :confused:

6. On the Festival Day of the UN Peace Prize Foundation, December 27, the Committee shall present to each prizewinner the diploma and the gold medal bearing the image of a group of three men forming a fraternal bond and the inscription "Pro pace et fraternitate gentium". It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded.

Nice proposal. But too male dominated. Why should it only be three MEN and why use the word fraternity? And will this prize-giving change anything? We need action, not empty gestures.

Then don't throw away your weapons, you just won't win the prize. It's an award for promoting peace, not a decleration that all nations must disarm themselves.

Trey Zimmger,
representative of the Democratic Republic of TriberonOn the contrary:

Category: Global DisarmamentAny global disarmament proposal reduces military spending for all NSUN Members.

<sigh>



When are people actually going to look at the rules to this game?!?

NSUS proposals function in exactly the same way as issues: tax rates go up or down, civil rights or political freedom go up or down, various other unseen indicators (education level, public health, environmental quality) go up or down, and governmental spending on various categories goes up or down.

In this case, the only tangible effect of the proposal will be (a) to lower taxes and (b) to lower military spending. The game engine and the underlying database do not allow for anything else.

Now, in preparation for the last UN resolution (#98 - Eradicate Smallpox), I cut my military spending. You want me to cut it again? For many NSUN nations, unless their military spending is bloated (IOW, over 10% of government expenditures), the next cut will take it to 0%.

Which brings me to the other effect of issues and UN resolutions: they have an impact on RP for those of us who engage in it.

So what are the RP consequences of complete disarmament to 0%? Answer: the next time some twerp invades, you end up having to resist by means of guerrilla warefare - and since the one thing the NSUN is not is a defensive alliance, you'll be scrambling for allies. You'd best hope you don't end up on the wrong end of a dogpile.

Oh, and remember: most folks' response to guerrilla warfare is genocide. Just thought I would add that little tidbit.

Are there positive RP consequences for this proposal? Yes. Once a year, 10 players get to award a prize to an imaginary person entirely based on their personal biases. The good news is, with half the membership of the NSUN disarmed, there will be lots more wars for these imaginary people to try and resolve through peaceful means, with the attendant slaughter of innocents in an effort to eliminate any hope of resistance by the innocent defender. Millions - and maybe billions - will die for the personal glory and warm fuzzies of a few.

You want to award a peace prize, Freedonia? Cool. You go do what the Swedes did: you take a couple million out of your budget (maybe your military budget, if you're so keen on disarmament), and you establish an endownment. H_ll, make it an RP thread and see if other countries will add to the endowment. Assume a 6% return and make the ROI the basis for your awards, including commitee expenses. Then take nominations for 10 of your friends or random strangers to sit on your commitee and RP the prize award process, starting with nominations and going all the way through that 12/27 award ceremony.

You don't need the NSUN to do that, and you don't need for us to disarm to do that. Just go do it, and leave the rest of us be.

I still do not see the necessity for this piece of legislation. It may be nice, but it's still a waste of money.

Encouraging disarmerment? What if some non-UN member invades and you have no military, just because you wanted some imaginary person to get some stupid peace prize? The UN advocates peace but then when a nation ends up getting invaded, they do nothing about it. This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to leave the UN.

the pope should get the first prize somone like him that can bring peace through out the world should get much much more in return then a little award. You don't even need to argue with his conservatives beliefs (I don't argue with most of em) to acknowledge he deserves it.

Everyone think of this. A peace prize would be nice, and probably a good idea, but similar to the reason of the failure of the first peace prize proposal as stated earlier, there is not enough detail in this resolution. There are too many loop holes, and how people will be chose to find the winner of the peace prize, "high morality", is far too vague to be passed. Perhaps if a more comprehensive resolution were created it would be good to pass it, but this one is not very good at all.
As for the military argument, Bretonniania hopes that people would accept the reduction of all the UN nations arsenals. The only way to create peace is to reduce the threats created to other nations by hostile nations. If a nation were to attack another nation without strong reason, then that nation probably should not belong to a world peace organization such as the UN.

People, if you want to re-raise military spending if this passes, guess what? You can. It's a mild resolution. That means that the decrease in defense spending will be small - I'd hazard to guess that one military issue could restore spending to where it was originally. It's not as if I haven't been deciding issues so as to generate a budget with a third of my money going to the military and police forces, which are interchangeable the way I play them.

This proposal isn't out to gut everybody's military, and even if it were, it would be a matter of waiting for a few military issues to undo this resolution's effects. So can we kindly get away from the specious arguments about how we're all doomed to non-UN invasions if this passes? And could the non-UN nations kindly refrain from posting in a discussion on a resolution? Thanks.



Krioval has voted for this resolution, pending the outcome of a regional vote, whereupon a final vote will be cast.

The Dictator of Boltio is against this proposal.

The reduction of a standing army is insanity! We need our powerful military and police force to keep our population at bay. We are doing a great job at it too. Having less forces is removing my right as a country to defend myself from invaders.

Boltio is strongly against this and will not be happy if we must dissarm our forces.

I felt all warm and fuzzy reading that resolution. To Freedonia and all others to propose feel good legislation, quit wasting our time on this crap. It's all well and good to feel all warm and gooey inside after disarming, but do not waste the NSUN's time for a piddley wild goose chase prize thing. I mean come on.

As Queen of Teithril and UN Delegate to The Hidden Continent, I have voted against this resolution. Although we realize that the idea of this prize is an admirable one, we believe that it is flawed. Teithril will not stand for a resolution that would weaken her military. As Queen and Delegate I believe that the resolution is flawed in another way.

The Committee shall be formed by 10 persons of high morality and renowned for humanitarian diligence,elected by the most important international humanitarian organisations, recognized by the UN, every 7 years.

To point out one future problem, what will happen if the vote from these 10 people is split between two candiates? Who will have the deciding vote?

Also, how are we to judge who is of "high morality"? There are many nations that have many different views on morality.

Also, there is no stipulation that clearly states that these persons can not be from either the same nation nor the same region. What is to stop a group from gaining a monopoly over the Commitee?

::Queen Arianrhod steps back::

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Is not the official discussion topic for this resolution the one started by its sponsor at Submitted: UN Peace Prize (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403439)?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Now, if I were to be cynical, I would say this is nothing but an opportunity for the radical liberals to go around patting themselves on the back and congradulating each other on how wonderfully progressive and liberal they are. Its probably not quite that bad though.

The only part that concerns me though is the election of the judges ONLY by "humanitarian organizations", which are generally not known for their moderate or conservative views, but instead tend to be among the more radical of liberal organizations. As a general rule. I am certain there is at least one humanitarian organization out there, somewhere, which has moderate views. I fear there will be an appaling lack of diversity on the part of those chosen to decide who gets these alledged "peace prize" awards. It will be yet another case of the extreme left trying to force their own views upon the rest of us, whether we want them or not. We need common sense in the UN, not one faction or another intent on enforcing their own view of "how things should be" on the rest of us.

I believe that even though this sounds a noble plan, GH will have to come out against this one unless we get some compelling reasons in favour of it.

{President of Ogdakk takes the floor}
:headbang: I do not see the point of most of my collegues.
The resolution does not refer to disarming countries at all.
It doesn't really consider even whole countries just because they remove thier weapons.
The purpose of the proposal is stated very clearly "In order to promote the fraternity between the nations, the General Assembly shall istitute the United Nations Peace prize."
Some leader once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". If my collegues choose to carry a big stick, so be it. However those individuals in various countries that choose to speak softly should be rewarded. It is the actions of one or two that sometimes prevent the horrible actions of many. Such individuals should be endorsed and publically recognized by such bodies that have the power to do so, including the UN.
I do have a problem with the current wording of the proposal however and would like to address them at this time.
1. Out of 38,443 member nations and 2,483 Regional Delegates, we chose 10 to make the descision?
2. Every 7 years? 3 would certainly be better, though each individual may be elected more than once.
3. "elected by the most important international humanitarian organisations". Does the UN have an offical recognition of these organizations? I dare say that in some regions a Humanitarian organization is one that provides black market arms to individuals who are at a arms disadvantage.
4. "it is necessary to be nominated in writing by a person competent to make such a nomination." Who's competent? delegates? UN Members. Highly Moral representatives from countries with recognized Humanitarian organizations?
5. In recognition to my collegues who refuse to be called and others that shouldn't be, called "human". And in recognition to those who do not show (and perhaps cannot)a distinction between Male and Female, I find the medallion a bit disturbing. Why three Males? Is there not a better symbol for peace?

{The President of Ogdakk sits down totally out of breath}

Encouraging disarmerment? What if some non-UN member invades and you have no military, just because you wanted some imaginary person to get some stupid peace prize? The UN advocates peace but then when a nation ends up getting invaded, they do nothing about it. This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to leave the UN.

Do not enact resolutions that will destroy our defense againts non-UN members, it is a pointless bill aimed at awarding the efforts of a few in which they will be invaded. Peace cannot be attained as long as we refuse to cooperate with foreign nations and police the world of its actions. There needs to be a general concensus of nations, from every nation to abolish this retarded arguement. The only problem is that we have the church-goers as many leaders and will be alot harder to sway because of their contradictary statements in every other religion. *sigh* what can you do?

While the proposal is well-intentioned, all it will do is waste precious time, money, and manpower that could be spent looking for tangible peace solutions. We have the Nobel Peace Prize already. This one is just redundant and pointless.

While I still await an answer to my parliamentary inquiry, I rise in opposition to the resolution at vote.

First of all, there is no method for the United Nations to recognize "the most important international humanitarian organisations", and no names immediately come to mind. It seems difficult at best for any reasonable implementation of clause 2 to occur.

The notion of "competence" in clause 4 is also undefined. Am I competent to make a UN Peace Prize nomination? Is President Belik competent to do so?

No justification has been presented for the details in clause 6. I do not see any reason for the designation of December 27 as the Festival Day of the UN Peace Prize Foundation, the image of three men, and the motto.

In short, there appears to be no reason for the propounding of this resolution. I see no reason to support the creation of a vague bureaucracy that achieves a seemingly pointless task.

I vote against.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Is not the official discussion topic for this resolution the one started by its sponsor at Submitted: UN Peace Prize (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403439)?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I'll attempt to answer this ... though as of late the tradition has been to pin the "draft proposal" discussions and rename them for the official debate on the resolution itself, in the past it was common for a new thread to be started once a resolution actually reached the UN floor and for the author to then provide links to the prior proposal related discussions.

Utlimately, while there may be valuable information from the proposal deliberations, it is the text and replies that are associated with the final text of the resolution that should be given a priority.

If you feel strongly that the draft proposal material should be included, beyond the link you've provided, it would be appropriate to appeal to the UN Secretariat and ask for this thread to be merged. I, however, feel that a link an appropriate enough.

I understand. I just have bad memories from 2003 in which there were ten topics on every resolution and it was horrendous attempting to keep track of them.

Also, I was doing a bit of research for the Wiki Commission this afternoon and was trying to designate an "Official Forum Topic" for the Third Quarter 2003 resolutions. Due to the amount of long threads, it was quite difficult to make such designations.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Meadsville objects most strongly to the exclusionary language of the proposal and imagery of the proposed medal. Such lack of attention to detail at this formulation stage requires us to doubt the likely success of this initiative if implemented.

Cassandra, chief linguist
Salon de Luscious of Meadsville

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Is not the official discussion topic for this resolution the one started by its sponsor at Submitted: UN Peace Prize?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Simple explanation - I didn't see it when I designated the new thread.

It has now been properly Merged, and the Republic of Freedonia has its proper place at the head of the topic.

[ooc: Ah, thanks Fris.]

I understand. I just have bad memories from 2003 in which there were ten topics on every resolution and it was horrendous attempting to keep track of them.

Also, I was doing a bit of research for the Wiki Commission this afternoon and was trying to designate an "Official Forum Topic" for the Third Quarter 2003 resolutions. Due to the amount of long threads, it was quite difficult to make such designations.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I completely understand. Though I've archived in 2004 even the locked threads, which sometimes have multiple nations responding with something other than "please post in the other thread". :/ The mods have done a great job in streamlining things, but I've always felt that a the discussion about a proposal is only 1/2 on the books, while a resolution debate should be all there. (I hope that makes some sense.)

The Bethnian Senate has discussed this issue and would like this delegate to make the following comments.

**Originally Posted by Triberon:
My country's only concern is how the UN would fund this, tax rates in Triberon are high enough without having to pay more for this peace prize.

Trey Zimmger,
representative of the Democratic Republic of Triberon.*

Freedonia Replied:
Where is written that there is a money prize?

