NationStates Jolt Archive

Honorable Members of the UN;

In greatest urgency, the Administration of the Democratic Republic of Sunteria asks for your delegatory endorsement of the UN Proposition “Third World Water Recycling ”. We find that it is in the best interest of human kind and that it’s feasible and effective methods would increase the quality of life for millions of disadvantaged peoples. Please act quickly as voting ends soon and telegram me with any questions.



PLEASE INFORM YOUR REGIONAL DELEGATES ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL:



Third World Water Recycling

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water,

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries,

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility,

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water,

PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers (United Nations Water Cleansing Committee) who will use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life,

ALLOWING the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption,

CONCLUDES that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water.

FINALLY SUGGESTING that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

Regards,
Chancellor; Dr. Michael Anthony
Democratic Republic of Sunteria

Honorable Members of the UN;

In greatest urgency, the Administration of the Democratic Republic of Sunteria asks for your delegatory endorsement of the UN Proposition “Third World Water Recycling ”. We find that it is in the best interest of human kind and that it’s feasible and effective methods would increase the quality of life for millions of disadvantaged peoples. Please act quickly as voting ends soon and telegram me with any questions.

And because of how big you made your text, I'll note it's an utter piece of crap that only serves to increase the idiocy of humanity as a whole. Alter the text size back to normal and that statement becomes false.

PLEASE INFORM YOUR REGIONAL DELEGATES ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL:

Not at all. I like having an intelligent delegate.

]Third World Water Recycling

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water,

Um, that's not a basic right. That's a privilage. The only actual right is the right to die.

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries,

1. Define "third world country," as in comparison to us you are a third world country.

2. Got something to back this?

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility,

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water,

PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers (United Nations Water Cleansing Committee) who will use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life,

Dear gods of madness, not another damned committee!

ALLOWING the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption,

While leaving in toxic wastes, poisons, etc.

CONCLUDES that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water.

And die, of course.

FINALLY SUGGESTING that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

While increasing inefficiency and managing to waste billions of dollars before they even begin work.

1. Define "third world country," as in comparison to us you are a third world country.This is a good question, actually.

(See? I'm not always hostile...)

Personally, I'd say it is based on the UN's classification of the nations economic strength. A nation with an 'Imploded' economy, would probably count as 3rd World (despite certain nations' habit of claiming 'unique' (which usually reads as 'communist') economic models, which is utter rubbish). I would say the line should probably hover in the 'Good' or 'Fair' ranking.

Which is amusing, in a way. It seems the NS world actually has a "2nd World"...

~Chancellor Birdstuff

This is a good question, actually.

(See? I'm not always hostile...)

Personally, I'd say it is based on the UN's classification of the nations economic strength. A nation with an 'Imploded' economy, would probably count as 3rd World (despite certain nations' habit of claiming 'unique' (which usually reads as 'communist') economic models, which is utter rubbish). I would say the line should probably hover in the 'Good' or 'Fair' ranking.

Which is amusing, in a way. It seems the NS world actually has a "2nd World"...

~Chancellor Birdstuff
OOC:

UN surveys on economic growth confirm that 'The Economy' is a measure of growth, not overall economic strength. Hence, nations with a rating of All-Consuming or Frightening are well within their rights to claim to be a developing/third-world nation. A good example is East Hackney, who models his nation on a socialist atheist India.

In RL, we have China, an undeniably developing country, yet with an economy that could be described as 'All-Consuming', perhaps.

In short, while 'The Economy' is a good indicator of economic growth, it shouldn't be used to define a nation's level of development. We have no appropriate indicator for this, as far as I can see.

Mr. Secretary-General, I announce that this proposal now has 230 endorsements and has reached the resolution queue. For the record, it is in the category of "Human Rights" with a strength of "Significant".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I'll note that it features Another Useless Committee. Also, I'm not sure about these "artificial oases and reserves". Are we talking about sewage treatment plants the size of Reservoirs? Will this even work? I'll have to do some research on this one.

A nation with an 'Imploded' economy, would probably count as 3rd World (despite certain nations' habit of claiming 'unique' (which usually reads as 'communist') economic models, which is utter rubbish).
I agree, it is rubbish. I have a couple of Iron Fist Socialist puppets with "Frightening" economies.

Given that this proposal will likely be the next resolution to reach the floor for debate, my government would like to kindly request that the proponents of this resolution consider drafting their opening arguments. In particular, if it would help, the people of Mikitivity would be interested in some detailed information about the following clause:

ALLOWING the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption,

We look forward to this international discussion on water resources.

Dear gods of madness, not another damned committee!
Agreed, I'm sick of the things. The only way to guarantee nothing is done is to put it up for committee.

