NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is currently located here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/27323/page=UN_proposal/start=1

...this link will be updated as soon as practical whenever the proposal location in the list changes.

The proposal:
======================================================
NOTING bioweapons are an unpredictable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection. Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a negligible (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations.

TAKING NOTE of the need for nations to develop effective defenses against such bioweapons.

FURTHER TAKING NOTE of the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

REALIZING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. The possession, production, trafficking or use (either directly or through proxy) of bioweapons as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

2. Exception is made to Article 1 for trace amounts of no more than 250mg of any bioweapons required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured against risk of any infection to anyone. They are to be so secured within a multi-tier (minimum of 2 tier) quarantined building in that nation, and kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation or known to be in the possession of its citizenry must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, or if present in an infected individual through immediate isolation and treatment.

4. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

STRONGLY URGES:

5. UN member nations to employ trade sanctions or incentives as they see fit to any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution, in any circumstances where the application of such sanctions or incentives would represent an effective means to having that nation abandon such bioweapons.

6. UN member nations issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a nation/nations employs bioweapons against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.
========================================================

This proposal has been submitted in anticipation of what now seems to be the reasonably likely (and in our opinion entirely appropriate) removal of the UN Security Act from the list of proposals. If for some reason the mods should decide to allow a proposal which is clearly nothing but an attempt to restrict the legislation of the entire Global Disarmament category (regardless of what loopholes its proponents would like to point out that technically allow you to get around that restriction) then we will await a ruling on whether or not that proposal actually makes this one illegal or whether one of those loopholes allows it's passage regardless.

Greetings.

You have our support. We have long thought it heinous to be using other life-forms as weapons. Even dolphins.

As the current elected delegate of the FSA. we, The Most Serene Republic of Berenice grant our support to this proposal. Biological weapons must be banned completely.

Before anyone bothers wasting their time supporting this, note it will be repealed for a lack of proper definitions. The reason why is easily demonstrated.

Main Entry: vi·rus
Pronunciation: 'vI-r&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, venom, poisonous emanation; akin to Greek ios poison, Sanskrit visa; in senses 2 & 4, from New Latin, from Latin
1 archaic : VENOM 1
2 a : the causative agent of an infectious disease b : any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : FILTERABLE VIRUS c : a disease caused by a virus
3 : something that poisons the mind or soul <the force of this virus of prejudice -- V. S. Waters>
4 : a computer program usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program that produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and that usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data)

That entry provides a total of six definition definitions. Of those, this resolution has enough indication to say that the final definition is not applicable but does not contain enough information to rule out the other five. Thus, this could as easily be making the ownership and use of venoms in medicine, which while deadly can also be potent cures to certain ailments, potentially illegal just because the venoms themselves were created originally with the intent to kill. This also means it is perfectly legal for a nation to own, say, an Ebola-HIV hybrid and use it by simply saying they believed the proposal to be talking about venoms in that instance.

In addition to all of those, this proposal potentially makes catching certain diseases illegal, as the definition includes the diseases viruses cause, and humans or possibly all life illegal, due to the fact that living things sometimes accidentally cause diseases and the causes of diseases are included under the word "virus."

Please note that a link to this post will be TGed to everyone who supports this proposal. We cannot repeal a resolution because of a lack of definitions only to replace it with one that has the same problem.

Before anyone bothers wasting their time supporting this, note it will be repealed for a lack of proper definitions. The reason why is easily demonstrated.

Still at it I see...

That entry provides a total of six definition definitions.

Why so it does. Let's look at them shall we?

1 archaic : VENOM 1

First of all, proposals are written in modern english, not in archaic dialects. This doesn't apply. but even if it DID if the "venom" met the criteria outlined in the proposal of being biological and contagious it would be banned. As intended.

2 a : the causative agent of an infectious disease

So long as it's a biological, contagious causative agent... banned. As intended.

b : any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : FILTERABLE VIRUS c : a disease caused by a virus

Biological? Contagious? Yes? That qualifies. Banned. As intended.

3 : something that poisons the mind or soul

If it's biological and contagious and poisons through infection... yup. Banned. As intended.

Of those, this resolution has enough indication to say that the final definition is not applicable but does not contain enough information to rule out the other five.

The computer program is obviously ruled out by the terms of the definition. And your Ebola HIV hybrid clearly falls under a category of virus specified by the proposal.

Where's this great problem you're supposed to be pointing out?

Please note that a link to this post will be TGed to everyone who supports this proposal. We cannot repeal a resolution because of a lack of definitions only to replace it with one that has the same problem.

The definition of what constituted biological weaponry is perfectly well defined in this proposal. Feel free to TG as many supporters as you like. I doubt many of them will be buying your obvious attempt to avoid having anything resembling a weapons ban enacted.

Still at it I see...

31 TGs sent so far.

Why so it does. Let's look at them shall we?

This shall be good.

First of all, proposals are written in modern english, not in archaic dialects. This doesn't apply. but even if it DID if the "venom" met the criteria outlined in the proposal of being biological and contagious it would be banned. As intended.

Here, this shall help:

Main Entry: con·ta·gious
Pronunciation: -j&s
Function: adjective
1 : communicable by contact : CATCHING <contagious diseases>
2 : bearing contagion
3 : used for contagious diseases <a contagious ward>
4 : exciting similar emotions or conduct in others <contagious enthusiasm>
- con·ta·gious·ly adverb
- con·ta·gious·ness noun

Technically, all poisons are contagious, and quite a few are also biological. Oh, and I should note that the archaic definitions are still in use, just not as common, in modern english.