About the reduction of armies, it seems that only countries with armies can make war...**

One of the main problems with this resolution is the vagueness of terms. True, it is not written that there is a money prize. In fact, it is not written at all what the prize will be. However, whether the prize is monetary, a trophy, a medal, a piece of paper, or a pat on the back, it is naieve to think the passing of this resolution will not incur a cost. The hours upon hours that the council meets to read discuss and vote on nominated candidates carries a hefty price tag. As does the cost of all the forms needed to carry out this seemingly simple gesture: forms for nomination, forms of evaluation for each nomination, forms for disqualification, forms for voting, etc. etc. Plus, the festival day to honour the winner could result in costs of hundreds of thousands of Juliets, as these large events often do. Where will this money come from? It will result in higher taxes for UN member nations, or we will have to cut current budgets to contribute our share of the costs. Bethnia feels this is unacceptable as there are much better causes to which this money should be going rather than giving someone a prize for putting their hard working peace keepers -- the soldiers -- out of a job.

As for the second comment made by Freedonia, it highlights the exact reason many member nations have reservations about this resolution. Nations with armies make war. That means non UN nations with armies will have the capability to start a war with us, while, if we follow the mild suggestion of this resolution and disarm, we will not be able to defend ourselves.

And if the resolution, as Freedonia previously stated, does not mandate that we disarm, we would like to ask what is the point of this resolution? By the writer's own admission, it does not call on the member nations of the UN to DO anything, other than to throw money away on a prize which could be funded in other ways. And if a nation truly believes morally in disarmament, shouldn't they be doing so anyway without the allure of a prize? It appears to Bethnia that this resolution is simply pretty rhetoric which will not effect any positive change to our global community.

Moving on...
**Ogdakk said:
Some leader once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". If my collegues choose to carry a big stick, so be it. However those individuals in various countries that choose to speak softly should be rewarded.**

According to Bethnian scholars, this comment was made by the mythological figure, Theodore Roosevelt. While the statement is merely a piece of a great myth lexicon, we recognize its profound truth. Ogdakk has, however, misunderstood this great quote. Roosevelt was not suggesting we choose one or the other--either speak softly or carry a big stick. He proposed that the two must go hand in hand. To work for peace, we must come to the global table with open minds and a willingness to compromise. However, if we hold certain morals to be true and uncompromisable, we must have the big stick with us to defend ourselves against those nations who seek to destroy or overthrow our beliefs.

**Ogdakk also said:
It is the actions of one or two that sometimes prevent the horrible actions of many. Such individuals should be endorsed and publically recognized by such bodies that have the power to do so...**

Bethnia agrees wholeheartedly with this statement. Every man and woman has the desire to be recognized for their works. Even the most humble among us is motivated by a simple thank you or well done. And those who make sacrifice to work for peace are often the inspiration to future leaders and peacemakers.

If a resolution were to be written in which a voluntary UN committee were formed to award a yearly peace prize, and the candidates were nominated by humanitarian and peace organizations of the individual member nations, and if the consideration of the candidates was not focused on their work for disarmament or military reform, Bethnia might vote yes for that resolution. However, the current resolution is pointless and poorly written, and we will be voting no. We hope other nations can see the frivolity of this resolution and join us in stopping its passage. Thank you.

For clarification on the comment that the resolution is poorly written, here is an example:


6. On the Festival Day of the UN Peace Prize Foundation, December 27, the Committee shall present to each prizewinner the diploma and the gold medal bearing the image of a group of three men forming a fraternal bond and the inscription "Pro pace et fraternitate gentium". It shall be incumbent on a prizewinner, whenever this is possible, to give a lecture on a subject relevant to the work for which the prize has been awarded.


Perhaps Freedonia expects us to assume that the prize is the diploma and the medal. However, that is not what is written in the resolution. The resolution notes that prizewinners will be presented with these items, but does not state that these items are the prize iteself. Also, if the medals are made out of real gold, or are plated with real gold, they will be quite costly.

Also, Bethnia is in strong agreement that the specific language with regards to the image on the medallion is unacceptable. Why should the peacemakers be represented as men in a fraternal bond? Our citizens, who believe in gender equality, object to this image.

i object. a nation's military is the concern of said nation. if there has been no aggression on the part of the nation, it should not be forced to disarm.

i object. a nation's military is the concern of said nation. if there has been no aggression on the part of the nation, it should not be forced to disarm.
I agree, to an extent. I do not see where it says a nation is forced to disarm.

My question is this. What of those who have a large army, yet still strive for peace towards other nations? Are they automatically disqualified because of their consern for their safety?

Furthermore, what of those nations who are continually under attack, and have a need for a standing army. Would their efforts for peace be disregaurded?

Until our questions are answered, our nation will not vote.

Midian Prime Minister, Arman Qeep.

This is a hideously written proposal, bent on completely destroying defense.

Do people honestly think that the UN Peace Prize committee is about to forcibly disband everybody's national armies?

Waterana has just voted against this.

The main reasons are because we feel this relsolution is just a feel good waste of time, that has no benefits for our nation, and in real terms does absolutly nothing.

We can't disarm ourselves, because we are'nt that strongly armed to start with. We can defend ourselves in case of attack, nothing more, and our nation certainly won't be sticking its nose into the miltary business of other nations just so one of our citizens can win a medal.

Like some others who believe in gender equality, we also object to the very sexist nature of the award itself.

If someone can come up with some very good reasons for me to change my vote, I'll consider doing that, but for now, we just consider this resolution does nothing, means nothing, and is worth nothing.

People, if you want to re-raise military spending if this passes, guess what? You can. It's a mild resolution. That means that the decrease in defense spending will be small - I'd hazard to guess that one military issue could restore spending to where it was originally. It's not as if I haven't been deciding issues so as to generate a budget with a third of my money going to the military and police forces, which are interchangeable the way I play them.

This proposal isn't out to gut everybody's military, and even if it were, it would be a matter of waiting for a few military issues to undo this resolution's effects. So can we kindly get away from the specious arguments about how we're all doomed to non-UN invasions if this passes? And could the non-UN nations kindly refrain from posting in a discussion on a resolution? Thanks.

So Krioval spends a third of is government budget on military line items? We're so happy for you. Allemande was spending too much at 9%, before we cut back. Not everyone feels the need to break the bank buying war toys. Some of us like just enough to get by...

So maybe Krioval won't be exposed to danger with a "mild" cut to maybe 20% or so of total government expenditures, but a cut of that magnitude will leave those of us who aren't so profligate holding the proverbial bake sales for national defense.

Your response? Just wait until the next issue rolls around. Great advice! My last military issue was three weeks ago. Who knows when the next one will roll around. I must just be living wrong...

In the meantime, I just have to pray that I don't get invaded. And for what? So that 10 players can have fun RP'ing a "UN Peace Prize" thread, in which they hand out a gold medal showing three guys hugging each other in exchange for a speech?!? Hello? This is like, so not worth it.

And what's maddening is this: you don't need the approval of the UN to set up a Peace Prize and RP handing it our. H_ll, we could have the Freedonia Peace Prize, the Krioval Peace Prize, as many different peace prizes as you like. You don't have to leave a good third of the NSUN Membership exposed to invasion so that you can hand out medals, for crying out loud.

It's not specious if this proposal drops your defense to 0%. And one little issue can do that if you're not overspending on arms to begin with.

What in God's name is going on? Are you basically saying that unless you are a utopian idealist the UN isn't for you?

we will skip past all the arguments, so if we cover something already covered, so be it.

lets see:
does this proposal do anything major, especially for TLA: no
does this proposal set up yet another committee: yes, it does.
does the money for this commitee come from member nations: yes
is this exercise a beurocratic waste of time: after seeing the 3 previous answers, yes it does.

if there was incentive for the money for this to come from the private sector, we might concider voting for, but as it is a waste of time, establishing yet another UN commitee, funded by UN nations, and does nothing of significance, we would have to vote against this.

So Krioval spends a third of is government budget on military line items? We're so happy for you. Allemande was spending too much at 9%, before we cut back. Not everyone feels the need to break the bank buying war toys. Some of us like just enough to get by...

So maybe Krioval won't be exposed to danger with a "mild" cut to maybe 20% or so of total government expenditures, but a cut of that magnitude will leave those of us who aren't so profligate holding the proverbial bake sales for national defense.

Your response? Just wait until the next issue rolls around. Great advice! My last military issue was three weeks ago. Who knows when the next one will roll around. I must just be living wrong...

In the meantime, I just have to pray that I don't get invaded. And for what? So that 10 players can have fun RP'ing a "UN Peace Prize" thread, in which they hand out a gold medal showing three guys hugging each other in exchange for a speech?!? Hello? This is like, so not worth it.

And what's maddening is this: you don't need the approval of the UN to set up a Peace Prize and RP handing it our. H_ll, we could have the Freedonia Peace Prize, the Krioval Peace Prize, as many different peace prizes as you like. You don't have to leave a good third of the NSUN Membership exposed to invasion so that you can hand out medals, for crying out loud.

It's not specious if this proposal drops your defense to 0%. And one little issue can do that if you're not overspending on arms to begin with.



It's not as if you need to be shackled by NSEconomy in your RP. I mean, honestly, if the sole point of contention here is that your defense spending just went down slightly, RP as if it hadn't and "correct" it when the next military issue comes in. It's not that huge a deal, and I really wish people would stop with the damn statwanking already. Or if you're going to insist on comparing stats to see whose "is bigger", at least look at the scale of the resolution.

It's mild. This will not result in the gutting of one's defenses, but will instead reflect an international trend toward demilitarizing slightly in an effort to encourage world peace, of which the award is symbolic. Don't go IC for part only to bitch using OOC metagaming (without at least tagging it as such so it can be addressed directly).


--------------------
Krioval is appalled at Allemande's unnecessarily nasty tone with regard to this resolution. Vote against it if you would like, for the reasons you would like, but remember that not so very long ago your nation was on the receiving end of a lot of overblown arguments. Don't make the same mistake and force Krioval to classify you as part of the rabble who either see who can outshout one another or post single-sentence comments baring only the slightest relevance to the topic at hand. We've come to expect better.

As to your defense spending, in Krioval's eyes, your defense budget is irrelevant, seeing as our technology is so vastly superior to yours that even if you spent every single libre on defense, we could conquer you with three space fighters and a single sword-wielding ninja, though in your defense, it would have to be either Jarolar or myself. So the resolution lets us leave one of the fighters at home. The thought that your nation is incapable of balancing its own needs to the point that one resolution mandating a slight military reduction would cripple you demonstrates a lack of foresight and planning, as well as a certain inflexibility in your spending. Why not divert some of your police funding to your military or combine the two forces to some degree?

Finally, if the idea of supporting world peace is so onerous, I'm frankly surprised that you chose membership in the United Nations. While not an organization specifically for that organization, many of its resolutions reflect a spirit of cooperation and liberty that I feel is enshrined by this resolution, whatever its minor flaws. And that's coming from one of the loudest warmongers to speak in the United Nations.

Lord Raijin Dekker Darklighter, the Light
Commander of Krioval
High Paladin of Solokaro
(Sword-Wielding Ninja)

it's ridicules, i want to run my dictatoeship my way and not have some hippie get in the way! :sniper:

it's ridicules, i want to run my dictatoeship my way and not have some hippie get in the way! :sniper:

Well, if running your government without any international interference is what you want, I might recommend leaving the UN and not looking back. Interfering is what the UN does, as your laws guaranteeing free speech and same-sex marriage would have to attest. And really, I think that insulting the author of this resolution because you disagree with its contents is the height of infantility.

Commander Raijin Dekker

it's ridicules, i want to run my dictatoeship my way and not have some hippie get in the way! :sniper:
ummm, well, why are you in the NSUN?

The resolution does not refer to disarming countries at all.OOC: It's right there in the category: "Global Disarmament".

By definition, and proposal classified as a "global disarmament" proposal will reduce the defense spending of all NSUN members upon passage, regardless of the name of the proposal or the content of any text contained therein. That is how resolutions work in NationStates.

The text is important only to RP. The category and magnitude are all that matter to the game.

OOC: It's right there in the category: "Global Disarmament".

By definition, and proposal classified as a "global disarmament" proposal will reduce the defense spending of all NSUN members upon passage, regardless of the name of the proposal or the content of any text contained therein. That is how resolutions work in NationStates.

The text is important only to RP. The category and magnitude are all that matter to the game.

OOC: Dude, to some of us, the RP is the game. You can alter your stats with a little effort.

IC: Vastiva supports this proposal. We believe more people should be rewarded for their efforts towards the goal of peace.

It's not as if you need to be shackled by NSEconomy in your RP. I mean, honestly, if the sole point of contention here is that your defense spending just went down slightly, RP as if it hadn't and "correct" it when the next military issue comes in. It's not that huge a deal, and I really wish people would stop with the damn statwanking already. Or if you're going to insist on comparing stats to see whose "is bigger", at least look at the scale of the resolution. OOC: The problem, good sir, is that it's not NSEconomy that says what your defense spending is; it's the XML feed. If the raw database information says you have no defense spending then to claim you can defend yourself in the face of invasion is godmoding. You're proposing that we just ignore the effect these proposals have on our nations? I don't think that can be done.