I'm also concerned about the definition of 'third world countries' as others have pointed out; NS is a vast place.

That aside, as much as the idea of a massive artificial lake of water is a fun one, how do you propose that poor governments transport the water to poor people. People who possibly live miles away without access to?

Although my vote would probably be against this proposal, should it reach the floor (more than likely) we will abstain.


Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

The quality of water created by these plants will be questionable at best - we demonstrate with this glass of hydrofluoric acid in solution. Anyone care for a drink? It has no phosphates, no nitrates, no salts, no ammonia... safe enough? What of a glass of vodka? Cyanide?

The absence of a definition of 'Third World' is a crippling flaw, regardless of the content of the resolution. As for the content itself, do we really need to create artificial lakes oases, etc as a primary solution? Appropriate drainage and sewage systems would be cheaper and arguably more effective*.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

*OOC: I'll defer to Mik on this issue since he's the expert in the field.

The quality of water created by these plants will be questionable at best - we demonstrate with this glass of hydrofluoric acid in solution. Anyone care for a drink? It has no phosphates, no nitrates, no salts, no ammonia... safe enough? What of a glass of vodka? Cyanide?It isn't especially likely for water in a river to be full of H3O+/ F- ions. Same for alcohol. Thus, neither are even remotely relevant to this case.

Admittedly, cyanide can be a little problematic, near industrial/ mining areas. But the proposal deals at least with some problems (Inefficiently so, but better than nothing), so it hardly requires the rather unproductive kind of comment the not particularly honoured delegate from Vastiva made. Perhaps they should stay in antarctica... Significantly cooler than the equator, easier to cool off.

It isn't especially likely for water in a river to be full of H3O+/ F- ions. Same for alcohol. Thus, neither are even remotely relevant to this case.
This is NS, it's possible. The geology of nations is Diverse.

Admittedly, cyanide can be a little problematic, near industrial/ mining areas. But the proposal deals at least with some problems (Inefficiently so, but better than nothing)
There is a difference between being inefficient and blatantly dangerous. 'Safe for the local population to drink would' have been better or 'containing the optimal mineral content for the local population'.

comment the not particularly honoured delegate from Vastiva made. Perhaps they should stay in antarctica... Significantly cooler than the equator, easier to cool off.
Equator?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

OOC:

UN surveys on economic growth confirm that 'The Economy' is a measure of growth, not overall economic strength. Hence, nations with a rating of All-Consuming or Frightening are well within their rights to claim to be a developing/third-world nation. A good example is East Hackney, who models his nation on a socialist atheist India.

In RL, we have China, an undeniably developing country, yet with an economy that could be described as 'All-Consuming', perhaps.

In short, while 'The Economy' is a good indicator of economic growth, it shouldn't be used to define a nation's level of development. We have no appropriate indicator for this, as far as I can see.

OOC:

Absolutely.

Another example would be Japan, who enjoys an incredible standard of living (HDTVs for everyone) yet their economy could be considered less than fair over the past decade or so.

But I do think there could be an indication (for game sake) using a combination of all three.

I would say, if your economy has imploded, you have no Civil Rights and very little Political freedom...you just might be a 3rd world country...

But again, as you noted before...you have China...But is China a 3rd world communist country?

Or is it a 2nd world Authoritarian Capitalist country?

*OOC: I'll defer to Mik on this issue since he's the expert in the field.

OOC: In real life drinking water quality treatment there are in fact several methods of cleaning raw water. Most regulations work by setting standards that can be measured, then developing standardized proceedures for testing water (in order to get everybody on the same page when it comes to measuring compliance with the standards), and only recommend various options for treatment.

To be honest, I am looking forward to the debate, but I personally feel that it currently reads as though only *one* approach is being promoted, and I would have rather the resolution focus on the need for standards in the water itself ... and maybe then promoting standardized testing methods.

But I'm still hoping that the author will add some more detail in the debate. :)



On an unrelated note, I'm working with my region on what basically will be a salmon protection resolution (not its official name). I'm convinced that RPed green nations / environmentalist nations will love what I'm penning down. But without a doubt I am hoping to revisit international water resources discussions in the next two months. :)

For the record, it is in the category of "Human Rights" with a strength of "Significant".
A resolution to take money out of nations with greater natural resources and hand it to those in need is Social Justice, not Human Rights. If you're willing to take a collective economic hit to set this thing up, go for it. Posting it as Human Rights makes it a freebie, and it's far too big a project to do without money.

I think this is miscategorized. I think it should be removed from Queue.

Discuss.

Fris has a sound point. Unless each nation pays for its own efforts, this is Social Justice. In fact, even then it may be SJ...