However, I must now call you on a lie. You said you intended to make venoms illegal if they met the criteria, which they do. However, your intention was to ban viruses as in the organisms, not viruses as in venoms, due to trying to deal with weapons of mass destruction, which venoms clearly are not. Thus, this does something outside your intent.

So long as it's a biological, contagious causative agent... banned. As intended.

Once again, that lie pops up.

Biological? Contagious? Yes? That qualifies. Banned. As intended.

That also includes humans in the category, due to humans sometimes being the accidental cause of a disease. Now you're outlawing people.

If it's biological and contagious and poisons through infection... yup. Banned. As intended.

Those are two different definitions in that section. Now, to top it all off, you're banning all diseases caused by viruses in addition to the viruses themselves. Once again, this creates a question of whether or not you are trying to outlaw people getting sick.

The computer program is obviously ruled out by the terms of the definition. And your Ebola HIV hybrid clearly falls under a category of virus specified by the proposal.

I noted that one does not fit in my post. I figured it would be obvious.

As for my Ebola-HIV hybrid: It's only outlawed if the proposal makes it clear it's talking about that. It doesn't make it clear if it is using one definition or using as many as possible, therefore the word is open to interpretation.

Where's this great problem you're supposed to be pointing out?

That your lack of a definition potentially expands the ban in directions you did not intend and that it also leaves it open for people to get around the ban by only using one definition of the five they can choose from that are applicable.

The definition of what constituted biological weaponry is perfectly well defined in this proposal. Feel free to TG as many supporters as you like. I doubt many of them will be buying your obvious attempt to avoid having anything resembling a weapons ban enacted.

Yeah. It's so "well defined" that the definitions of virus potentially make all virus-caused diseases illegal (definition 2c), potentially makes many medications illegal (definition 1), and potentially makes either people or life itself illegal (definition 2a).

Oh, and thanks. I'll be editting my post to include that now.

Technically, all poisons are contagious, and quite a few are also biological.

And if they harm, incapacitate or kill the host... banned.

However, I must now call you on a lie. You said you intended to make venoms illegal if they met the criteria, which they do. However, your intention was to ban viruses as in the organisms, not viruses as in venoms, due to trying to deal with weapons of mass destruction, which venoms clearly are not. Thus, this does something outside your intent.

My intention was to ban contagious biological weapons which present an unnacceptable risk in their deployment as far as I am concerned.

That also includes humans in the category, due to humans sometimes being the accidental cause of a disease. Now you're outlawing people.

Listen genius. Are humans contagious and infectious? No.

I'm quite finished playing along with your "I can't understand the proper meaning and context of any word unless provided with a 400 page defining appendix" act. The statements contained in that defining clause are perfectly clear in their intent.

As for my Ebola-HIV hybrid: It's only outlawed if the proposal makes it clear it's talking about that.

Which it does. I'm not playing your game DLE. Have fun convincing any other significant number of people that monumental deliberate obtuseness is valid rational grounds for a legal argument.

The UN delegation of the Great Britian & Ireland Dominion of the British Antarctic Territories waves its banner in favor of this proposal, as indicated.

And if they harm, incapacitate or kill the host... banned.

Do I really need to point out the stupidity of that arguement? Guess what? That can be applied to dogs as well. Or humans. Or anything else alive for that matter.

My intention was to ban contagious biological weapons which present an unnacceptable risk in their deployment as far as I am concerned.

Which doesn't include venoms, as the antidotes to them are typically so common and the risks of getting them used on you so common that antidotes should be a part of every medical unit and hospital.

Listen genius. Are humans contagious and infectious? No.

Actually, yes. Most humans themselves carry a wide variety of pathogens in their blood, saliva, and other bodily fluids. While humans are immune to many of these, not all organisms are. In fact, your average human is a walk biological weapon factory, their bodies producing or housing dozens of different pathogens that a single mutation in any of them could cause a widespread epidemic, killing billions.

I'm quite finished playing along with your "I can't understand the proper meaning and context of any word unless provided with a 400 page defining appendix" act. The statements contained in that defining clause are perfectly clear in their intent.

If they're so perfectly clear, then why can't you refute the challenges beyond a few statements that are mostly untrue and don't actually prove anything?

Which it does. I'm not playing your game DLE. Have fun convincing any other significant number of people that monumental deliberate obtuseness is valid rational grounds for a legal argument.

Point out where. Give me an exact quote from your proposal that leaves absolutely no room for doubt. And don't feed me any of this "the definition is perfectly clear because I say so" bullshit you've been trying to pull. Only a total and complete lack of the ability to think accepts that as true, especially when they bother to read what has been presented.

What I'm debating isn't obtuseness, but common sense so basic that I bet even the average dog can see the truth in my statements. I haven't even attempted obtuseness since the current draft was made, but tried pointing out something so painfully obvious that only complete ignorance of the English language combined with a lobotomy could miss.

Do I really need to point out the stupidity of that arguement? Guess what? That can be applied to dogs as well. Or humans. Or anything else alive for that matter.

Not within the context of the rest of the defining statement they can't. Not by any rational person at least.

I'm done discussing this with you.

The UN delegation of the Great Britian & Ireland Dominion of the British Antarctic Territories waves its banner in favor of this proposal, as indicated.

If it were for something that didn't have as many loopholes as the original, I could understand. But wouldn't you rather have the items pointed out on here, which were just as easy as the original, dealt with before you get another useless UN resolution?