Why not divert some of your police funding to your military or combine the two forces to some degree?If Allemande were a futuristic society, that might be possible. But for a nation without prisons, spending on "Law & Order" doesn't mean that we have police with hand blasters; it means that we have lots of courts and lots of attorneys and youth karate leagues to keep kids off the streets and community service/rehab programs, etc. Very much the sort of thing you'd expect of the MT nation we are. If we choose not to have starfighters and dropships, that's a choice that you should respect.

Finally, if the idea of supporting world peace is so onerous, I'm frankly surprised that you chose membership in the United Nations. While not an organization specifically for that organization, many of its resolutions reflect a spirit of cooperation and liberty that I feel is enshrined by this resolution, whatever its minor flaws. And that's coming from one of the loudest warmongers to speak in the United Nations.OOC: Certainly the fundamental goal of this effort - an annual recognition of that person or persons whose contributions to peace in the past calendar year have been most noteworthy - could be accomplished by any nations so inclined to do so on their own, without imposing an arms reduction on the rest of us.

Krioval is appalled at Allemande's unnecessarily nasty tone with regard to this resolution.Our apologies; it's been a hard weekend and our economy just tanked (probably because we cut defense spending[!]). The harsh tone was indeed uncalled for.

OOC: Dude, to some of us, the RP is the game. You can alter your stats with a little effort.

IC: Vastiva supports this proposal. We believe more people should be rewarded for their efforts towards the goal of peace.OOC: Of course RP is important. So why can't a bunch of countries get together and RP the granting of a Peace Prize? What do you need the NSUN for if that's what you want to do?

A Peace Prize is a pompous award generally given for political benefit. I vote against…

I belive the UN has better things to do then to spend there time organizeing a peace contest so someone can get a shiny medal.

I belive the UN has better things to do then to spend there time organizeing a peace contest so someone can get a shiny medal.

Exactamundo! People who are REAL peacemakers/peacebrokers don't need a "pat on the back".

Exactamundo! People who are REAL peacemakers/peacebrokers don't need a "pat on the back".
exactly. the money could be better spent elsewhere, especially with the growing number of resolutions 'asking for money'. we arent going to waste our gil on something that does pretty much nothing

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda has compared the disadvantages to the advantages. We will vote FOR this resolution. A UN Peace Prize will be a way to put pressure on dictatorial regimes, by supporting those who "fight" for a peacefull solution to the world's problems. They can be rolemodels for everybody.

Even though this won't solve All The World's Problems, it's a small step in the right direction. We therefor urge all nations to vote FOR this resolution.

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda has compared the disadvantages to the advantages. We will vote FOR this resolution. A UN Peace Prize will be a way to put pressure on dictatorial regimes, by supporting those who "fight" for a peacefull solution to the world's problems. They can be rolemodels for everybody.

Even though this won't solve All The World's Problems, it's a small step in the right direction. We therefor urge all nations to vote FOR this resolution.
how will it put pressure on dictatorial regimes? there are over 3000 nations in the UN, who is going to notice if one or two pick up a prize? and those dictatorial regimes would probably look at this resolution, laugh, and go back to whatever war they are fighting

It puts pressure on them knowing that there are nations supporting peace and freedom. They know they're being watched.

It puts pressure on them knowing that there are nations supporting peace and freedom. They know they're being watched.

I'm sure these nations, many of which are not UN members, will be greatly concerned. In fact, I bet they are waiting for the mandatory disarming (OOC: per the mechanics of NSUA, defense spending will drop) and for those fools who will disarm themselves for such a prize, and those winning this prize will be rewarded with invasions.

A UN Peace Prize will be a way to put pressure on dictatorial regimes, by supporting those who "fight" for a peacefull solution to the world's problems.

I would like to remind you that the UN includes dictatorial regimes. And some of us have enough weaponry to enforce peace using our own methods. And nothing encourages peace faster than having your radar system fail to work because of the extreme number of craft the dictatorial nation just put into the air as part of their negotiation strategies.

It puts pressure on them knowing that there are nations supporting peace and freedom. They know they're being watched.

So what? So some nation I couldn't give a damn about and could take out by just pressing a button is watching. Let them watch. Hell, I'll even sign their surveillance pictures. Them watching doesn't really mean that much.

as long as there is greed there will be violence and i refuse to give up weapons if there are others who wont

I had a long discussion about the UN-Peace Prize with our government and we decided to accept the peace prize. We think, it is a good idea!

the ambassador of Xsiberg
Hartl

While the idea for a UN peace prize is very noble I do not like the idea of using such to persuade nations into lessening their standing armies. I refuse to lessen the defenses of Pahpahpolis especially since we are already a small nation. My nation of Pahpahpolis harbors no plans of attack or ill will on any other nation by our armies but my citizens do appreciate the safety and security our armed forces provides. The time after WW1 was a time during which many European nation's, the United States, and other countries' standing armies were massively downsized to become relatively small and many paid for it dearly at the onset of WW2. I will not allow Pahpahpolis' defenses to be weakened and possibly place my nation and any allies at risk should a time of war unfortunately occur in the future.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

The United Socialist States of Kommas has elected me to speak on their behalf.

Frankly, we pursue peace as much as any other enlightened nation would. After all, this is the goal of life - a peaceful coexistance in this world with our other inhabitants. However, the motivation behind this 'peace prize' is unacceptable. Under these conditions, nations would pursue peace until they recieve the prize, then immediately cease their efforts! This is not meant to accuse any nation of any such thing, it is merely a fact.

While the United Socialist States of Kommas would love for a peaceful, crime-free world, we also would like our motives to be correct. We are firmly against this bill.

I am relatively new to nationstates, and do not fully understand all that goes on in the UN as yet, so correct me if i am wrong. A mild strength resolution is more of a guideline than a code of law. Should Kalcedon comply with disarming, there will be benefits, but what will be the reprocussions should we choose to arm to the teeth?

Does the assembly wish to discourage a peaceful nation from defeding itself agaisnt an aggressive neighbour? Or to encourage complacency in the face of genocide?

That will be the message if this proposal is passed -- pacifists, in Orwell's words, "are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point". We cannot be so blind in our efforts toward peace and freedom as to spurn all violence, even when such violence helps our cause.

Our way of life must be protected, and if we are unwilling to, evil will flourish.

Vote no!

Greetings to all UN delegates and the world which so eagerly watches us,

There has been much debate in the great halls of Lotsa-Money over this resolution. Not on the resolution itself, but more on what we would order on the pizza we ordered while thinking about the resolution. I, the Right and Honourable President for Life, wished to have chicken and bacon, while my First Minister Bobby wanted only pepperoni. First Minister Bobby's mother argued for no Pizza since it was well past First Minister Bobby's bedtime, and he had an important spelling test the next day. Tomorrow I shall outlaw grade 5 spelling tests.

But regardless of what the pizza had on it (which ended up being chicken and bacon since I am larger than Bobby and the Right and Honourable President for Life), the debate on the resolution was swift and decisive. We looked to our Holiest of books, The Lotsa-Money Rules of Acquisition. Looking through it's sacred words, we found this simple gem of wisdom

Rule 034 » War is good for business

It is settled. War is good for business. What is good for Business is good for Lotsa-Money. We shall be voting against the resolution.

Cabinia has no particular position on this proposal, neither for nor against, for the simple reason that we do not think this measure is significant enough to generate much discussion.

However, we are quite amused at the naivete of some of our peers. The idea that an award will somehow spur a global competition where nations try to out-peace each other is laughable at best.

While we find the idea of recognizing efforts to promote peace an honorable task, we do not delude ourselves into believing that it will make any difference in global military budgets. We suspect this is because we respect human nature a bit more than our peers. We believe that people will pursue peace because it is a noble cause and is worth doing, and the betterment of mankind is its own reward. But apparently some among us believe that people will pursue peace for a hunk of shiny metal.

While I'm all in favour of supporting international peace, it seems to me that

a) this resolution in fact merely assumes the pre-existence of pacifism, which it would celebrate, without providing an constructive framework for strengthening international peace, meaning that all we do is seek the most peaceful action of the last 7 years, rather than looking to create a more peaceful one

b) is suspect in that it would form a committee of people of "high morality", which is a highly subjective judgement and will necessarily promote a particular moral perspective. This creates areas of concern not merely in principle but in practical terms as one or more major nations come to dominate (as they always do in the UN)

c) while, as has been pointed out, it overlaps with the already very prestigious Nobel Prize, it is far more problematic than that as it is not a private award, but one sanctioned by the chief international body. This means that any controversial decision will cause huge international tensions - potentially weakening international peace - and that any decision, rather than appearing to express a single opinion, implies an objective status for the reciptient.

Given all this, I'd rather stick with the Nobel Prize, which has almost a century of history and prestige behind it, and does not suffer from many of the above problems.

Regards,
the Libesian governor.

It seems to me that this "Peace Prize" promotes asingle defintion of morality, one that not only cannot encopmpass all views of what a moral action is but is inherently contrary to even the Western feeling of morality, the one it seems to be trying so hard to confirm. This prize would seek to promote absolute pacifism as the singular moral goal.
But this is absolutely not the case, in whatever mentality. We must understand that if we see a man mugging another, and it is in our power to stop the mugger it is our moral duty to stop that man. If we are attacked it is not the wise or moral decision to roll over and be beaten, it is in fact the wise and moral decision to fight back, not just to the point of defending oneself, but to the point of punishing that country that attacked you so that they will not attack you.
Furthermore, this prize offers little framework for upholding the pacifism for which it stands. Instead, it simply tacks on further committees and levels of organization to an already obese body that needs no further subbodies.
Simply, this resolution establishes a reward for the wrong kind of action that fails even to aid that kind of action in any meaningful way.
As such, Venalion's vote will stand against this resolution.

Matthew tar-Ven, UN Representative

The Most Serene Republic of Estally is a peace-loving nation. We would never engage in battle where it is not required of us. However, if the basic rights and lives of the people of Estally were being threatened by foreign invaders, our military would fight bravely to protect our beautiful country.
To hinder the resources of our military is to hinder our freedom.

The people of Estally urge the UN not to let this resolution pass. If for nothing else, freedom.

UN Representative of Estally

I am relatively new to nationstates, and do not fully understand all that goes on in the UN as yet, so correct me if i am wrong. A mild strength resolution is more of a guideline than a code of law. Should Kalcedon comply with disarming, there will be benefits, but what will be the reprocussions should we choose to arm to the teeth?

OOC: No. ALL resolutions will have an impact on how your government runs. Even mild bills. Since this one has been registered as "global disarmament," defense spending will be reduced if this bill passes. And if you wish not to comply, withdraw from the UN.

IC:
As for myself, I will join ranks with the Delegate from Gatesville and repel this ridiculous breach on national soverignty and liberal appeasment.


Welsh
Ambassador to the UN for the Empire of Sidestreamer
UN Delegate from the Militaristic Legions and Plans

Up until this discussion, I would have guessed that Krioval was one of the most aggressive nations in the NSUN. Apparently, though, we're one of the few here willing to admit that we could afford to retire a few antiquated pieces of equipment and let a few soldiers return to their families in order to promote a peaceful atmosphere in the world. In any case, I seem to be hearing a lot of equivocation - nations want to say they're committed to peace, but they don't want to do anything to really encourage it.

Krioval's primary industry is arms manufacturing, and we're for this resolution. Why? Because we think that there comes a time where a small reduction in military spending - we don't call it "defense" if its primary use is to attack - would be beneficial not only to world peace, but to individual economies. Every now and again it just seems nice to redirect the slightest bit of funding from building the next gigantic bomb to enhance education, health care, or (dare I suggest it?) cutting taxes. It's not as if this resolution seeks to obliterate all UN members' military forces. It's not as if every non-UN nation is circling like a shark. I would hope that any nation participating in this debate has some network of allies or at least friendly nations who would work to deter or repel such an attack. If not, I find that the nation in question suffers from an egregious lack of skill in diplomacy.

Despite Krioval's propensity toward aggression, we have yet to engage in a single war. And it's certainly not from lack of trying. It's just that when a suitable diplomatic solution arises, Krioval chooses that course, rather than sending the men and women of Krioval to die in order to "prove" our supremacy.

If this resolution should fail, though, I'm sure that we'll be treated to all manner of "mine's bigger" contests. But honestly, it's certainly not the size of one's army, but what one can do with it that's ultimately going to decide matters. Things like solid training and dedication aren't something that can be bought and sold.

Lord Raijin Dekker Darklighter, the Light
Commander of Krioval
High Paladin of Solokaro

This Peace Prize is all well and good, but what about the UN members who are dictatorships? How would the peace prize even be relevant to them? This would give them the disadvantage of ever getting the peace prize at all.

This Peace Prize is all well and good, but what about the UN members who are dictatorships? How would the peace prize even be relevant to them? This would give them the disadvantage of ever getting the peace prize at all.