Though not numbered the resolution is still divided into a preamble and activating section. The activating clauses are below:

1. PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers (United Nations Water Cleansing Committee) who will use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life,

2. ALLOWING the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption,

3. CONCLUDES that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water.

4. FINALLY SUGGESTING that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.


I've actually *added* numbers. (It honestly is much easier to discuss resolutions when we number our clauses ... though this is not required, I can not stress how important this is.)

Clause 1 doesn't really propose, it ESTABLISHES. The UN has the power to create its own committees, and therefore this is a new responsibility or reorganization of current work. Given that the preamble made it clear that something like this is not currently being done by the UN, I'd say it is safe to say this is new. And based on that, this most certainly will cost somebody something -- how much is a subject for debate, but can be handled via the strength of the category associated with a "Social Justice" resolution.

Clause 2 is actual work mandated to the new committee / international agency. This would be like the RL UN telling the WMO to design bouys or to host a conference ... again, this is something with a cost associated (we might not know how much, but this is a social program).

Clause 3 is really just an opinion. These are fine in activating clauses, but are freebies. There is no cost or category that I'd associate with this clause.

Clause 4 is also an opinion. While the benefit might be an improvement in the quality of life, I see no cost here.

I actually agree with Frisbeeteria, in that this resolution should be revised as a Social Justice resolution. Human Rights are things that change *laws*. For example, the ability to sue somebody for slandering you, would be a human right. Social Justice are things more like day care programs ... I'd even suggest that *some* public works projects might fit in this category.

However, *before* the moderators delete the proposal, I'd request that a copy of the current list of endorsements be posted here, so that the author can try to resubmitt his / her resolution. With enough other resolutions in the queue, this will not distrupt things.

I see nothing illegal with the resolution text, and it seems to really be a simple understanding ... certainly handing a voice-of-mod telegram with a pointer to the list of current endorsements will be viewed as a really *helpful* comment, and probably ease any frustration for having a proposal yanked out of the queue *after* so much hard work as gone into telegramming. (Remember, this proposal probably did not collect over 200 endorsements in the course of just 24-hours ... and it could have been shot down before that.)

However, *before* the moderators delete the proposal, I'd request that a copy of the current list of endorsements be posted here, so that the author can try to resubmitt his / her resolution.
There's already a captured copy (several hours old) saved. The decision has not been made, but I don't think anyone intends to punish the author for this. If it gets removed, he's welcome to resubmit under the correct category. And yeah, I also recommended an approval capture to the game mods.

These cyanide and hydrofluoric solutions that are mentioned here.. Are they runoffs of the processes he might propose to impliment to clean up this water for third worlders... If so what is the possibility of this being used as an effective chemical weapon much worse than some we aready struggle to get rid of.. If anyone can assure us that this will not be more of a problem than solution because of such possible problems then do so.. As this is not clear of what ill effects we may have to deal with.

Theorax BeMonte
Baltic Minister of Health,
UN Advisor on Health Baltic

There's already a captured copy (several hours old) saved. The decision has not been made, but I don't think anyone intends to punish the author for this. If it gets removed, he's welcome to resubmit under the correct category. And yeah, I also recommended an approval capture to the game mods.

Thanks! :)

Could you pass along one more request to the game mods: Ask the author to revisit this thread ... perhaps telegramming a URL. While I understand the purpose of coaching and handing a list of endorsements to a player is ultimately based on the assumption that UN Delegates will be happy with the category change, I think it couldn't hurt to run the proposal through a few other grammatical touches, like numbering the activating clauses and also changing the verbs in the activating clauses to _active tense_ verbs, such as:

1. ESTABLISHES ...

2. AUTHORIZES ...

3. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE ...

4. SUGGESTS ...

The rest of the text can be left to stand or fall on its own (original) merit. But I think the above changes to the last four clauses will really make it clear what is being done (clauses 1 & 2) and what is just a statement (clauses 3 & 4).

*OR*

If you feel this is out of line, please let me know and I'd like to telegram the author and make the suggestion myself and stress that my opinion is just that ... the opinion of another UN member. Not a Delegate, not a moderator. :)

You do it.

:D

Should be removed for miscategorization.

You do it.

:D

Taken care of! :) Where is the screen capture or copied list? I couldn't find that in this thread (obviously I can grab my own copy and save it), but it sounded like one was posted somewhere on the forums???

Members of the forum and moderators of NationStates,

TheFreeDictionary.com defines a right as: Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.

For reference, science defines humans as animals.

I find that the proposal does fit in this category, based on this definition. It is inhumane to leave one without water, and I consider access to water a very basic right. Should others not agree, however, it still does not make sense to me that one would desire to remove such a proactive, positive resolution.