Not within the context of the rest of the defining statement they can't. Not by any rational person at least.

Do I really need to define the word "host" as well?

I'm done discussing this with you.

Congrats. You've just stopped talking to the only person on here who is willing to pay attention to your proposal and actually give you areas on which it needs improvement and point out an obvious loophole. Don't be surprised if this fails because of you not wanting to do a final piece of editting to cover a simple loophole.

Doesn't matter anyway. When the UNSA passes, this will be illegal anyway.

Congrats. You've just stopped talking to the only person on here who is willing to pay attention to your proposal and actually give you areas on which it needs improvement and point out an obvious loophole.

Don't assume I or anyone else reading this is an idiot DLE. We can all see the game you're playing. "Biological weaponry" is actually suficiently vague that it needs to be defined so it gets defined. You go digging into the definition and look for any word that has more than one definition. You demand THAT be defined regardless of how clearly the context establishes what it's talking about. That gets done and you'll go digging into that definition looking for any word in IT that has more than one definition. And you will always find one because we're speaking English. There aren't a hell of a lot of words that only have one possible definition.

Repeat ad infinitum. Because you don't want ANY biological weapons ban to go through.

Like I said, I'm not playing your game.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, as we've stated previously, will not be supporting this proposal. As we told the representative from Reformentia previously the only way we'd even consider supporting such a ban was if it were worded so that it only bans their use against UN members, as opposed to the total ban that this is.

Don't assume I or anyone else reading this is an idiot DLE. We can all see the game you're playing. "Biological weaponry" is actually suficiently vague that it needs to be defined so it gets defined. You go digging into the definition and look for any word that has more than one definition. You demand THAT be defined regardless of how clearly the context establishes what it's talking about. That gets done and you'll go digging into that definition looking for any word in IT that has more than one definition. And you will always find one because we're speaking English. There aren't a hell of a lot of words that only have one possible definition.

Actually, there are definitions I do not argue with. The following are among them:

b : any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : FILTERABLE VIRUS

That one I don't argue with simply because it is technical enough that it requires an effort reaching beyond sanity to find a case where the intended definition is not perfectly obvious. However, being entirely too long, the words "submicroscopic infective agents with DNA or RNA guiding their actions" are specific enough to get across the idea of a virus and require a massive effort to find an alternate definition. Basically, a person has to reengineer a virus from the ground up to work their way around this.

Main Entry: bac·te·ri·um
Pronunciation: bak-'tir-E-&m
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural bac·te·ria /-E-&/
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek baktErion staff
: any of a group (as kingdom Procaryotae syn. Monera) of prokaryotic unicellular round, spiral, or rod-shaped single-celled microorganisms that are often aggregated into colonies or motile by means of flagella, that live in soil, water, organic matter, or the bodies of plants and animals, and that are autotrophic, saprophytic, or parasitic in nutrition and important because of their biochemical effects and pathogenicity -- compare BLUE-GREEN ALGA

Once again, too specific for it to be argued around but at the same time too long. However, the words "prokaryotic unicellular round, spiral, or rod-shaped single-celled microorganisms" get across the information people need to know (the rest really isn't that important) and leave little wiggle room on the meaning. People have to engineer a bacteria that doesn't fit into those categories, and the result is something that likely isn't going to be carbon-based.

After looking up the word microbe, I don't think that one is necessary. If they want to get around that, the methods used are going to be so extreme that what definition you put down won't matter. Hell, you can probably use the word "microbe" instead of "bacteria."

In any case, you should add that biological weapons are unnecessary to cover your ass in case the UNSA passes. That way, you're in compliance with it.

Now, want some advice on what to cut to make these definitions fit?

Repeat ad infinitum. Because you don't want ANY biological weapons ban to go through.

I stopped caring about two days a go. Besides, I can always utilize nanotechnology to get the same results and have simply avoided it due to general laziness. Plus, my efforts at finding words that have definition problems stopped quite a while back, or I would be pointing out alternate definitions of more than just the word "virus."

Like I said, I'm not playing your game.

I'm not asking you to at this point. I'm asking you to cover up a damned obvious loophole. I even give you my word I won't bother arguing about definitions after this.

And you only want me to add another 850 or so characters to the proposal to define TWO words. How generous a deal you're offering considering I'm within 150 characters of the upper allowable limit as is.

Let me guess... I just need to chop out most of the preamble and drop some of those pesky restrictive details in those clauses...

Not. Playing.

Here, the total changes I'm advising:

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection unncessary for nation defense. Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a negligible (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

DECLARING a "virus" to be a submicroscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations.

Edit: I dropped the word "bacteria" because it is included in the definition of "microbe", and thus is technically already covered.

Main Entry: mi·crobe
Pronunciation: 'mI-"krOb
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary micr- + Greek bios life -- more at QUICK
: MICROORGANISM, GERM
- mi·cro·bi·al /mI-'krO-bE-&l/ also mi·cro·bic /-bik/ adjectivep

The qualifications you put down for what counts as illegal pretty much, with the addition of that word, covers bacteria. Anyone who wishes to argue otherwise must try to define bacteria as not being microorganisms.

Drop these items, as they are not needed and really are a distraction from your point:

FURTHER TAKING NOTE of the inability of the UN to directly forbid bioweapons to non UN member nations.

REALIZING the UN possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

The reason for the first one is that it provides too much of an opening for people to argue that the other side has them and potentially focuses people away from what you are trying to do, while the second one is not necessary once they read your proposal.