The prize is given to an individual or organization, as stated in the first clause. It could be a government, but it is perfectly conceivable that a citizen in a dictatorship could win by promoting peace.

The prize is given to an individual or organization, as stated in the first clause. It could be a government, but it is perfectly conceivable that a citizen in a dictatorship could win by promoting peace.

How exactly would a dictatorship promote peace while staying a dictatorship?

i am in the un, but i want to know if i can rejoin the un when i leave it, if not how come? :confused:

well, despite the fact that every opinion on this board is against the resolution (mine included), the vote count is still 1500 more IN FAVOR than opposed. wtf?

i think nobody bothers to debate because they already voted

can someone plz tell me if u can rejoin the un when u leave it?

can someone plz tell me if u can rejoin the un when u leave it?

yes you can

How exactly would a dictatorship promote peace while staying a dictatorship?

Not all dictatorships are interested in oppression. For example, Krioval is a limited democracy where the Commander has total control over the military and can veto decisions of Parliament. He or she is elected, but indirectly and serves for life. Yet it is possible for a Kriovalian citizen to win the prize for contributions toward peace. For that matter, a despot could be amazingly benevolent, and win the prize for similar actions. So far as I can tell, the only requirement for the prize is a sincere commitment to preventing war. A benevolent dictator could very easily work toward such an end.

Either way, the formal stance the Government of Tannenmille has taken is that this Resolution is pointless. So a Nation prevents war in a game that doesn't include war? Please. Meaningless resolution that's taking valuable time from the UN.

[Previously posted on the Lazarus Regional Forums]

ALL articles (except, incidently, article 2, which has the very dubious wordings "the most important international humanitarian organisations", "renowned for humanitarian diligence" and "high morality") have been copied word for word from the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation (http://nobelprize.org/nobel/nobel-foundation/statutes.html). Plagarism should never be endorsed!!!

While this resolution is undoubtedly the result of good intentions, as leader of Tikana I must object to it on several grounds.

First, this resolution is unnecessary in that it uses UN time and resources for something that could be done equally well by any single nation or region, without involving UN members who do not wish to participate, AND without causing a reduction in military spending (albiet a mild one). As a major value of the Holy Republic of Tikana is competence, and thus efficiency, it would pain me, as representative of my country to the UN, to see UN resources wasted in such a manner for something that might be accomplished equally well elsewhere.

Secondly, the wording of this resolution is, in several places, vague or bothersome, or both. Of major concern is the specification in clause 2 that persons on the judging committee be "of high morality." While we in Tikana greatly support moral guidance as a policy indicator in our own country, we fear that any definition of morality arrived upon by a majority of such a large and diverse body of nations (or worse, never voted upon at all, but arbitrarily decided), will unavoidably offend or leave out the views or morals of a sizeable minority. Because of the international status of the award, this discrepancy is bound to create or highten international/inter-regional tensions in many cases, thus pruducing an effect counter to the original purpose of the award.

There is also the issue of defining the "important international humanitarian organizations" mentioned in clause 2. While there are undoubtedly some organizations which would immediately come to mind (though the author of the resolution has apparently been unable to think of any), there would also undoubtedly be dissension among nations as to which organizations are sufficiently important to qualify. This would likely result in disagreements, as with the problem of determining the definition of "high morality," the possible consequences of which I have outlined above.

Also of concern is that portion of clause 6 which specifies closely the species and gender most visibly associated with the award. As with the issue of morality, while Tikana recognizes that this may be a purely symbolic representation, rather than a stance of the UN or the author nation against those genders and species not included, other nations may (and in fact have) seen this matter differently and taken offence.

Lastly, though not least, the stipulation in clause 6 that recipients must give lectures pertaining to their award "whenever possible" may perhaps place an undue burden on said recipients, especially as the phrase "whenever possible" is open to interpretation. There is also no indication of where or under what circumstances these lectures are to be held, whom they are to be organized by, or by whom they are to be funded.

In short, due to the nature of this resolution and its occasional but notable ambiguity, Tikana must and has voted against this resolution, in spite of the good intentions it represents.

How exactly would a dictatorship promote peace while staying a dictatorship?

Easily. We focus on our own nations and mostly leave others alone.

can someone plz tell me if u can rejoin the un when u leave it?

Hello, yes, if you leave the UN, you may later rejoin the organization. I don't know how long it takes to rejoin, but it is possible.

How long does it take for nations to get their confirmation in the first place? It has been so long since I joined that I've forgotten! :)

i think nobody bothers to debate because they already voted

That is my theory as well. I think this would be an excellent poll for somebody to run both in the UN forum, and an indentical one in the "NationStates" forum (in order to see if there is a bias).

That said, there have been a few times where I was going to abstain, but then came and directly asked the author of the resolution a question or two and had them change my mind. But more often if I want advice on the logic behind a position, I find my government asking me to turn to the members of my region. There is of course a reason why we choose to align together, and that reason is that we all respect each others opinions.

The problem with this forum is that the diversity of opinions is so great, that it is hard to know if the decision reached by one nation is something that logically holds true in each of our nations. For example, when I argue for or against a resolution here, I'm very careful to point out that my government is what can be best described as a liberal capitalist society. Mikitivitians have no great interest in religion or traditional "moral" concepts like abortion or marriage or homosexuality. They simply matter not in the City States. They are complete non-issues, and in the interest of maintaining diplomatic relations, we'll support our region. But when it comes to things like the deregulation of industries that have proven to be (and I quote Douglas Adams) "Mostly Harmless", we will state our support in the hopes that another liberal capitalist nation will see that perhaps the idea is worth supporting.

In the case of this resolution, we actually believe in promoting peace and feel that the award will help improve international relations while easing the potential for conflict between nations we consider "hot heads". After reviewing the failed United Nations Peace Prize from 2003, we are honestly very happy to see that the concept returned and took an international focus.

Mikitivity votes yes.

we need an army to help with national events i do not Know why some one would be so stupid as to cut armys in half. Pluse we will loose U N members if this bill passes.I think we should bring war to his region and see if he needs his small army! let him see what he is doing.death to him death to him death to him! :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :headbang: :gundge:
Dellious is right, for one i have left the un becasue of this "Stupid" proposal. Though the Dictatorship of Scnarf would not be willing to go to war over it, but i would like to see all of the people who voted against it to resign if it passes, plz follow my example :headbang:

This is another showing of unneeded control. It shows that for people to do good, they need an award!!! This is excess things that will only take more time and money to do. VOTE NO!!!

Krioval said:
"Krioval's primary industry is arms manufacturing, and we're for this resolution. Why? Because we think that there comes a time where a small reduction in military spending - we don't call it "defense" if its primary use is to attack - would be beneficial not only to world peace, but to individual economies. Every now and again it just seems nice to redirect the slightest bit of funding from building the next gigantic bomb to enhance education, health care, or (dare I suggest it?) cutting taxes."
_______________________

If Krioval and any other member nations of the UN feel reducing their military spending is a positive step they can take towards world peace, or if they simply see it as an appropriate way to lower taxes, we commend them in taking the steps necessary to do so in their nation.

However, Bethnia's understanding and deepest hope is that the UN is an organization where nations come together to better the world while respecting the multiculturalism and pluralism of that world. There is a seat at the table for everyone, and the diverse ideals of the member nations should be accepted by everyone. Of course, accepting and agreeing are completely separate concepts. We do not have to agree with each other, but we must recognize the validity of one another. The Bethnian Ambassador is taken aback that any nation would attempt to impose their philosophies or beliefs on other UN nations by claiming their views are morally superior. For Krioval to declare their dissappointment in other nations for not supporting this resolution is disappointing in itself.

If Krioval and others support this resolution, Bethnia respects their opinion while also respectfully disagreeing. Yet, we again point out that there is nothing stopping these nations from cutting military spending, creating a national peace prize or even an international peace prize, or instituting their own committees, alliances or missions for peace. They do not need a UN resolution to pass in order to do so.

As we have stated before, this poorly written resolution is absolutely pointless, and as nations ignore its impacts as Krioval earlier suggested they could, it will be absolutely ineffectual as well.

PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION!!

Dellious is right, for one i have left the un becasue of this "Stupid" proposal. Though the Dictatorship of Scnarf would not be willing to go to war over it, but i would like to see all of the people who voted against it to resign if it passes, plz follow my example :headbang:

I agree with you that this resolution is useless, and have voted against it myself, but think leaving the UN over it is a bit extreme.

One of the reasons I'm against it, is because I can't see it actually doing anything, and feel its a waste of time and paper. It won't reduce our army at all, unless we want it to, and the small amount of defence spending it will cost all of us, is easily replaced by moving funds from some other area of government, but having said that, what is the use of a resolution that has no real benefits to nations or their people.

[Previously posted on the Lazarus Regional Forums]

ALL articles (except, incidently, article 2, which has the very dubious wordings "the most important international humanitarian organisations", "renowned for humanitarian diligence" and "high morality") have been copied word for word from the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation (http://nobelprize.org/nobel/nobel-foundation/statutes.html). Plagarism should never be endorsed!!!

I had a look at this, and Lazerus group are right, most of the resolution is copied. Is that allowed?

I thought real life reports, studies etc were'nt allowed to be used. I may be wrong though, thats why I'm asking, as I don't want to make mistakes about this when I'm writing up the proposal idea thats swimming around in my head right now.

Clarkestan and the region of RoffleRegion will vote no to this proposal as it will be a hinderance to our military might.

McGonagall is thrilled with this resolution and is prepared to compose an ode to the prize winner each time the prize is awarded. (Subject to the usual copyright fees of course.)

We look forward to the first list of nominees.

This resolution is so proposterous it makes me sick. Why cut military spending?
There is no reason other than to look good and add another stupid passed law to your resume. Then again almost all the resolutions passed were made by nations who want to look good. My nation will most certainly not be endorsing this horrible excuse for a resolutions.

-The Dictator of iron pig

Greetings all --

While it seems likely my region will vote yes, I have voted no for some of the reasons outlined in previous posts (though often from a very different perspective):

(1) Making the abolition of the armed forces a goal. Analagous to giving a social peace prize to the nation that completely eliminates police forces, or a political liberty prize to the nation that completely eliminates government. Sure, the nation might last long enough to accept the prize, but a country without police will soon become overrun by criminal bullies, and a country without a government will soon become a dictatorial since the people not wanting to run for the prize have no scruples.

(2) Harmony and peace are rarely served by eliminating reference to half the human population.

(3) While basing a proposal on a RL document can be a good idea, claims of plagiarism seem to have taken this too far.

(4) As some other posters have noted, a single country or region is capable of doing this on its own. Any takers? McGonagall (modelled on the notoriously bad poet, portrayed on film by Spike Milligan) has offered an odious ode to the winner. I offer a flag or banner to the Peace Prize organization and its winner.

So long from the International Democratic Union.

-- Sober Thought

UN Peace prize
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending

A ridiculous proposal that does not definitively state how this will be achieved, or indeed if it is entirely desirable. it is fluff, and the United States of Hamilcar will have none of it.

Nay.

I consider the proposal of no consequence. So the Constitutional Republic will not be voting on this issue, unless specific request is made by the our region to do so, as delegate.

We do however disagree with a principle of the article, that equates de-mobilization with the maintanance of peace.

The Constitutional Republic of Tekania maintains a military/exploratory force for the only reason of maintaining peace. Peace sometimes comes at the cost of war, or possible aggression. Our forces are for protecting the weak against the aggressor, and sometimes, for forcing armed factions to the peace table.

Having sacrificed countless thousands of our own troops, to save entire nations from war with one another, is a far more honorable way, than obligatory pacifism which seeks nothing more than to talk with no action. And would stand by why aggressive invaders prey upon the weak, to satisfy their bloodlust for conquest.

As such, should this pass, we will let the NSUN pacifists pat themselves on their back, for the isolationism and do nothing mentalities. While the CRoT activily ensures peace amongst the stars.

well, despite the fact that every opinion on this board is against the resolution (mine included), the vote count is still 1500 more IN FAVOR than opposed. wtf?

How? Because of the numerous UN nations who choose not to participate in any debate, don't read the proposal, and cast their vote "yes" when they see the word "Peace" or "Environment" in anything. As much as some people hate to admit it, their really is a significant group of Yes-Lemmings out there who will vote in favour of any alledgedly liberal proposal. That is unfortunate.

Fortunately, we still have a growing group of nations who DO choose to participate in debate and for the most part do not automatically cast their vote yes or no, but read and listen first.

Unfotunately, I believe the combined groups of the Yes-Lemmings and those who honestly believe in this proposal after reading it will be enough to pass it. Rather sad, really.

:cool: UN Peace prize
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending

A ridiculous proposal that does not definitively state how this will be achieved, or indeed if it is entirely desirable. it is fluff, and the United States of Hamilcar will have none of it.