It is unfair to myself, my 275+ delegate supporters, and quite especially to those who would benefit from this resolution. The great down fall for me as the author, is that I simply do not have time to bring this proposal up to quorum again if it does not reach the UN floor this time. If anyone so adamantly opposes this idea, it is his or her right to repeal this resolution after it is voted on.

The original definition of Third World, as I understand it, refers to nations whose economy is developing – these nations are clearly marked as being “Developing” on their NationStates homepage.

As for the science behind it, a very basic idea of the concept can be read here: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/kids/water/story1/fishwasteframe.htm

The resolution also provides for a team of scientist and engineers who will solve any problems the project meets on the way.

This is my response to this thread’s claims. I cannot explain my vision any better.
Please reconsider any action against this proposition, the betterment of millions of lives is at risk.

Thank you,
Chancellor Michael Anthony

Members of the forum and moderators of NationStates,

TheFreeDictionary.com defines a right as: Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.


However, the NationStates UN forum rules on proposals has a different definition about what the "definitions" or meanings of the proposal categories are.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

Go to the second post and read the section on Social Justice and Human Rights proposals. Your resolution isn't stopping at just saying people have a right to clean water, but actually tells the UN how it will create cleaner water.

I think this is why there is a debate about your resolution category.

If it makes you feel better, I've been in your shows. I had a proposal that was about to reach quorum that was deleted by a game moderator for being in the wrong category. I still disagree, but I had a different game moderator look over the proposal and he felt my proposal fit into *two* categories and suggested I trim my idea down.

If you want to say "people have the human right to clean water", that is one idea. If you want to create a UN agency to clean water, that is a different idea, with a different category.

I think you've made an honest mistake, but I would like to encourage you to consider that perhaps Social Justice is the appropriate category and just try again. Having to retelegram hundreds of nations is a true pain, but only in the short-term.

The binding definitions you have provided for, do not discriminate "Third World Water Recycling" from the Human rights category - which deals with rights as I have described them in my pervious post - and certainly do not allow it into the Social Justice category - which deals with economic freedom.

The original statement claiming the proposal to be miscategorized was:
A resolution to take money out of nations with greater natural resources and hand it to those in need is Social Justice, not Human Rights. If you're willing to take a collective economic hit to set this thing up, go for it. Posting it as Human Rights makes it a freebie, and it's far too big a project to do without money.

Sunteria notes that it is nearly impossible to make a resolution in any category which does not require the consumpton of some money. It is the responsibility of the UN to provide for this. I certainly do not think that money is not an issue which is debatable in this case.

If there was a legitimate cause for deletion, I would support the idea, inspite of the effort to achieve quorum. In this case, I think it is very clear that this proposal fits in the Human Rights category. The establishment of the UN committee is an attempt at furthering human rights, without question.

Lastly and on a minor note, such techniques as those required by this resolution are effective, scientifically valid, and in use in some regions of the world today.

Regards,
Chancellor; Dr. Michael Anthony

This might be a little biased coming from the regional UN delegate for the writer of this proposal, but I'll say this:

Useless Committee or not, water sucks in third world countries. It needs to be cleaned.

And would someone care to explain why this shouldn't be passed while the current resolution on the floor is speeding through unopposed despite that it prohibits any resolution in the future from banning the use of weapons, ever?

The binding definitions you have provided for, do not discriminate "Third World Water Recycling" from the Human rights category - which deals with rights as I have described them in my pervious post - and certainly do not allow it into the Social Justice category - which deals with economic freedom.

The original statement claiming the proposal to be miscategorized was:
*snip*


That statement is a quote from either this forum or a moderator note sent to you, right? In either case, that is something somebody wrote after reading both the UN proposal rules for NationStates and your proposal.

Here is where I think you are wrong about the "Human Rights" classification. The rules describe the following:

Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

The key here is that civil freedoms aren't tangible assests like actually having food or water. A resolution mandating indoor plumbing at all schools, isn't a "human rights" resolution, because it is not increasing the freedom of thought or speech or religion etc. It is an actual government program ... a "social program" in fact.

What I believe you are confusing is the justification (humanitarianism) for the action (social justice). The idea that school children should have working toliets in their schools and other basic sanitation ideas are humanitarian as _justifications_, but the actual implementation comes from public works.

OOC: As a real-life public sector engineer and government employee whos job it is to help protect water quality, I make no mistake that my job is justified as improving everybody's quality of life, but that my day to day tasks are social / public works programs. You've written an interesting resolution! :) But you've also written a resolution that according to the rules of this game *and* even in real life is a public works project (aka social justice resolution).