Here, the total changes I'm advising:

IF the UN Security Act passes and IF the current form of the Biological Weapons Ban proposal is ruled to be illegal as a result of the UN Security Act then I will consider instituting those changes before it is resubmitted although I still do not agree that they are required to close some loophole.

IF the UN Security Act passes and IF the current form of the Biological Weapons Ban proposal is ruled to be illegal as a result of the UN Security Act then I will consider instituting those changes beofre it is resubmitted although I still do not agree that they are required to close some loophole.

Actually, it would be easier to make the changes now. Just contact all of those who supported, let them know a loophole that was previously not an issue accidentally got included, and that you are having the current one removed and replacing it with one that closes the loophole. I'm sure they'll support it while appreciating that you went through the effort to do this before it went up for vote and, at that point, my arguements up to this point are utterly worthless.

Oh, the following is not necessary to even cover a loophole, but provides a clarity option that helps shut up one of my items and prevent misinterpretations. You can easily not include it and really have no chance. Everything after item 4 is just a renumbering, so ignore it if you are not making the change.

3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any bioweapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation or known to be in the possession of its citizenry must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent.

4. Though not illegal, if a disease is present in an infected individual they must undergo immediate isolation and treatment.

5. UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.

STRONGLY URGES:

6. UN member nations to employ trade sanctions or incentives as they see fit to any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution, in any circumstances where the application of such sanctions or incentives would represent an effective means to having that nation abandon such bioweapons.

7. UN member nations issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a nation/nations employs bioweapons against a UN member nation, forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

Overall, word score should be lower than the one currently submitted.

Actually, it would be easier to make the changes now. Just contact all of those who supported, let them know a loophole that was previously not an issue accidentally got included, and that you are having the current one removed and replacing it with one that closes the loophole. I'm sure they'll support it while appreciating that you went through the effort to do this before it went up for vote and, at that point, my arguements up to this point are utterly worthless.

--So long as the UN Security Act either fails to pass, or it is ruled that it fails to make this resolution illegal it is not easier to make the changes at all. Particularly considering how many delegates have been contacted which I would have to re-contact to explain the situation to if I were to simply elect to make such a change now.

--As I said, I still don't accept your argument for the existence of a loophole here. I will be considering changing the proposal upon resubmission only to put an end to this constant back and forth on the issue.

Oh, the following is not necessary to even cover a loophole, but provides a clarity option that helps shut up one of my items and prevent misinterpretations.

I'll consider it as well.

Since I'm actually TGing people, you can enlist me to do some of the TGing. I've got nothing better to do today and the forums go down often enough lately that I'll have the time between posting. And I'll actually be nice about it.

Since I'm actually TGing people, you can enlist me to do some of the TGing. I've got nothing better to do today and the forums go down often enough lately that I'll have the time between posting. And I'll actually be nice about it.

Sorry DLE, I've made quite a lot of revisions to this proposal to account for previous arguments you've presented but I do not consider your current argument to be compelling enough to warrant interrupting this campaign midstride and attempting a resubmission.

If other events force a resubmission I'll consider the revisions you've proposed but if that does not occur I am fully satisifed proceeding with the proposal in it's present form.

Approved.

Do I really need to point out the stupidity of that arguement? Guess what? That can be applied to dogs as well. Or humans. Or anything else alive for that matter.

Oh please. Did you not notice the word Host? A dog doesn't have a host. Neither does a human being. That's just silly.

The Holy Republic of Rikodovia has added its approval to the proposal, and would also care to inform the UN that the rest of the UN members in the region are in favour of said proposal.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection unncessary for nation defense. Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a negligible (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

DECLARING a "virus" to be a submicroscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions

CONVINCED the possession or use of such bioweapons by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety of all nations.
I think I like these. First, they seem on firm legal ground in light of UNSA (which of course is still being considered itself). And second, it says that the reason for banning bioweapons is the reason I agree with: safety of all nations/protection from pandemic.

Oh, there’s a spelling error (not to be a nitpick). But unnecessary is spelt incorrectly. If Reformentia adopts these, he should be sure to correct it.

I also agree with DLE on the preamble clauses that should be left out, and I think 6 should be chopped off as well. This diffuses the focus of the proposal too much. It is not a proposal about how UN nations defend themselves. It's about what weapons they're going to use. Having two clauses at the end involved with how UN nations interact with non-UN nations (which, by the way, I bet they already have quite a bit of experience) is just too unbalanced. I think it detracts from your main point.


There's a continuity error too. The title says "Biological Weapons", but the proposal uses the term "bioweapons" throughout. I think, for simplicity's sake either one should be changed to match the other (probably, the title should be changed).

Please note that a link to this post will be TGed to everyone who supports this proposal. We cannot repeal a resolution because of a lack of definitions only to replace it with one that has the same problem.

I support this proposal but you can lay off the Telegram to me. Whilst telegrams calling for support for a resolution fall upon ears who are (mostly) yet to voice an opinion on the subject, targeting those who have already spoken against your viewpoint is not only less likely to help your cause (because they are already against you as things stand, and most internet users have little concern for pedantry), but is almost bordering on spam. You are, by all means, entitled to your own opinion, but don't go sticking it in the faces of your opponents. Besides, it's more worthwhile trying to convert the neutral to see your view - it's a sad fact of debates that the neutral are usually the most open-minded, regardless of the intents of the divided.