Nay.

Here here!!!!

How? Because of the numerous UN nations who choose not to participate in any debate, don't read the proposal, and cast their vote "yes" when they see the word "Peace" or "Environment" in anything. As much as some people hate to admit it, their really is a significant group of Yes-Lemmings out there who will vote in favour of any alledgedly liberal proposal. That is unfortunate.

Fortunately, we still have a growing group of nations who DO choose to participate in debate and for the most part do not automatically cast their vote yes or no, but read and listen first.

Unfotunately, I believe the combined groups of the Yes-Lemmings and those who honestly believe in this proposal after reading it will be enough to pass it. Rather sad, really.

As opposed to all the "No-Lemmings" who have nothing better to do than post one-line bitchy comments about how much a resolution sucks? Not to mention the anti-UN voters who automatically click "against" and then cry "national sovereignty" at nearly every resolution to come to the floor. They, and you, are certainly entitled to an opinion on the content of the resolution - I'm a bit conflicted and voting yes, so it's not clear-cut to me - but it is annoying to read all the "this is a bad resolution, period" posts to find the few points that can actually be debated. And it's not like the resolution is passing with a landslide.

As a Delegate, if I approve a proposal, I'm pretty likely to vote in favor of it, and this case isn't much different. That's why I'm "decided" already. I decided to vote in favor of this almost two months ago. The decision-making process was silent, but I took a few days to think about it. Then I decided in favor. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

I voted no because it is simply not fair to award peace prize to those who abolish arms. There are many other ways of making peace, or many policies that will lead to peace, which deserve as much, if not more, attention.
Yan

NiteHawstonia votes nay on this proposal as we believe in peace through strength, not through appeasement. Furthermore, the UN has a dismal record in peace keeping, as well as holding all members to their agreements.

This is a recipe for disaster.

If this resolution is passed, then nations who are not members of the UN can easily take advantage of the situation. They do not have do reduce military strength, so they could easily defeat those who are members of the UN and were forced to do so. I am voting no, as is my UN delegate.

This is a very bad idea. After all, if it succedes in its goal, we are weak. If it fails, it's a waste of time.

So if this passes do we have to cut down on military spending, because i dont fully understand. Can some1 plz help me! :confused:

I vote nay, not because of reducing military strength, but because of the medal design. It features "three men" in "fraternity." I feel that this is a slap in the face to the women of not only the nation of Everlight, but for the entire world. I myself would prefer a medal featuring a man, a woman, and an individual in the middle of nondescript features (but still recognizeably human, of course). Women have made an equal contribution to my nation as men have, and I would not want any reward for their efforts to be cheapened by desexualizing them.

Darren Crestbearer
U.N. Representative for the Holy Federated Order of Everlight

Krioval has taken the liberty of examining the relative economic and military strengths of some of the louder dissenters. We are doing this in order to examine whether the passage of the resolution in question will truly "destroy their militaries".

We begin with Dellious, who has been by far the most antagonistic. How interesting. That nation is delegate in a region devoted to war, and uses moralistic language and invokes God to rattle sabers. Yet said nation spends 0% of its annual budget on its military. I'm supposed to be taking notes on the virtues of a military from a nation that doesn't have one? Discredited.

Moving right along, Krioval also took a look at Awesome Powerfulness, whose first post intimates their fear of non-UN invasion. Apparently the threat of UN invasion hasn't quite occurred to said nation, or Krioval's population and economy, combined with our usual levels of aggression would have triggered alarms far earlier. Well, in the name of passing a resolution to foster peace, Krioval is willing to make the sacrifice of annexing Awesome Powerfulness. Congratulations on being the newest Kriovalian territory! Somehow, I bet the thought of a slight disarmament and a greater focus on peaceful interactions is looking way more appealing than it was a few hours ago.

There's NiteHawkstonia, who believes in "peace through strength". So does Krioval. About a quarter of my military would be twice your whole thing. Advantage: me.
-------------
The whole point of this, other than to poke holes in my opponents' theories, is to demonstrate that there is always someone bigger, better equipped, and stronger. About two-thirds of nations are not members of the UN. Lining up population directly, if non-UN members wanted to obliterate all UN members, they'd probably have already done so. The argument that the flood of troops will hit right after this passes, should it do so, is specious, and based off of the ridiculous premise that smaller nations will somehow suffer crippling invasions as their militaries are "destroyed". The fact of the matter is that many nations who have bothered to speak a single negative sentence, or has used irritatingly high numbers of "gun smilies" could, at any momemt, be invaded and conquered by Krioval without notice, and if I wished, without survivors.

In short, you aren't going to become vulnerable - you already are. Consider the merits of diplomacy and alliances, or at the very least, try coming up with an argument against this resolution that isn't a carbon copy of the previous one, complete with histrionics.

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

I agree with Everlight. I voted against this issue purely because of the depiction of the medal and the wording of fraternity. I hate to point this out to the writer of this really lovely little resolution, but you are forgetting a big part of the poulation here. Like the female part.
Rysonia will not support any resolution which discriminates in any way, and this one reeks of sexism, intentional or not it still reeks of it. I look forward to seeing a modified copy of this resolution come back through, but until then I urge all to trully consider wether we want this to be representative of our Great United Nations. Please vote against this, until the author modifies it to include all Nations.

Disarmament of any form while evil forces exist in the world is a mistake whenever it is tried. If all UN Member nations were forced, or shall we say encouraged to disarm, how would this allow the Dominion of Katukos to protect itself from others who are not required to follow this creed? It takes only one aggressor nation to create an unsafe world for us all. Unless all possible aggressor nations are eliminated, what is to stop them from invading disarmed UN nations?

Also, as long as humans reside in this world, arms will be present. Destruction and violence is in our nature. Disarmament will fail.

- Niko Thalo, UN Representative of the Dominion of Katukos

Vastiva is voting for this for the shiny things.

Go shiny things!

The only thing we like more then shiny things is cheese.


Mmmmm... cheeese.....

Vastiva is voting for this for the shiny things.

Go shiny things!

The only thing we like more then shiny things is cheese.


Mmmmm... cheeese.....

You mean that you're not voting for it to decimate everybody's military and encourage misogyny? How interesting.

~ Kriovalian Sarcastotron Prototype

I agree with Everlight. I voted against this issue purely because of the depiction of the medal and the wording of fraternity. I hate to point this out to the writer of this really lovely little resolution, but you are forgetting a big part of the poulation here. Like the female part.
Rysonia will not support any resolution which discriminates in any way, and this one reeks of sexism, intentional or not it still reeks of it. I look forward to seeing a modified copy of this resolution come back through, but until then I urge all to trully consider wether we want this to be representative of our Great United Nations. Please vote against this, until the author modifies it to include all Nations.

I had choiced only men because it is tradition to recognized nation with men figure, but the intention is not sexist. And the resolution is not limited only to men, becuase it talks about persons.

There is no other option as to vote against this banal Prize. Imagine what will start to hapend in my Nation when some freaks will try to rise against goverment, try to stop arms manufacturing and some politicians eager from fame will try to cut military expenses. :eek: :sniper:

It would be ok, just to give some little money to someone who makes another country weaker, but leave my nation out of this theatre.

And what about this medal design with three men on it.... It sounds little bit gay.

U know.....
It looks like homosexual sandwich to me!

This resolution is bullshit! I might resign from the UN just to avoid it.

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: to the core

Whatever it is, I'm against it.

I'm against it. The spirit in which is written is good, but ultimately, it just provides more opportunity for corruption. Think about it. The U.N. can give a cash prize. This could be used for good, but, it is more likely to be used for corruption. But some people in my region disagree with me.

This would be well and good if every nation was in the UN. But as it stands nations in the UN might have to pull out to be able to arm themselves against Non-UN nations that are armed to the teeth. Good intentions and good will do not make something logical.

This is a pointless resolution the UN is becoming weaker and weaker and it is now confirming that weakness by telling people to dissolve armies and defense forces pash! this must be voted down

Oh, my God! It really hapnz... There is so many stupid UN members whitch hav not even red whole proposal and wotes FOR it! I can not resign from UN to avoid this. i have tried hard to become delegate. It is useless to say something here bcs half of UN members dont read it anyway. damn! How could this go so far.... Damn this proposal.... I`m quit. Enough of this weakness and corruption. And what`s next? Anarchy, destruction, destitution???? If I can not stop it, I`ll leave it. And let this UN go and F--- themselves. I have tolerated enough stupid resolutions... Here are only questionless mindless utopists as majority. UN is ment to sleep with fishes. I will not be a part of it.

I had choiced only men because it is tradition to recognized nation with men figure, but the intention is not sexist. And the resolution is not limited only to men, becuase it talks about persons.

Actually, the "intention" may not be sexist but the underlying gender assumption is. By choosing only men to go on the metal you are perpetuating the notion that men are superior to women. By placing only men on the metal you are reducing women to the role of the "other" because as you state "tradition" supports that men should be the only ones to be recognized as a nation's figure head.

Don't be a dork. Being politically correct means not saying what's really on your mind.

What`s up to You all.... The question is not about peace of metal, it is about coruption and Weakness. why are U all bothered so much about that homosexual sandwich! And what is Your problem about that men are more superiour as woman. That is the way of nature. And that is how it is in human society. To some animals it is similar and to some conversely. It is imposible to make man and woman equal, because they are NOT! So, should man be shamed or feel uncomfortable for it? Of course it is unethical to talk big about it, but it is unethical too to try make anything equal what is not ment to be equal. That was the problem of USSR.
I work as sociologist and I can tell U for sure.... : The society Is not ment to be equal for any circumstances. That is the human nature. And this voting against should not be because of some stupid feminists, but because of weaknes that is being spread among whole UN society. This resolution is BIG, UNNECESSARY JOKE. :(

Would all members please maintain proper decorum in debate? Linguistic accuracy in floor statements is also appreciated, as is a lack of random shootings. I thank the Acting Secretary-General from Myrth for his efforts here.

At this point, for the record, there are 7,349 votes in favor of the "UN Peace prize" resolution and 6,297 votes against it. With the exception of the Delegate from the North Pacific, none of the feeder or sink region delegates have voted yet, so this vote could still go either way.

I urge all members to vote in opposition to the resolution, for reasons I stated previously. Voting ends at approximately 1 PM Eastern Time tomorrow, so remember to cast your vote before then.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

:confused: :confused: We will loose alot of UN members if this bill passes, i know i will .We should not cut our armys in half. We some times need our armys to fight off tarerist,and to maintain peace.How do you thik peace is acheaved by having no armys? there will always be people who want to kill you.you need to have armys to keep peace.Answer this what if an evil region wants to take over the world how are we suppoes to help non UN nations and regions?Let him cut his own aremys in half and see if he needs US! :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:
All i am here to say is how will we defend our selves?

Freedom of speech (and smileys) is a beautiful thing. Or..

We should INCREASE the size of our militaries.

Before: :gundge:


After: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Oh, my God! It really hapnz... There is so many stupid UN members whitch hav not even red whole proposal and wotes FOR it! I can not resign from UN to avoid this. i have tried hard to become delegate. It is useless to say something here bcs half of UN members dont read it anyway. damn! How could this go so far.... Damn this proposal.... I`m quit. Enough of this weakness and corruption. And what`s next? Anarchy, destruction, destitution???? If I can not stop it, I`ll leave it. And let this UN go and F--- themselves. I have tolerated enough stupid resolutions... Here are only questionless mindless utopists as majority. UN is ment to sleep with fishes. I will not be a part of it.

I`m Just tired of this Union Ruled by majority. This resolution is going too far in nations private politics. The same as with something legal or not. And it is each countryz own choice. If some nations are here in majority and they think that military spending is unnecessary, then it is their own buisness, but why should we suffer for it? It is stupid to vote for such proposal and it is unexeptable to pass it with only 50% and one vote. For such vexed question there should be votet for more than 80% to pass it. If this proposals will be close to pass, i will resign from UN, even if I loose my very important seat of regional delegate.

I'm in support of this proposal. This will provide my citizens with a much needed tax cut, as well as reducing the number of casualties in wars. The UN bands together against threats, so a universal cut in military will not effect wars inside the UN. Outside threats are easily taken care of by the UN member nations working together.

You mean that you're not voting for it to decimate everybody's military and encourage misogyny? How interesting.

~ Kriovalian Sarcastotron Prototype

No, but that might explain the recent tax raise in my nation and increased spending on the military...

I`m Just tired of this Union Ruled by majority. This resolution is going too far in nations private politics. The same as with something legal or not. And it is each countryz own choice. If some nations are here in majority and they think that military spending is unnecessary, then it is their own buisness, but why should we suffer for it? It is stupid to vote for such proposal and it is unexeptable to pass it with only 50% and one vote. For such vexed question there should be votet for more than 80% to pass it. If this proposals will be close to pass, i will resign from UN, even if I loose my very important seat of regional delegate.