As for taxation, in this game, a resolution saying you can walk around naked in public would be Human Rights. It is a civil liberty ... and doesn't carry with it a government mandate. A resolution saying that you should have clean air, is designed to improve your quality of life, but cares with it a mandate that our governments clean your air ... normally this would be public works, though in nationstates, we have a special category for environmental related quality issues: environmental. There is no real "water" related category, so I don't think I'd call your idea environmental ... thus the catch all "big government" category probably fits best.

This might be a little biased coming from the regional UN delegate for the writer of this proposal, but I'll say this:

Useless Committee or not, water sucks in third world countries. It needs to be cleaned.

And would someone care to explain why this shouldn't be passed while the current resolution on the floor is speeding through unopposed despite that it prohibits any resolution in the future from banning the use of weapons, ever?

Vastiva will be happy to be dumping sulfuric and hydrofluoric acids into all third world water supplies, completely compliant with this resolution.

Now do you see why? It is far too weak. It is also miscategorized.

OOC: As a real-life public sector engineer and government employee whos job it is to help protect water quality, I make no mistake that my job is justified as improving everybody's quality of life, but that my day to day tasks are social / public works programs.
Mikitivity, putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not this is miscategorized (theres no question, it is), in your opinion do you think this is even feasible? Wouldn't a more reasonable approach be to drill wells, construct cisterns and install some sort of septic system? I understand that the point of the resolution is to recycle the water, but I would think that providing clean water and adequate sanitation should be our first concern regardless of whether or not the water is recycled. In other words, if we are to put the money and effort into this shouldn't we use the most effective methods that are known to work?

Mikitivity, putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not this is miscategorized (theres no question, it is), in your opinion do you think this is even feasible? Wouldn't a more reasonable approach be to drill wells, construct cisterns and install some sort of septic system? I understand that the point of the resolution is to recycle the water, but I would think that providing clean water and adequate sanitation should be our first concern regardless of whether or not the water is recycled. In other words, if we are to put the money and effort into this shouldn't we use the most effective methods that are known to work?

In Character:
I'd like to think about your suggestions some more, but your approach does seem more reasonable. Off-hand, I think one fundamental way to protect drinking water supplies is to design systems to keep the conveyance of waste water separate from the conveyance of drinking water. The problem is that conveyance facilities are often expensive, thus in some nations, natural rivers, streams, and canals are used.

We could recommend a series of water management practices, but I think the author's goal here is to pursue low-cost alternatives. A septic system sounds like a wonderful idea (one my government endorses), and would reduce the short-term need for two canals to villages: one canal to bring clean water, one canal to remove dirty water.

Perhaps we can find information about the costs of your proposed alternative.

The defnition of Human Rights is said to "primarily deal with" civil liberties. This still allows for my proposal, because of the definition of a right.

In other words, if we are to put the money and effort into this shouldn't we use the most effective methods that are known to work?
This method is known to work and is currently in use in the southwestern United States, and elsewhere. It is also highly cost effective and will consume less money than nearly any other water purification method on a long term scale.

The defnition of Human Rights is said to "primarily deal with" civil liberties. This still allows for my proposal, because of the definition of a right.


This method is known to work and is currently in use in the southwestern United States, and elsewhere. It is also highly cost effective and will consume less money than nearly any other water purification method on a long term scale.
We are in agreement with the spirit of your proposal. We all want to provide adequate drinking water to underdeveloped nations. We will study the costs and the effectivness of your proposal as opposed to more traditional methods. As it stands, if it comes to vote we would abstain rather than oppose.

In Character:
I have no opposition to how anyone votes this issue on the UN floor, provided that it reaches there at the request of over 300 Delegates. (Over 12%)

Out of Ch.:
I just have to say that I saw your little quote there , and I love Oscar Wilde. My favorite quote of his is:

"The play was a great success, but the audience was a disaster."

EDIT: I could swear Yelda had a Wilde quote on the last message, nevermind.

Finally, something to vote FOR.

Finally, something to vote FOR.

Don't you love how the next two resolutions (both of which I'm sure you'd vote FOR for) are likely both going to be ruled illegal?

Finally, the moment of truth.

After several days of discussion by all the moderators who regularly police the UN, along with careful reading and re-reading of this topic; a majority consensus has been reached that this proposal is indeed miscategorized. Consequently, it has been removed from queue.

The author has not and will not be warned for this removal. In fact, we encourage the resubmittal under the correct category of Social Justice. It is my personal and non-official suggestion that the author (or anyone else, for that matter) post a draft here for fine-tuning before resubmission. Perhaps a few of those pesky arguments can be successfully addressed before it is resubmitted.