If you disapprove of the definition of "Biological Weaponry", DLE, might I suggest you make a proposal of "Definition of Biological Weaponry" for the UN to agree on to work in concordance with all other resolutions that refer to the subject? That'd be somewhat more polite than targetting individuals when they have no quarrel with you or your view. Discuss on the forum by all means but don't take the people to the war. The level of support for such a defining proposal, as well as levelling the playing field as you are intending to do, will also serve equally as importantly as how many people are actually concerned with the pedantic aspects of the intented aforementioned in this proposal, regardless of the accuracy.

It seems a little unfortunate to me that you're losing your metaphorical rags with one another when you both support the same end objective.

DLE is very adamant that she never submits proposals. Bear this in mind. :)

Supported as promised. A good rewrite of a bad Resolution.
Well done.

DLE is very adamant that she never submits proposals. Bear this in mind. :)

Well, seeing as she has a stance on phrasing and layout and what seems to be a strong opinion on this, perhaps now's the time to put one on the cards - then both sides of the argument get their viewpoints in without incurring on each other's written stylings. If it was concise enough and accurate, I would endorse it just so that in a UN where "streamlining" and "cutting bureaucracy" seems to be the mood of the moment, we can set the record straight.

It is imperative to implement some sort of control and restriction on biological weapons. Even more so due to the recent repealing of an albeit ineffectual law.

Vastiva just bought several thousand tons of... vaccine.

Just thought we'd note that.

Vastiva just bought several thousand tons of... vaccine.

Just thought we'd note that.
Greetings.

The Sultanate of Vastiva has 2,000,000,000 citizens. A thousand tons is 1,000,000,000 grams. You have several thousand tons. You have therefore some multiple of half a gram of vaccine for each citizen. Conclusion: you must be aiming to make a big killing when the biowar to end all biowars breaks out. Yes, eminently logical.

Vastiva just bought several thousand tons of... vaccine.

Just thought we'd note that.

Congratulations on your high state of preparedness. Of course assuming the passage of this proposal whatever... vaccine you just purchased has to conform to the risk of injury/lethality guidelines outlined in the proposal and are restricted by definition to individual administration to voluntary subjects so we will of course not be concerned by your purchase at all.

Do carry on by all means.

We would note first, Vastiva is highly active in IRCO - easily documentable - and such a purchase is not outside SOP.

We would also note your proposal has not passed yet, and may be vaporized yet.

Finally, we would love to hear from the representative from Roathin if he included numbers from our colonies and allies in that figure - whom we most certainly need to look after in case of a sudden disaster.

We would note first, Vastiva is highly active in IRCO - easily documentable - and such a purchase is not outside SOP.

We would also note your proposal has not passed yet, and may be vaporized yet.

Finally, we would love to hear from the representative from Roathin if he included numbers from our colonies and allies in that figure - whom we most certainly need to look after in case of a sudden disaster.

So Vastiva is now the vaccine capital of the world? Impressive. That seems a rather intriguing turnaround considering your rather.....concerning record.

Ooooh, this should be good. Let's hear your take on our "record".

The High Council of the Republic of Sarkasis supports this proposal.

However, we will make this support conditional to the presence of a safeguard in the final text.

Any nation should be allowed to develop, produce and trade small amounts of biological agents and their by-products if they fall in the following categories:

1) research samples and cultures (germs, spores, chemicals, enzymes, DNA or RNA samples, gene mappings, broken down cells), even for lethal diseases and agents, as well as selected/enhanced strains

2) live/active vaccines, as well as broken-down viruses; many vaccines require the actual production of the pathological agent

3) gene mappings, research papers, germ and strain descriptions, scientific knowledge

Our search for biological protection shouldn't hamper fundamental research, genetic research, and the production of vaccins/cures. The Republic of Sarkasis believes that every single country should be allowed to engage in medical research without any excessive restraint or international scrutiny.

Our search for biological protection shouldn't hamper fundamental research, genetic research, and the production of vaccins/cures. The Republic of Sarkasis believes that every single country should be allowed to engage in medical research without any excessive restraint or international scrutiny.

Vaccines are accounted for in the defining statement in the second clause of the preamble...

Allowances are made for the research of biological agents for the production of counteragents in article 2.

Alternately, "vaccines" are neutralized forms of bioweapons individually administered to a voluntary subject to stimulate immune response to those bioweapons, and which pose a negligible (less than 0.5%) chance of causing injury beyond the required immune response or death.

In order to produce neutralized forms of pathogens [bioweapons], the industry must first produce the pathological agent itself (usually, the active virus). In large volumes, in the case of mass vaccine production. The pathological agent is then killed, broken down by enzymes or chemicals, processed, and bottled as a vaccine.

This is the definition of a vaccine, according to a well-known source:
<< A vaccine is an agent, sourced from the pathogen, and is deliberately introduced into the mammalian system in order to impart a 'memory' of the pathogen or its pathogenic component. The memory is imparted on the first contact of the vaccine with the mammalian immune system. Vaccine usually contains the modified pathogenic organism or a protein or a low molecular weight non-protein compound (hapten) conjugated with the protein, obtained from the pathogen. >>

Thus, in order to mass-produce a vaccine, a lab must first be able to mass-produce the pathogen. The vaccine is one step further. Which makes the enforcement of these regulations extremely difficult.

We are concerned that this UN regulation could be used by aggressive states as a commercial or military lever, in order to justify aggression on another sovereign state, on the basis that the said state is in possession of "dual use" hardware, or has pharmaceutical facilities on its territory. We could end up living in a world where strong nations would bar weaker nations from having a pharmaceutical industry, and then sell them vaccines with an undecent profit margin.