Ya know what? Some of us don't respond well to such threats.

Go. I mean it, go. If you dislike the UN so much that you want to quit, go ahead. Nothing is stopping you. Hell, some of us will even help you out of the building. Don't worry about your stuff, as we'll mail it to you. In fact, let me help you to the express elevator.

~Tazers the Pardaugava delegate, drags them to the express elevator, and tosses them into it. Watches as they fall too their doom, to be eaten by the mysterious mutants who live in the basement. Promptly steals their office and begins to auction off their furniture.~

This probably can and should be done without a U.N. resolution. I'm not particularly happy about the "Three men sharing a fraternal bond" medal, that seems both A) Odd and B) Sexist. Plus it's a sad incentive: Why the hell would anyone want to recieve, for their good deeds, a medal of three men hugging each other? What three men? And why only men?

Other than that, there's nothing particularly wrong with it other than that it is fairly pointless. I'm against.

Ya know what? Some of us don't respond well to such threats..~

These were not threats anyway. But still funny way to get rid of oposition... :) I think U R too interested to make every country weaker.... this proposal is bad. Actualy, the worst i have seen. It tries to control UN nations too much. With each proposal UN takes more and more control of nations home policy. Ok, so big and selfish nations like yours maybe don`t care, but I DO!

These were not threats anyway. But still funny way to get rid of oposition... :) I think U R too interested to make every country weaker.... this proposal is bad. Actualy, the worst i have seen. It tries to control UN nations too much. With each proposal UN takes more and more control of nations home policy. Ok, so big and selfish nations like yours maybe don`t care, but I DO!

I liked it.

Actually, I'm against this resolution and have stated such repeatedly. I just find it annoying when people say, "If this passes I'm going to leave the UN!" No matter your intention, it comes across as though you are egotistical enough to think that will honestly make a difference and suddenly change the votes of thousands, most of whom don't even read the forums.

My own reason for opposing this is because I do not see the need for it. To counter the problem of it lowering military budgets in stats, I've already raised my military budget.

These were not threats anyway. But still funny way to get rid of oposition... :) I think U R too interested to make every country weaker.... this proposal is bad. Actualy, the worst i have seen. It tries to control UN nations too much. With each proposal UN takes more and more control of nations home policy. Ok, so big and selfish nations like yours maybe don`t care, but I DO!

Overstate your case much? Like DLE needs other countries to be any weaker before invading. For that matter, like I need a lot of other countries to be weaker. This is far from the worst proposal ever made to the United Nations, and it is far from the worst resolution as well, and that includes some of the passed resolutions. But if the NSUN is so stifling, the door's right over there. Don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out.

As for your last sentence, our politicians are asked a question during their campaign: "Do you strongly value the opinions of countries who are not our allies and who don't trade with us?" If they answer "yes", they're effectively unelectable. It saves a lot of people in Krioval a lot of trouble, and makes annoying smaller nations who like to throw around weight they don't have a heck of a lot easier to invade, should such a course be determined beneficial.

.

No matter your intention, it comes across as though you are egotistical enough to think that will honestly make a difference and suddenly change the votes of thousands, most of whom don't even read the forums.
.

Whell, I hoped it would make some.... I know that most of UN dont read forums, but I hoped that maybe with, as U say "threats", I would make someone who read them... to .. read them twice.... :headbang: Sorry, that U misunderstood me!

okay this is one last ditch attempt, and a decent explination as to why we are against it.

currently, in real life, there are what? 180 - 200 countries in the world, and 6 billion people. thus something is not lost in that kind of world. now we bring it into nationstates. 3000+ un members, and a total of 12000+ nations. i am not even going to bother working out the population, and even then, the figure would take up too much room. something like this could get lost so easily, it isnt funny. for those arguing role play purposes: why not do it like the real life nobel peace prize (which i assume you are modeling it on). this was established by alfred nobel, privatly, and before the rl UN was even establised. there is nothing stopping you going into the II forum and roleplaying this. i know that you would want the UN tag to make it seem more credible, but we really dont give a damn, especially when it states that a comittee would be formed to choose the winner. to us, if a committe is formed, we would want it to have some real purpose, not for a meaningless, easily lost awards ceremony. while we admire your nobel intentions, we dont see the point in this being a UN thing.

okay this is one last ditch attempt, and a decent explination as to why we are against it.

currently, in real life, there are what? 180 - 200 countries in the world, and 6 billion people. thus something is not lost in that kind of world. now we bring it into nationstates. 3000+ un members, and a total of 12000+ nations. i am not even going to bother working out the population, and even then, the figure would take up too much room. something like this could get lost so easily, it isnt funny. for those arguing role play purposes: why not do it like the real life nobel peace prize (which i assume you are modeling it on). this was established by alfred nobel, privatly, and before the rl UN was even establised. there is nothing stopping you going into the II forum and roleplaying this. i know that you would want the UN tag to make it seem more credible, but we really dont give a damn, especially when it states that a comittee would be formed to choose the winner. to us, if a committe is formed, we would want it to have some real purpose, not for a meaningless, easily lost awards ceremony. while we admire your nobel intentions, we dont see the point in this being a UN thing.

The population is up over 80 trillion right now. Check the census thread in Technical.

The population is up over 80 trillion right now. Check the census thread in Technical.
80 trillion? i thought it was higher. ah well, when you take a third of that, rougly 23 trillion, that would equate to the UN population, it is still greater than the 6 billion of RL earth. thus, the awarding of a peace prize would be lost so immensly on the population. and another thing, how often do we see the nobel peace prize awarded, aknowledge who the recipient is, maybe talk a tad about it for, say, 5 minutes to an hour at most (longer on forums) and it just gets forgotten?

I work as sociologist and I can tell U for sure.... : The society Is not ment to be equal for any circumstances. That is the human nature. And this voting against should not be because of some stupid feminists...:(

"Feminist" is a word that most definitely does not describe the Holy Federated Order of Everlight. In fact, Everlight recognizes inherent differences between the sexes, and has always enacted legislation reflecting this. However, we feel that, when it comes to awarding individuals for their achievements, gender is something that should not come into play.

Next time, I'd be more careful with using your "labels," lest you appear to practice the "armchair" sociology that is so frowned upon.

Darren Crestbearer
Holy Federated Order of Everlight

80 trillion? i thought it was higher. ah well, when you take a third of that, rougly 23 trillion, that would equate to the UN population, it is still greater than the 6 billion of RL earth. thus, the awarding of a peace prize would be lost so immensly on the population. and another thing, how often do we see the nobel peace prize awarded, aknowledge who the recipient is, maybe talk a tad about it for, say, 5 minutes to an hour at most (longer on forums) and it just gets forgotten?

Wait, we're supposed to give a damn that they exist? How did I miss that memo?

Wait, we're supposed to give a damn that they exist? How did I miss that memo?
real life winners? peace prizes? or both?

Both.

Krioval has taken the liberty of examining the relative economic and military strengths of some of the louder dissenters. We are doing this in order to examine whether the passage of the resolution in question will truly "destroy their militaries".

We begin with Dellious, who has been by far the most antagonistic. How interesting. That nation is delegate in a region devoted to war, and uses moralistic language and invokes God to rattle sabers. Yet said nation spends 0% of its annual budget on its military. I'm supposed to be taking notes on the virtues of a military from a nation that doesn't have one? Discredited.

Moving right along, Krioval also took a look at Awesome Powerfulness, whose first post intimates their fear of non-UN invasion. Apparently the threat of UN invasion hasn't quite occurred to said nation, or Krioval's population and economy, combined with our usual levels of aggression would have triggered alarms far earlier. Well, in the name of passing a resolution to foster peace, Krioval is willing to make the sacrifice of annexing Awesome Powerfulness. Congratulations on being the newest Kriovalian territory! Somehow, I bet the thought of a slight disarmament and a greater focus on peaceful interactions is looking way more appealing than it was a few hours ago.

There's NiteHawkstonia, who believes in "peace through strength". So does Krioval. About a quarter of my military would be twice your whole thing. Advantage: me.
-------------
The whole point of this, other than to poke holes in my opponents' theories, is to demonstrate that there is always someone bigger, better equipped, and stronger. About two-thirds of nations are not members of the UN. Lining up population directly, if non-UN members wanted to obliterate all UN members, they'd probably have already done so. The argument that the flood of troops will hit right after this passes, should it do so, is specious, and based off of the ridiculous premise that smaller nations will somehow suffer crippling invasions as their militaries are "destroyed". The fact of the matter is that many nations who have bothered to speak a single negative sentence, or has used irritatingly high numbers of "gun smilies" could, at any momemt, be invaded and conquered by Krioval without notice, and if I wished, without survivors.

In short, you aren't going to become vulnerable - you already are. Consider the merits of diplomacy and alliances, or at the very least, try coming up with an argument against this resolution that isn't a carbon copy of the previous one, complete with histrionics.

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica


What about us, we ask?
P.S. A legislation is in the works to increase spending.

At this time:

Votes For: 7,649
Votes Against: 7,244

Damned close. 405 votes difference.

yay, we can still beat this one!

feminist and stupid... wow I've never had either word applied to me before. LOL, probably because I'm neither. *shrugs* Change the wording and you might get more votes for it. Something that is supposed to be awarded for Humanitarian purposes shouldn't ever give the appearance of discriminating don't ya think?

Please vote against the UN Peace Prize. We don't need a world aspiring to be touchy feely wusses. Thank you for your consideration.

I know that this has probably been said before but I got tired of reading all of the other posts! :headbang:

In this "Peace Prize" what about the nations that have a high military spending and many troops and other military "stuff"... but these nations that have a big military are also extreamly peaceful at heart they just don't count on "onthers", *cough, cough, cough* to "talk" their way out of a terrorist attack.
Although I see this as a good meaning Idea I don't think that nations should be awarded for being good little boys and girls in "a game where you can't even attack if you wanted to!" that was a quote from a friend
So I think that event though it's got some good points I think that this proposal should be taken out and "unpeacefully" shot! :sniper: lol!! get the joke??... never mind.....................!

btw, votes for is only like two ahead of votes against!!!
two more votes and it fails! wooooooooohoooooo

p.s. those who say that it is also against game mechanics bring up a nother important point! just thought I would let you know! :)

I know that this has probably been said before but I got tired of reading all of the other posts! :headbang:

In this "Peace Prize" what about the nations that have a high military spending and many troops and other military "stuff"... but these nations that have a big military are also extreamly peaceful at heart they just don't count on "onthers", *cough, cough, cough* to "talk" their way out of a terrorist attack.
Although I see this as a good meaning Idea I don't think that nations should be awarded for being good little boys and girls in "a game where you can't even attack if you wanted to!" that was a quote from a friend
So I think that event though it's got some good points I think that this proposal should be taken out and "unpeacefully" shot! :sniper: lol!! get the joke??... never mind.....................!

btw, votes for is only like two ahead of votes against!!!
two more votes and it fails! wooooooooohoooooo

p.s. those who say that it is also against game mechanics bring up a nother important point! just thought I would let you know! :)

That is an excellent point, Ambassador! It can't be reiterated enough. If we are really interested in awarding the peacemakers, we need to realize that those with the guns are not always out to make war!

This bill is an attempt at misguided alturism, and will not reward peace, but instead rewards voluntary weakness and colaboration with foreign armies to do their dark deeds.

Welsh
Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer
UN Delegate for the Militaristic Legions and Plans

feminist and stupid... wow I've never had either word applied to me before. LOL, probably because I'm neither. *shrugs* Change the wording and you might get more votes for it. Something that is supposed to be awarded for Humanitarian purposes shouldn't ever give the appearance of discriminating don't ya think?

ok fine, so take me with a grain of salt as a feminist, but sheesh, how can you possably vote for somthing that is so BLATENTLY SEXIST?!
I think if the language were changed to reflect humanitarian or somthing not as chovenistic as "fraternal bonds"...

What a tragedy that this resolution is failing. Is nationstates dominated by right wing reationaries or what?

What a tragedy that this resolution is failing. Is nationstates dominated by right wing reationaries or what?

Do you have anything meaningful to contribute? Please read the arguments presented (Primarily on sexism and ineffectiveness, but there are others) and then post your counterarguments, as opposed to mindlessly accusing my Left-Wing Utopia of being a Right-Wing Reactionary. I don't consider it a tragedy this resolution is failing (narrowly), as it doesn't accomplish any truly beneficial goal.

I see it as another bash on national sovereignty.

Do you have anything meaningful to contribute? Please read the arguments presented (Primarily on sexism and ineffectiveness, but there are others) and then post your counterarguments, as opposed to mindlessly accusing my Left-Wing Utopia of being a Right-Wing Reactionary. I don't consider it a tragedy this resolution is failing (narrowly), as it doesn't accomplish any truly beneficial goal.

My idea of left wing is being *Pro-Peace*.
This would be a step in the right direction. I simply don't buy any of the arguments against this proposal.