The author has also made it clear that s/he does not have time to persue a telegram campaign for another submission. I would think that volunteers from here and UN supporting regions would be willing to shoulder a large portion of that burden. Mind you, that's just a suggestion.

In the spirit of allowing every reasonable opportunity for repassage, here is the proposal, along with the final list of appoving delegates. Good luck.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Third World Water Recycling
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sunteria

Description: OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water,

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries,

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility,

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water,

PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers (United Nations Water Cleansing Committee) who will use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life,

ALLOWING the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption,

CONCLUDES that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water.

FINALLY SUGGESTING that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

Approvals: 315 (Darth Mall, The Philosophes, Caldane, Hogs Head, Sel Appa, President Wesley Jones, Wesleys, Nevscrow, Nicolaisya, Free World Trade, Rolling Stone, Juna Esperantisto, Benneria, Lv-3246, Tambien, Islamic Vatican City, Zealotos, Zouloukistan, Athalazan, Geekopolous, Tbohner, Mayve, Spaz Land, Phlogisten, Berenice, Jacob_is_our_king, Jaghur, Funkdunk, Jiangland, Kao-nohio-ka-la, Finbergia, Cemendur, DSM-IV, Gaiah, Blue Snake, SouEu, Purpleation, Ipsenic ruins, Domzalski, Sean Sweeney, Rikodovia, New Fantasticland, Theorb, Jonathalia, Starps, Italia Major, Pharan, Suuropolis, Rexdale, Andaras Prime, Emerald Phoenix, The Inner Universe, Oilsjt, Trouserdom, Antrium, Benitos Worshippers, The Derrak Quadrant, Kilobugya, The Grand Mystic, Corkavia, Quillota, The Sthans, Greater Tiki, Rockatyranny, OBSA, Jugaria, Skrelnek, Bacidov, Arlona, Garlie, Region 29, Lunatic Retard Robots, Torregal, The Shadow-Kai, Jacobins IV, Tierra de Dea, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Kaushland, SouthFerns, Dorig, Drunken Butterfly, Euphavias, Refill Pad, Dystopian Earth, Republic of Freedonia, The Iroqouis, SOC Intelligence, Westgatia, MichaelJordan, Good Band Names, Dizziness, B-arch, Juthopia, Of Cascadia, Monadnock, Pawerse, Johnflagg, Palzac, Shester, Kilronia, Hakenium, Zero infinity, Male Love, Mattabooloo, Simonist, Peg-Leg Esmerelda, Sabrinedia, Blamange, Ishkibible, Latouria, Tibrekis, Zyxibule, -Dutopia-, Alean, Corradeo, Mythila, Venerable libertarians, Ficticious Proportions, Sinsvyka, King Abbudabbi, Theahens, Kamikastan, Pturbu, Hashishim Emirates, Darkreigner, Tundwe, Novaya Zemlaya, Freeness and stuff, Stumpy Midgets, Hild, Ngaire, Lofeca, Caradune, FC Dallas, Cockeysville, Darker Autumn, Emiliania, Assington, Agsaricum, Beruth, Tra Poland, Dukakis-Bentsen, Unction, SteamEngine, Samohtian Love, Krobaria, Barba001, Bernardi, Freedmark, Joeynova, Chiw, Krinnia, The Necromangers, Nexwald, French Conscripts, Laurinians, Kelh, Great Geniuses, Unknown Peoples, Atlantinas, Jedi Death, Murdoque, Dark Weaponry, Joannaville, Iustinia, Pirus, Utter Brocklebanks, A Dose of Reality, Carestithon, Darth vadertown, Brainy100111, My ring, New Thyme, Askalaria, Saxnot, Die Faust, Chembuddha, Cieszyn, North Koster, Bmwx5, Naravostia, Haradin, Great Computers, Canabis Smokers, The snakepit, Kevination, The Great UP, Jezabell, Kluane, Ignorant Peoples, Equitarius, Tropfest, Moroboshi, Aztec National League, Weserkyn, Liongate, Nekkid Gaurds, North Switzerland, Aamericah, Tsukame, Jello Biafra, Disenchanted Students, Potinum, Albertopolis, Kincheloe, Klashonite, Neogonda, The Nirelands, Serinistad, Barfieldslande, Rostum, Saint Les, Little Carabetta, Ushani, Emochny, Flibberty Gibbert, Lord Grimlen, Hegartydom, The Talisman, Goregia, Neo Mata Nui, Czardas, Sceptical States, The Future Reich, Bombolobolia, Bielzabites, Logostan, Nichan, LouFerringoland, Photoptics, Bakaraka, WitchOne, Blaming, Seattletonia, Gluckman, Stars of Sky, Richard2008, GRIFFINKOV, Mibtania, Celebgil, Tombaka, Gothic Gecko, Fideland, CTerryland, Derektown, MastahBlastah, Andyman II, Brunelian BG advocates, Lunaria Mirandia, Ethernal damnnation, Crankton, Knuckles Promised Land, Faradawn, Shiaze, Charleno, Liberal Fascism, Ness Snorlaxia, Post Arabia, Luna Amore, Dune Bear Infamy, Star Gate Command, Aligned Planets, Tannu Tuval, Hanaukyo, Allomos, KSR Devills, Mangodick, Bobton-on-sea, Chronic Overeating, Behinds, Fudgeburketania, Jagraphess, Grahamski, Brettle, Metasequoia, Czechnom, Lubbadub, Eve the First, World Utopia, Sawx Nation, Parkorio, Ancients Tomatoes, Srekcuskcid, Soft Shadows, Yotimmoto, Voltairea, The Bruce, Kickassonia, Tuaisceart Eireann, Crasher Basher mk2, Norad258, BMgoau, Noxinland, Guditushuz, Sinns right hand, The Indias To be Found, Hobbitz, Boxemia, DIVER STEVE, Joshuaous Ramoses, Spawn00, Lorcadaka, Microdell, Ginnoria, Peachydom, MarketFresh, Ulstrup, Toupees, North Dutchfieldia, Lior Liechtenstein, Fusion-Ztech, Edessia, Joseph Seal, Pappy Meeses, Aquarian Arcadia)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