This is why we must carefully word these regulations. And maybe try to regulate the vaccine production industry itself, not the nations that host them. Why not having a worldwide inspection body, which would be granted access to all vaccine fabrication facilities and research labs? And why not barring all nations from doing army-sponsored biotech research? Funding and leadership for this industry shouldn't come from the military.

In order to produce neutralized forms of pathogens [bioweapons], the industry must first produce the pathological agent itself (usually, the active virus). In large volumes, in the case of mass vaccine production.

"Large volumes" is a relative term, and when dealing with biological weaponry it's not a very large absolute amount. So long as there is never at any given time more than 250mg of active pathogen in the lab everything is fine.

250mg of pure neutralized biological weapons agent can be distributed to vaccinate a lot of people. If you can provide hard figures which would reasonably warrant increasing that upper limit then a revision might be considered IF the proposal ends up requiring resubmission due to the UNSA.

This is the definition of a vaccine, according to a well-known source:

Which I believe is quite similar to the definition of a vaccine that is contained within the proposal.

We are concerned that this UN regulation could be used by aggressive states as a commercial or military lever, in order to justify aggression on another sovereign state, on the basis that the said state is in possession of "dual use" hardware, or has pharmaceutical facilities on its territory.

Was there any way in particular you were concerned that this could occur which is directly related to the text of the proposal?

We could end up living in a world where strong nations would bar weaker nations from having a pharmaceutical industry, and then sell them vaccines with an undecent profit margin.

And how would this proposal result in this scenario?

This is why we must carefully word these regulations. And maybe try to regulate the vaccine production industry itself, not the nations that host them. Why not having a worldwide inspection body, which would be granted access to all vaccine fabrication facilities and research labs?

The formation of committees is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility in the NSUN.

And why not barring all nations from doing army-sponsored biotech research?

I fail to see what that would accomplish that the rest of the proposal doesn't accomplish already.

I am in complete agreement.

Unlike Demon Lord, I find the proposal should be easily understandable to anyone with a reasonable IQ. Many judges refuse to hear complainants or defendents who intentionally twist the language in a law. I suggest we do the same.

Nevermoore believes that We are responsible enough and have the right to research, construct, sell, or utilize any weapon We wish to. We shall not support you in your proposal and urge others to disregard it as well.

Unlike Demon Lord, I find the proposal should be easily understandable to anyone with a reasonable IQ. Many judges refuse to hear complainants or defendents who intentionally twist the language in a law. I suggest we do the same.

Haven't been in the UN long, have you?

Unlike "The real world", here, we only have to be in compliance - but we have ample lattitude of what "compliance" is, given the limited forms available. So the bends that occur are many - and shall remain so.

Assuming one definition is global is purely silly - a simple class in Interpersonal Communications will teach that. Believing that a pack of nations like the UN can even begin to get to common ground is folly.

Finally, we would love to hear from the representative from Roathin if he included numbers from our colonies and allies in that figure - whom we most certainly need to look after in case of a sudden disaster.
Greetings.

Yes, we of Roathin are most impressed by the scope of your humanitarian operations. We seek to emulate such paragons in spirit, even if lacking the sinews to emulate them in materiel. We ourselves have had little choice but to mobilise the hungry hordes of the demons of Maxwell. They are now complaining that all those biowarfare security details are taking up too much of their anti-entropic duties.

Mr. Secretary-General, I announce that this proposal now has 163 endorsements and has reached the resolution queue. For the record, it is in the category of "Global Disarmament" with a strength of "Strong".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Well that's just Bio-ban-tastic! :D
And perfect timing too. The UN needs a ban on bio-weapons because the current proposal looks like it will pass.

Well that's just Bio-ban-tastic! :D
And perfect timing too. The UN needs a ban on bio-weapons because the current proposal looks like it will pass.

Of course if voting keeps going the way it has been on the UNSA it is the current position of the mods (which I still express my disagreement with) that I'm going to have to start over with a modified resolution... but at least by that time I should have quite a comprehensive list of supporters in my contact list for when I begin the campaign again so reaching quorum should present no difficulty.

The Sarkasian High Council has read transcripts of this debate, and has heard the ever lengthy and convoluted plead from its own delegate (who tries to justify his indecent salary that way).

It has been decided that Sarkasis would vote FOR this proposal.

Our biological research labs and vaccine industry was warned that new regulations might be imposed.

Have faith. The vote was 4:1 at one point, now it's getting closer to being 2:1. Just hope it'll draw even as people realize what the resolution is really doing.

Mr. Secretary-General, I announce that this proposal now has 163 endorsements and has reached the resolution queue. For the record, it is in the category of "Global Disarmament" with a strength of "Strong".

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Finally, some good news coming out of the UN.


I was getting very nervous that I would have to leave in protest.


To pass a Nuclear weapons and then that crappy "security" resolution started us to question the intelligence and need of the UN.

Finally, some good news coming out of the UN.


I was getting very nervous that I would have to leave in protest.


To pass a Nuclear weapons and then that crappy "security" resolution started us to question the intelligence and need of the UN.

It gets better - if UNSA passes, this resolution gets deleted automatically (ruling by the mods).

Atleast this one has tried to define what it is banning. I think it is better than most that get proposed.

Chemical weapons are now banned. A sodding rife is a chemical weapon! It uses chemicals to fire a bullet from the shell. Bombs cause damage by a chemical release of energy. I saw no definition in the ban chemical weapons resolution

Atleast this one has tried to define what it is banning. I think it is better than most that get proposed.