My idea of left wing is being *Pro-Peace*.
This would be a step in the right direction. I simply don't buy any of the arguments against this proposal.
you are confusing economical politics with internation ones. Just because someone thinks everyone should have close to the same amount income (communistic/socialistic system) doesnt mean they dont want to wage war. I wouldnt say the USSR nor China were very "pro-peace", while they were definatly left wing.

And why would decreasing armies of possibly less than one third of the countries on this world help peace? It would give a signal to the non UN countries that there is no reason to have armies around, since when do those countries listen to what the UN says?
I think that decreasing armies of one third of the countries (who are probably more peaceful than the other two third) would lead to more wars.

Im not against commending people who helped peace. However I dont think the person who helped disarming armies the most helped peace the most. It is probably the person who helped create trade between two countries or helped solving old hatred between countries.

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

The READING CLERK. UN Peace prize, proposed by Republic of Freedonia, a resolution to mildly slash worldwide military spending.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: The resolution "UN Peace prize" was defeated 8,811 votes to 8,063. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

OOC: I personally love these in character RPs! Keep them up!

Second, I honestly can't remember if we get compliance ministry telegrams when resolutions fail. Somehow I thought we don't.

IC:
The Confederated City States of Mikitivity is disappointed in the final vote on the UN Peace Prize, noting that this was the second time that this basic concept has failed. It is my personal hope that this topic can be revisited again over a year from now, but that if this body considers a new international award, that we look at the debates associated with both UN Peace Prize resolutions to determine if perhaps there is a way we can apease those nations that have voted against either measure.

OOC: Goober, did you did up a link to the old UN Peace Prize resolution debates for NSWiki? These would be pre-Jolt, so I've just assumed that the posts may not have been transfered over.

you are confusing economical politics with internation ones. Just because someone thinks everyone should have close to the same amount income (communistic/socialistic system) doesnt mean they dont want to wage war. I wouldnt say the USSR nor China were very "pro-peace", while they were definatly left wing.

And why would decreasing armies of possibly less than one third of the countries on this world help peace? It would give a signal to the non UN countries that there is no reason to have armies around, since when do those countries listen to what the UN says?
I think that decreasing armies of one third of the countries (who are probably more peaceful than the other two third) would lead to more wars.

Im not against commending people who helped peace. However I dont think the person who helped disarming armies the most helped peace the most. It is probably the person who helped create trade between two countries or helped solving old hatred between countries.

No I am not confused at all; the word liberal means being for freedom and the more freedom people have the less need for war. Four things define liberal as I use the word, freedom, equality (hence economic fairness), democracy, and a belief in peace. That is how I define it anyway. And traditionally I think I am on firm ground. If you have social justice, and freedom and democracy I think you will have more peace. Ultimately peace is an internal thing. The more inner peace people have the more world peace will come about.

My regrets to the Republic of Freedonia on the failure of this resolution. Perhaps redesigning it and classifying it as "Furtherment of Democracy" might garner sufficient support for such an initiative's passage in the future. And no, it wasn't sexist, at least to me.

Lady Adele Kriov
"Queen Mother" of Krioval

Hard luck to the nation of the Republic of Freedonia in the defeat of this proposal. To my mind the proposal was laudible and i am surprised by the adverse reaction to it by some of the members.

The fact that it was ahead in the vote tally up to the day before the deadline and that the voting ended up so close in the end must stick in your craw!

I feel your agony.

Damn right we defeated that silly little resolution. Peace prize! Ha! As if that would have stopped some evil dictator from doing something. The only ones profiting from it would have been the few nations who have their nationals on the board and give the peace prize to each other.
Bloody left-wing, weakling, communist, labour-voting, green-peace-supporting political movements. Just because you want to make yourself looks better. We all know that beneath the shiny facade of your progaganda, it's all just a corrupt, wrotten system one cannot trust or believe anymore.

PS: A word of thanks also to our regional UN-delegate, who successfully convinced/bullied other delegates to vote for our cause by paying them bribes or agreeing to do "special favours" for them.

Damn right we defeated that silly little resolution. Peace prize! Ha! As if that would have stopped some evil dictator from doing something. The only ones profiting from it would have been the few nations who have their nationals on the board and give the peace prize to each other.
Bloody left-wing, weakling, communist, labour-voting, green-peace-supporting political movements. Just because you want to make yourself looks better. We all know that beneath the shiny facade of your progaganda, it's all just a corrupt, wrotten system one cannot trust or believe anymore.

PS: A word of thanks also to our regional UN-delegate, who successfully convinced/bullied other delegates to vote for our cause by paying them bribes or agreeing to do "special favours" for them.

Krioval would like to apologize for this former nation's comments. We believe that, as a province of our larger and more heavily-armed nation, they will in time learn how to be civilized. That goes for their former delegate as well. Have a delightful day.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

Krioval would like to apologize for this former nation's comments. We believe that, as a province of our larger and more heavily-armed nation, they will in time learn how to be civilized. That goes for their former delegate as well. Have a delightful day.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

Haha.
What are you going to do about it? Your national animal, the "gold dragon", which doesn't even exist, proves that you are a nation of silly, naive nation full of dreamers. We on the other side are a country that realises what the real world is like and hence we shall send our war-trained pet Wallabees (look it up in a dictionary, they do exist!) to kick your imaginary gold dragon's imaginary in the bollocks (if gold dragons indeed have them, but since they are imaginary, we'll just imagine they had bollocks, shall we?).

That's as far as teaching us a lesson goes.

Haha.
... are a nation of silly, naive nation full of ....


yes, i fully realise that doesn't seem to make sense. but it's not a grammar or spelling mistake. As the ministry of truth assured me, it is all part of an elaborate plan to take over your country using complicated hidden subliminal messages. just keep reading the sentence over and over again until you are hypnotized and follow our orders.

It's spelled "wallaby", unless you refer to the plural, which is "wallabies".

we've got you rigth were we wanted you. making you look up my "mistakes" in a dictionary is only the first step. soon, you're country will simply be another colony occupied with armed wallabies marching on the streets.


PS: to actually apologise for the spelling: the only reason why i know of wallabies is because of the fantastic drinking song "beastialitly's best, boys". obviously, being intoxicated and only singing it, i had no idea as to the spelling of the word

our sincerest regrets to Freedonia for this proposal being rejected. however, if it is resubmitted, whether in this catagory or under another, we will still oppose it. whilst it is a nobel idea, we dont think it is something for the UN. our best suggestion is to set it up yourself, (OOC: in RP), and run it. we believe something like this is a tad bit too trivial for the UN, which should be dedicating its time to other, more important issues

hey, Andromeda Islands, us Right Wing "nuts" are all for this supposed "freedom" and "peace" that you want! but I don't think that this "freedom" and "peace" is going to come from allowing my self to be shot, bombed and/or attacked with other means, by terrorists, for example. :mp5: :sniper: :eek:

I am free! and you are free! and I have decided with my freedom to not let myself get hurt by being a wimp and opening myself to enemys on purpose :headbang: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have decided to keep the peace through strength! you know those who would kill us if they had the chance can only be kept from it by killing them first :sniper: !!!!!!!!!!!! :(

and the only thing that I see this "peace 'prize'" doing is encouraging those that hate us to do more to hurt us!!!! And if you notice how I am using the word "us"?? I use it because I am thinking of you and every one else not just how much mony that I can make and keep if I do away with the military like some, not nessicaraly you, left wingers would...

peace, love and freedom is what I am all about!

:rolleyes: ;)

btw, no hard feelings because the prize lost! :fluffle: lol!!.....never mind..........

P.S. forgive the grammer and speling mistakes I was in kind of a hurry when I wrote this!!!!! :D

No I am not confused at all; the word liberal means being for freedom and the more freedom people have the less need for war. Four things define liberal as I use the word, freedom, equality (hence economic fairness), democracy, and a belief in peace. That is how I define it anyway. And traditionally I think I am on firm ground. If you have social justice, and freedom and democracy I think you will have more peace. Ultimately peace is an internal thing. The more inner peace people have the more world peace will come about.

you are messing with words. Liberal indeed means being for freedom, which in my country translates to having as less laws as necesarry (which is usually associated with RIGHT wing). Liberals dont want social justice, they want as little laws as possible, because there more laws means less freedom for the people.
Off course this depends on the country, in the US liberals are associated with left wing. However why they are I have absolutly no clue, as in europe its associated with right wing (and it was in my country right wing back in the 19th century, which is way before europe was more socialistic than the US).

Haha.
What are you going to do about it? Your national animal, the "gold dragon", which doesn't even exist, proves that you are a nation of silly, naive nation full of dreamers. We on the other side are a country that realises what the real world is like and hence we shall send our war-trained pet Wallabees (look it up in a dictionary, they do exist!) to kick your imaginary gold dragon's imaginary in the bollocks (if gold dragons indeed have them, but since they are imaginary, we'll just imagine they had bollocks, shall we?).

That's as far as teaching us a lesson goes.

I am afraid that gold dragons actually do exist, we have a few here in the Dark Realm of Unnormalcy. However, it's mainly just fire-breathing chickens, or "Pojos". If you're going to babble about war-trained pet wallabies, you should at least show some respect for other difficult to find creatures, some of which enjoy wallabies as a tasty snack (for Pojos, they are a tough hunt but a meal that lasts for days). Finally, a national animal doesn't have to EXIST. It's a symbol. Quit bashing on Krioval, this wasn't a terribly strong resolution and there's no reason to get mean-spirited.

My idea of left wing is being *Pro-Peace*.
This would be a step in the right direction. I simply don't buy any of the arguments against this proposal.

Left-Wing, or Liberal:
having political or social views favoring reform and progress

tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

I am all of these things. In particular, I prefer the U.N. to take broad steps in securing the protection of civil liberties and equality, and found this resolution neither a broad step nor a beneficial idea. Instead of working to change the world through our legislature, we're instead delegating that job to someone else through a slightly chauvinistic system of crappy awards.

Instead of passing laws promoting peace, we're passing laws creating committees to award other people who promote peace. Do you see the problem here? I will not take such a conservative stance and let something as obnoxiously small as this resolution pass so that people can say that the U.N. has moved towards peace, especially when that movement is already questionably sexist - even before it has had a chance to be corrupted by a committee.

If nations or coalitions of nations want to administer peace prizes, they can do it on their own without the aid of governmental law. U.N. legislation is not necessary for such an idea to be implemented, does not even belong in such a field, and should be better put towards broader, more powerful resolutions that show actual results. Freedonia, your resolution writing skills are excellent, but I recommend you not revisit this topic and instead move on towards bigger and better things.

Let's not give peace a chance. That's far too passive a policy. Let's give peace a submachine gun and a katana and let him mow down strife and conflict with his superior weaponry, as completely self-contradictory as that bad metaphor is. I love me metaphors.

Hearing of the defeat of the UN Peace Prize resolution, the Emperor of Sidestreamer and its UN Ambassador released a joint statement

The Holy Empire of Sidestreamer and the Militaristic Legions and Plans are pleased to see this misguided, alturistic blunder folly before the UN floor and are enthused to see that so many voters, at the last minute, woke up and said "NO" to the ill idea that peace means dropping your weapons and giving in to terrorist rogue nations.

We thank the galliant efforts of the Region of Gatesville for their persuasive might in thwarting this atrocity.

We also thank the Delegates from Feeva, Unexpected Doom and many others for understanding the mistake they were about to make and changing their votes.

Finally, we thank Freedonia, the proposers of this leglislation, for showing the true face of appeasement and terrorism while trying to mask it as "liberalism" and "compassion." Had this passed, the winners of this award would have likely been the first to fall to terrorist regimes, and thankfully, they will not be motivated to stumble before their enemies.

--Welsh
Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer
UN Delegate for the Militaristic Legions and Plans
--Emperor Maximus IV of the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer

To the Ambassador of Sidestreamer:

Your stupid insipid little jibe against Freedonia and those who truly do love peace is unnecessary, uninspired, and just plain revolting. Understand that there are plenty of nations who could annihilate your entire "civilization" at any time without bothering to give notice of the impending destruction. Krioval is one of them. While you may claim entitlement to an opinion, which I do not attempt to dissuade you from expressing, Krioval claims entitlement to obliterating annoying nations at any time. And yet we voted for disarmament. Have a delightful day.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

To the Ambassador of Sidestreamer:

Your stupid insipid little jibe against Freedonia and those who truly do love peace is unnecessary, uninspired, and just plain revolting. Understand that there are plenty of nations who could annihilate your entire "civilization" at any time without bothering to give notice of the impending destruction. Krioval is one of them. While you may claim entitlement to an opinion, which I do not attempt to dissuade you from expressing, Krioval claims entitlement to obliterating annoying nations at any time. And yet we voted for disarmament. Have a delightful day.