I have been defeated. Well, I cannot truly complain, as it seems that - in general - I have gained strong support and the moderators judged against the resolution only out of fairness.

I do, however, plan to again lend the name of Sunteria to this proposal (I believe this to be the fourth time) should there be enough support to do so.

First I request that anyone propose amendments to "Third World Water Recycling" to make it a better, stronger resolution. Once this is through, the telegrams must be sent.

As I stated previously, I simply do not have the time to launch another exhaustive telegram campaign alone, but Frisbeeteria has proposed an interesting possibility: I would think that volunteers from here and UN supporting regions would be willing to shoulder a large portion of that burden. Mind you, that's just a suggestion.

If anyone is interested in aiding me with a new campaign please contact me and I will send you a short list of UN Delegates to contact once the revised proposal has been resubmitted. A positive point is that we already have the names of our UN supporters.

Should I not gain enough support for my telegram campaign, I will not be able to resubmit the revised proposal.

Any suggestions ( here or by telegram ) are welcomed.

Regards,
Chancellor; Dr. Michael Anthony
Democratic Republic of Sunteria

I have a *draft* suggested rewrite of your resolution:

Third World Water Recycling
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sunteria

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries;

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility;

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water;

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee, to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

3. BELIEVES that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water; and

4. SUGGESTS that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

As for help telegramming, I will have some free time on Sunday and would be happy to send telegrams. May I suggest that you write and post a form letter for those of us that volunteer to use on your behalf. :)

You are brilliant. I will do that, (but first, let's change that "Category: Human Rights" to "Category: Social Justice" to be safe)

Use this form; (Also, tell me how many names you want.)


Honorable UN Delegate;

This proposal reaces you on the behalf of Chancellor; Dr. Michael Anthony of Suntria via courier nation. As you are surely aware, your Delegatory endorsement of "Third World Water Recycling" was greatly appreciated. We reached quorum ahead of schedule, ultimating with an astonishing 315 endorsements. Unfortunately, due to miscategorization is was stricken by moderators before reaching the UN floor. We kindly ask you for your re-endorsement of the new, improved proposal "Establish UNWCC" which is based on the same principles. Any questions are welcome to Sunteria.

Greatest thanks once more,
Chancellor; Dr. Michael Anthony


If the proposal is resubmitted, this form will do fine.

Thanks very much.

Great letter! :)

I propose that after nations are telegrammed that volunteers list off which nations they send a message to here *and* edit their posts. Hopefully this will work. With 315 endorsements (which is amazing), if we had 30 volunteers, each of us would need to send only about 10 telegrams.