Chemical weapons are now banned. A sodding rife is a chemical weapon! It uses chemicals to fire a bullet from the shell. Bombs cause damage by a chemical release of energy. I saw no definition in the ban chemical weapons resolution

Considering all the heck Reformatia received trying to get Ban Bio-weapons through WITH a definition (and the fact it's going to go in this way) - as long as UNSA is in place, you're probably going to have that flawed Chemical Weapons resolution put in place....

It gets better - if UNSA passes, this resolution gets deleted automatically (ruling by the mods).
WHY? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The resolution currently at vote would make this one illegal or pointless

The resolution currently at vote would make this one illegal or pointlessI dissagree one thousand percent. The UNSA leaves the possibility for other resolutions to overide it, open. It is perfectly clear to me that this resolution would do exactly that, restricting the weapons one could use under the rights guaranteed by the UNSA.

Can someone please give me a better explanation for what I will otherwise consider to be a disgracefull display of biased forum moderation?

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

I'm sure it is in the rules that you can't alter a pervious resolution. therefore the proposal currently at vote very cleverly makes it very difficult to make new laws with regards to limiting weapons use in the UN

Then I was sadly mistaken about the UNSA all along despite voting against it from the top.
Stating that only previously passed resolutions having the power to override is in itself, ridiculous. The UNSA should've never been accepted and submited for Delegate approval. The UN is treading into very dangerous waters. I begin to question the timing of the UNSA just after having repealed a Bio-weapons ban (allbeit ineffectual but nevertheless repealed).

I request an explanation as to who is responsible for making these decisons and how they are made, and why the proposals where submitted to voting in this particular order.

I will double my efforts to make sure the UNSA resolution does not pass

I dissagree one thousand percent. The UNSA leaves the possibility for other resolutions to overide it, open. It is perfectly clear to me that this resolution would do exactly that, restricting the weapons one could use under the rights guaranteed by the UNSA.

Can someone please give me a better explanation for what I will otherwise consider to be a disgracefull display of biased forum moderation?
Yes it does include an override possibility, if the proposal includes a line stateing that the weapon being banned is unnecessary for the defense of a nation, then a ban can be passed. However, Reformentia did not include such a line even after it was suggested, therefore should the UNSA pass, which it look like it will, this resolution would be removed from the queue and would have to be resubmitted with a line like that added to it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

UNSA was submitted quietly by Texan Hotrodders while Resolution 108 (Repeal Elimination of Bio-Weapons) was still under vote. He never mentioned it on the forums and it was only posted on the forums when myself and one other member noticed it (and the fact that it was getting a lot of endorsements - indicating it was quitely being petitioned for via TG campaign) within about 10 minutes of each other.

One of the laws that has existed for an extensive period of time is that no resolution may hit the floor that contradicts previous resolutions. The Mods have the ability to delete any resolution that isn't yet ON the floor (even though it may have reached Quarom). The mods did discuss the legality of UNSA for an extensive period of time, but felt that they couldn't justify a reason to delete it. It was indicated quite early that this resolution would be blocked should UNSA be passed.

The order of them hitting the floor is directly relative to the time that they were proposed. Since UNSA was already in quarom by the time the replacement resolution was ready......well...yeah

Now you understand why I've been campaigning so hard.

Yes it does include an override possibility, if the proposal includes a line stateing that the weapon being banned is unnecessary for the defense of a nation, then a ban can be passed. However, Reformentia did not include such a line even after it was suggested, therefore should the UNSA pass, which it look like it will, this resolution would be removed from the queue and would have to be resubmitted with a line like that added to it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I've got SOOOO many problems with the argument "Just add the line 'blahblahblah' ", but I'm not going to get into that problem right now.....

Yes it does include an override possibility, if the proposal includes a line stateing that the weapon being banned is unnecessary for the defense of a nation, then a ban can be passed. However, Reformentia did not include such a line even after it was suggested, therefore should the UNSA pass, which it look like it will, this resolution would be removed from the queue and would have to be resubmitted with a line like that added to it.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeThank you for the clarity. A weapons ban can in fact be passed despite the UNSA. However, I strongly resent the fact that a resolution as serious such as the UNSA (that someone actually had the nerve to give it a strength rating of mild) should be submitted to vote without having debating it a priori.

I wish to manifest my disgust in the way this has been handled.

I request an explanation as to who is responsible for making these decisons and how they are made, and why the proposals where submitted to voting in this particular order.When a Proposal is submitted, it has approximately 3 days to reach the queue for full voting. Proposals that are submitted before others go first. If there is any conspiracy here, it is a conspiracy of one: someone waiting until the biological weapons ban (which was utterly toothless) was Repealed to submit their Proposal.

Nowhere near as sinister as you imply.

Once again I am gratefull for your explanations. Now all I need is a certain Texan Hotrodder to come in here an explain his conduct of not presenting his resolution in this forum. I consider that to be shamefull and inexcusable.

Once again I am gratefull for your explanations. Now all I need is a certain Texan Hotrodder to come in here an explain his conduct of not presenting his resolution in this forum. I consider that to be shamefull and inexcusable.


Many active NS UN members do not use this forum. A delegate is under no obligation to "pre-approve" a proposal or resolution here first.

Regardless - the resolution is receiving healthy debate.

W.

Many active NS UN members do not use this forum. A delegate is under no obligation to "pre-approve" a proposal or resolution here first.

Regardless - the resolution is receiving healthy debate.