Commander Raijin Dekker
Armed Republic of Krioval

All hail the great hypocrisy of Krioval and Raijin Dekker, who threatens force against my state for the statement of fact even as he voted to disarm himself!

Allow me to reiterate. Freedonia doesn't love peace! If they did, the delegate would recognize the power of the arms and wealth in encouraging peace! By encouraging and mandating disarmament, the delegate strips us of wealth, protection, and reason to remain pacified, and encourages rogues to destroy us! The delegate is like the serphant in the Garden of Eden, only this delegate, with God's blessing, has been thwarted!

As for you, you are quite an infant! That you can threaten war over the mere statement of the truth, we have reason to believe you are admitting that you were well aware of this bill's intent and that you have willingly played a role in this attempted leglislative act of terror.

--Welsh

All hail the great hypocrisy of Krioval and Raijin Dekker, who threatens force against my state for the statement of fact even as he voted to disarm himself!

Allow me to reiterate. Freedonia doesn't love peace! If they did, the delegate would recognize the power of the arms and wealth in encouraging peace! By encouraging and mandating disarmament, the delegate strips us of wealth, protection, and reason to remain pacified, and encourages rogues to destroy us! The delegate is like the serphant in the Garden of Eden, only this delegate, with God's blessing, has been thwarted!

As for you, you are quite an infant! That you can threaten war over the mere statement of the truth, we have reason to believe you are admitting that you were well aware of this bill's intent and that you have willingly played a role in this attempted leglislative act of terror.

--Welsh

You have yet to understand the meaning of terror, let alone peace. Should the Hammer of Raijin fall upon you, you would quickly learn the first, and the second would follow, for about a hundred thousand years.

using arms to promote peace..... yeah, whatever

using arms to promote peace..... yeah, whatever

If we outgun you, you won't raise your arms against us, will you?

Case and point.

--Welsh

If we outgun you, you won't raise your arms against us, will you?

Case and point.

--Welsh
we have seen how that works in iraq and vietnam..... if you bomb a country into oblivion, it doesnt bring about peace, it just means the locals resent you even more

If we outgun you, you won't raise your arms against us, will you?

Case and point.

--Welsh

The fact that your nation is in such a precarious position in such affairs astounds me that you would intentionally draw attention to such things. Tempting larger nations to invade you to prove your point, while perhaps considered "brave" in some cultures, is considered idiotic and suicidal in Krioval. Maybe your nation should consider increasing education spending.

Director Koro Vartek

Haha.
What are you going to do about it? Your national animal, the "gold dragon", which doesn't even exist, proves that you are a nation of silly, naive nation full of dreamers. We on the other side are a country that realises what the real world is like and hence we shall send our war-trained pet Wallabees (look it up in a dictionary, they do exist!) to kick your imaginary gold dragon's imaginary in the bollocks (if gold dragons indeed have them, but since they are imaginary, we'll just imagine they had bollocks, shall we?).

That's as far as teaching us a lesson goes.Must ... not ... sucumb ... to ... temptation...

You know, Krioval, I have a puppet that could take out their entire region in one fell swoop. But I'd be happy to give you the right to satisfy your honor and annex them first. Of course, if you want to cooperate... <truly evil, evil, hugely evil grin>

TG me if you're game.

Seriously, I find blustering by little people most unbecoming...

The fact that your nation is in such a precarious position in such affairs astounds me that you would intentionally draw attention to such things. Tempting larger nations to invade you to prove your point, while perhaps considered "brave" in some cultures, is considered idiotic and suicidal in Krioval. Maybe your nation should consider increasing education spending.

Director Koro Vartek

THE FACE OF THE APPEASERS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! THEY ONLY WANT YOU TO PUT YOUR GUNS DOWN SO THEY CAN INVADE YOU!

I dismiss your threats. Go boil your head in muratic acid!

--Welsh

we have seen how that works in iraq and vietnam..... if you bomb a country into oblivion, it doesnt bring about peace, it just means the locals resent you even more

OOC: real life has nothing to do with NationStates, and it is against the rules to use real-life examples for argument. Therefore, I will ignore the examples and only address the general point.

IC:
Bombing a nation into oblivion, as you state it, is not the intention and not what I was arguing for, but if a wise national government was facing that possibility and realized their rivals were benevolent yet mightier than them:

The enemy would not attempt to start open conflict.
The rival, being benevolent in nature, would not use his arms
If that leader was not benevolent, armed allies can hold that rival back with their arms and negociate a peace


--Welsh

OOC: real life has nothing to do with NationStates, and it is against the rules to use real-life examples for argument. Therefore, I will ignore the examples and only address the general point.

IC:
Bombing a nation into oblivion, as you state it, is not the intention and not what I was arguing for, but if a wise national government was facing that possibility and realized their rivals were benevolent yet mightier than them:

The enemy would not attempt to start open conflict.
The rival, being benevolent in nature, would not use his arms
If that leader was not benevolent, armed allies can hold that rival back with their arms and negociate a peace


--Welsh
there is a rule about using real-life examples in proposals, yet nothing about it in the discussion about it. if that was true, the smallpox proposal would be illegal from the get go. i guess i should have put OOC before that statement, but i believe it both OOC and IC. but taking what you have stated into account, it still doesnt bring peace, as it brings a forced peace, and there will be still resentment.
OOC: examples of this is the franco-prussian war (1870-71) and WWI (1914-18)

Bombing a nation into oblivion, as you state it, is not the intention and not what I was arguing for, but if a wise national government was facing that possibility and realized their rivals were benevolent yet mightier than them:

The enemy would not attempt to start open conflict.
The rival, being benevolent in nature, would not use his arms
If that leader was not benevolent, armed allies can hold that rival back with their arms and negociate a peace


--Welsh

OOC: The whole point of this, just for reference's sake, is that Krioval could obliterate your entire society in about a minute and a half, and without warning. We could then claim that the weapon firing was accidental, and "we're so sorry, here, have a trillion dollars". Now, all the armed allies in the world aren't going to snub a payoff when the alternative is a nasty war. Even if ten allies could successfully fight Krioval, there'd be plenty of dissension in the ranks when it was made clear that only seven of them would exist after the war's conclusion. Your list above does apply when there is a reasonable balance of power, but it disintegrates in the face of overwhelming power. And it doesn't take into account various "divide and conquer" strategies or economic warfare, which is Krioval's truly strong point.

there is a rule about using real-life examples in proposals, yet nothing about it in the discussion about it. if that was true, the smallpox proposal would be illegal from the get go. i guess i should have put OOC before that statement, but i believe it both OOC and IC. but taking what you have stated into account, it still doesnt bring peace, as it brings a forced peace, and there will be still resentment.
OOC: examples of this is the franco-prussian war (1870-71) and WWI (1914-18)
The following will be a long OOC rant. You seem to be taking this game seriously so I want you to know a little about how I operate:

OOC: Unlike you, my IC and OOC beliefs are vastly different. The Holy Empire of Sidestreamer and its leadership are evangelical crusaders who are also influenced heavily by an arms lobby and would suffer economically if we were forced to disarm, and furthermore war is but a vehicle for religious conversion. Personally, on the other hand, I think the war in Iraq was not declared for proper reasons, there were no WMDs, and I totally agree that the forced peace and psudeo-democratic process the Bush administration, in an Orwellian twist, calls "freedom" simply isn't. We're going off topic here but I made this character to try to see what my Republican friends are thinking...

But even OOC, I think a bill that awards a peace prize solely on disarmament is misguided. Disarming yourself is one important step in the peace process, but it's only one part of the recipe. Doing that alone will only make you vulnerable. Diplomacy, cooperation, foreign aid and economic/cultural exchange is what's needed to make disarmament work in the peace process. Without those elements, disarming would be like having the Jews agree to voluntarily surrender their arms in Nazi-occupied Germany. May seem like a good gesture on the side of the Jews, but the Nazis are going to steamroll and kill each one of them now. Normally I leave all the Nazi comparasions to right-wing flamers, but in this case, it applies so I must use it.

The following will be a long OOC rant. You seem to be taking this game seriously so I want you to know a little about how I operate:

OOC: Unlike you, my IC and OOC beliefs are vastly different. The Holy Empire of Sidestreamer and its leadership are evangelical crusaders who are also influenced heavily by an arms lobby and would suffer economically if we were forced to disarm, and furthermore war is but a vehicle for religious conversion. Personally, on the other hand, I think the war in Iraq was not declared for proper reasons, there were no WMDs, and I totally agree that the forced peace and psudeo-democratic process the Bush administration, in an Orwellian twist, calls "freedom" simply isn't. We're going off topic here but I made this character to try to see what my Republican friends are thinking...

But even OOC, I think a bill that awards a peace prize solely on disarmament is misguided. Disarming yourself is one important step in the peace process, but it's only one part of the recipe. Doing that alone will only make you vulnerable. Diplomacy, cooperation, foreign aid and economic/cultural exchange is what's needed to make disarmament work in the peace process. Without those elements, disarming would be like having the Jews agree to voluntarily surrender their arms in Nazi-occupied Germany. May seem like a good gesture on the side of the Jews, but the Nazis are going to steamroll and kill each one of them now. Normally I leave all the Nazi comparasions to right-wing flamers, but in this case, it applies so I must use it.
OOC: sometimes i have similar beliefs with my country and outside, sometimes against. me, personally, wouldnt accept sentient robots, but IC i would aknowledge their existence. personally, both IC and OCC this should have been in a different catagory. i think that they wouldnt be giving an award based soley on disarmament, but due to the catagory they put it in, thats what gets affected by the passing of this resolution (which i may remind, didnt pass). as for the other part, i was pointing out, both IC and OOC, that having weapons, and threatening in order to try to bring peace only brings a false peace. that being said, and now i am straying into the general forum here, is there a possibility that we could ever get a true peace, both here in NS and in RL?

Obviously the game mechanics are going to be a constraint on any resolution, whether ths issues raised are IC or OOC. Global disarmament made sense for this resolution. If there were a "Global Disarmament with Diplomatic Agreements and Cultural Exchange" category (Gods help the game designers with *that*!), it would have been perfect. It goes back to the concept of metagaming and what level is appropriate. Considering the resolution as solely a disarmament package is, in my mind (OOC), incorrect - the resolution should be considered in context of its intent. Mismatching categories is something that annoys me, such as a trade restriction being called "Free Trade", but this one was pretty solid. If the text were changed modestly, I could see it being resubmitted as a "Furtherment of Democracy" proposal - the prize would be awarded for the person or organization that improved political rights. It could be "Human Rights" as well.

I find the analogy of the Jews in Nazi Germany to be specious. Jews weren't allowed to be "armed" against the Nazi regime to begin with, and they weren't held in tremendously high regard prior to Hitler's ascension to power. That was part of the problem. So if Krioval really had it in for Sidestreamer, we wouldn't sit back and force a universal disarmament package through and THEN attack. That would cost us too much in international reputation. Instead, we'd wait for the measure to FAIL, and then go after people we didn't like. It's not like IRL I'm some kind of manipulative monster who sets people against one another for the hell of it; after all, I don't run an interplanetary empire that requires such Machiavellian tactics. That's why it's RP in the first place!

So to distill a long post into a sentence, my primary objection to some people's reasoning on various resolutions arises from misunderstanding or misinterpreting (accidentally or otherwise) the very strict limitations on what a UN resolution can do in terms of game effect.

I stand 100% behind my original post,
however I do apologize if I offended anyone,
I do think it unfortunate that this proposal was defeated,
although that doesn't mean it was perfect,
just that it was a good proposal,
I also know that not everyone who voted against is right wing,
that was just a generalization,
which often can get one into trouble.

.... was that I think the UN has a lot more important things to fix and work on. Prices are OK, but in the end it´s just something to put on a shelve, looks good, does nothing, can be twisted for political reasons.

The proposal was good, but I find it more pretty than usefull.

(FONT=Arial Black)xxx(/FONT)

Are you kidding me? This Peace Prize will be the most unnecessary award in the UN . It´s just useless to force states becoming peaceful for a damn prize .


Please be sensible!!!

Last UN Decision

The resolution "UN Peace prize" was defeated 8,811 votes to 8,063.

Second, I honestly can't remember if we get compliance ministry telegrams when resolutions fail. Somehow I thought we don't.

I'm pretty sure we don't. I just thought the phraseology there sounded better. *meh*

OOC: Goober, did you did up a link to the old UN Peace Prize resolution debates for NSWiki? These would be pre-Jolt, so I've just assumed that the posts may not have been transfered over.

I don't think that thread is still extant. The oldest resolution I've been able to find the debates for is Common Sense Act II (#30).

And on that note....*adds this resolution to the timeline*

This has been an OOC post.

ok I have been up since 1 a.m. doing school work!!!! and I am a little behind in using my brain today what is the 'OCC' and the 'IC' :confused: ????

I really feel stupid!!! :headbang:

OOC stands for Out-Of-Character.

IC stands for In Character.

This has been an OOC post.