Draft 2:

Establish UNWCC

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sunteria

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

OBSERVING the neglect of the basic Human Right to sanitary water;

NOTING that lack of sanitary water is the leading cause of death in third world countries;

FURTHER NOTING the absence of past resolutions in favor of sanitary water and its accessibility;

IN THE INTEREST OF providing third world regions with sanitary water;

1. ESTABLISHES a new UN funded committee of scientists and engineers, the United Nations Water Cleansing Committee (UNWCC), to use the sewage and waste water pumped in from surrounding areas to create fresh, sanitary water by means of plant life;

2. AUTHORIZES the committee to create artificial oases and reserves which will hold water and use hydroponic plants to cleanse the waste-water of all phosphorous, nitrates, salts, and ammonia which render it unfit for human consumption;

3. BELIEVES WITH SCIENTIFIC MERIT that the water, having been cleansed by these plants, will be sanitary enough for those disadvantaged peoples who previously had limited access to quality water; and

4. SUGGESTS that the establishment of the UNWCC would further human rights and raise the quality of life for millions of people.

OK, the only other suggestion I have is if you want to limit the scope of this resolution to regions that don't already have other forums of sanitary systems ... like villages perhaps? I don't know if that need be included in text or not (perhaps in the preamble / top half).

Something to think about tonight. :)

Although I didn't previously endorse the resolution, I believe it deserves the opportunity to be put to a vote, so I will endorse it this time around.

Good luck.

Don't you love how the next two resolutions (both of which I'm sure you'd vote FOR for) are likely both going to be ruled illegal?


How did they get ruled "illegal" and the Security resolution (which was totally a 'Backdoor" proposal) not?


Can i put a No means Yes and a Yes means No proposal?

Cause if those are good here...we can have some fun.

Category violation - they're rather strict on that one. Sucks, but oh well.

Category violation - they're rather strict on that one. Sucks, but oh well.


Oh, is it going to be re-submitted under the proper "category".


I posted about a year ago and everyone who opposed it claim to violate the category.


At the time it made no sense to me...now I understand it's a proper way to scuttle a proposal you didn't like...


Understand now.

Oh, is it going to be re-submitted under the proper "category".


I posted about a year ago and everyone who opposed it claim to violate the category.


At the time it made no sense to me...now I understand it's a proper way to scuttle a proposal you didn't like...


Understand now.

The mods put a new explanation for categories up - and that's how you can make sure you're entering it into the proper category.

Both Bio-weapons replacement and this one have been resubmitted with the minor modifications they needed.

The mods put a new explanation for categories up - and that's how you can make sure you're entering it into the proper category.

Both Bio-weapons replacement and this one have been resubmitted with the minor modifications they needed.


Hopefully some trust can be reasserted. I don't mind strengthen arms, but I must demand strength in Human rights, the Environment, and social justice as well.

Bold steps that will dramatically change the lives of everyone involved...for the good.

On all corners...clean air. clean water. preserved lands. Universal Equality. Conversion of off-shore oil rigs to wind farms.


Bold steps that will affect millions of lives...come on...I'm sick of only working on terrorists, if you're that scared...there's issues you can legislate.

Tit for tat.

To be just one...is very myopic.

I'd rather leave the UN and go the Issues rout.


If the UN will be lopsided, damn If I have too.

I will like to add, I would thoroughly support a much much stronger International security and Furthering of Democracy resolutions if we get a string of strong Environmental, Human Rights, Social Justice, Free Trade, and Global disarmament resolutions.



Man, if they gave me comfortable safe grads to protect quality of life.


I'd give them all their toys.

We've aslready had a huge string of Environmental resolutions last year - about 4 or five. I for one don't want to see another one that isn't really well written, and addressing something new. We've also had (lesser) strings of human rights and social justice, but fewer resolutions overall in the Free Trade and Security categories.

It is resubmitted as "Establish UNWCC".
If you want to help telegram people, tell me and I'll send you a list and message from me to use.

I don't think the title is an improvement, to be honest. I think 'developing' is a better term than 'third world' as well. Ah, well. You have my endorsement anyway.

We've aslready had a huge string of Environmental resolutions last year - about 4 or five. I for one don't want to see another one that isn't really well written, and addressing something new. We've also had (lesser) strings of human rights and social justice, but fewer resolutions overall in the Free Trade and Security categories.

Technically that should be greater strings (back-to-back) of Human Rights resolutions than Environmental in 2004:

Environmental: 3
Banning Whaling
Sustainbable Energy Sources
Reduction of Green House Gases

Human Rights: 4
Rights of Minorities and Women
Definition of Marriage
Stem Cell Research Funding
The Eon Convention on Genocide

There have been significantly more Human Rights resolutions in 2003, 2004, and 2005 than any other resolution category, with a total (including repeals) of 43. There have been a total of 17 Environmental resolutions *considered* in that same time.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your opinion on what you'd like to see in new Environmental resolutions. In fact, I too would like to see Environmental resolutions written to a higher caliber (in fact, I'm in the second draft of my own proposal for an environmental resolution on a subject we've *not* yet seen). :)


Edit:
I've telegramed 25 of those nations. :)