W.
I don't remember the Protection of Dolphins Act being discussed here until after it had reached quorum.

Once again I am gratefull for your explanations. Now all I need is a certain Texan Hotrodder to come in here an explain his conduct of not presenting his resolution in this forum. I consider that to be shamefull and inexcusable.

While I was annoyed with the resolution and (what I felt) was a fairly obvious political maneuvering, I don't think it is unreasonable for TH to do such a thing. In fact, I applaud him for playing both us and the UN so masterfully.

However, whether I respect his actions has no bearing about how I feel about his resolution

Concentrate on what the proposals due, not how they were done. Unless someone lies or slanders a resolution, I find no reason to blame any user for what happened.

While I was annoyed with the resolution and (what I felt) was a fairly obvious political maneuvering, I don't think it is unreasonable for TH to do such a thing. In fact, I applaud him for playing both us and the UN so masterfully.

However, whether I respect his actions has no bearing about how I feel about his resolution

Concentrate on what the proposals due, not how they were done. Unless someone lies or slanders a resolution, I find no reason to blame any user for what happened.I feel that a proposal as relevant as the UNSA should've have been debated thoroughly before it is submitted.
Many active NS UN members do not use this forum. A delegate is under no obligation to "pre-approve" a proposal or resolution here first.

Regardless - the resolution is receiving healthy debate.

W.It is receiving healthy debate much too late in the process. I am aware of your point that a delegate is under no obligation to pre-approve a proposal in the forum. However Texan Hotrodder is an active member of this forum. The seriousness of the UNSA leaves me no doubt that the drafting of the UNSA proposal should've undergone the same scrutiny as the Bio-weapons ban well before it was submitted for delegate pre-approval, and also that Texan Hotrodder's actions where pre-meditated and intentional. His failure to submit his proposal to this forum's approval before oficially submitting combined with his quickness to criticise other proposal's that don't deserve his approval, give me the right to personally label him as a hypocrite and a parasite of the UN's weaknesses.

I feel that a proposal as relevant as the UNSA should've have been debated thoroughly before it is submitted.
It is receiving healthy debate much too late in the process. I am aware of your point that a delegate is under no obligation to pre-approve a proposal in the forum. However Texan Hotrodder is an active member of this forum. The seriousness of the UNSA leaves me no doubt that the drafting of the UNSA proposal should've undergone the same scrutiny as the Bio-weapons ban well before it was submitted for delegate pre-approval, and also that Texan Hotrodder's actions where pre-meditated and intentional. His failure to submit his proposal to this forum's approval before oficially submitting combined with his quickness to criticise other proposal's that don't deserve his approval, give me the right to personally label him as a hypocrite and a parasite of the UN's weaknesses.

I would label him as a smart political operative, who deserves a great deal of respect for managing to get such a well-crafted and uniquely insightful resolution to the floor without undue difficulty.

Once again I am gratefull for your explanations. Now all I need is a certain Texan Hotrodder to come in here an explain his conduct of not presenting his resolution in this forum. I consider that to be shamefull and inexcusable.

You can consider it however you like. If you've already reached a conclusion that my behavior was "shamefull" and "inexcusable" then you really have no need of any further explanations, do you? It sounds like you're quite happy believing what you want to believe. Good for you. Don't let me spoil it with reasonable explanations.

While I was annoyed with the resolution and (what I felt) was a fairly obvious political maneuvering, I don't think it is unreasonable for TH to do such a thing. In fact, I applaud him for playing both us and the UN so masterfully.


I appreciate the attempt at a compliment, but I wasn't playing anyone. Well, I wasn't trying to, anyway. I just didn't really feel like getting an early start on the bullshit, the appeals to emotion, the false claims of illegality, and the conspiracy theories...all while doing the same old national sovereignty dance around a new and more controversial bonfire. Less is more beneficial when it comes to that sort of thing. :)

His failure to submit his proposal to this forum's approval before oficially submitting combined with his quickness to criticise other proposal's that don't deserve his approval, give me the right to personally label him as a hypocrite and a parasite of the UN's weaknesses.

If you're going to flame me, do try to be more creative. "Parasite of the UN's weaknesses" was a nice one, but "hypocrite" is overdone. I'm sure you can think of a better way to insult me.

This will be an OOC post.

I think we lose track of the fact that NationStates is a game. When I saw the UNSA in the list with 80 endorsements, I thought to myself that it was a clever strategy on Hotrodia's part. Although I was mistaken there, I posted the resolution as a counter-ploy to get debate started on the proposal. As a result, debate began on 28 June, while resolution voting began on 4 July - over five days of debate and discussion before voting began.

This will be an OOC post.

I think we lose track of the fact that NationStates is a game. When I saw the UNSA in the list with 80 endorsements, I thought to myself that it was a clever strategy on Hotrodia's part. Although I was mistaken there, I posted the resolution as a counter-ploy to get debate started on the proposal. As a result, debate began on 28 June, while resolution voting began on 4 July - over five days of debate and discussion before voting began.

This will also be an OOC post.

And I'm sure many people are thanking you for your action in bringing it to debate. :)

As a side note...By the way Goob, it seemed pretty obvious from the context that the posts were OOC, so I responded to them as such. But upon reflection, maybe a label indicating the OOC nature would have been best.

As a side note...By the way Goob, it seemed pretty obvious from the context that the posts were OOC, so I responded to them as such. But upon reflection, maybe a label indicating the OOC nature would have been best.

Nah, I (almost) always label posts in NS, II, or UN as OOC if they aren't IC posts, since I consider those three forums to be completely IC unless otherwise designated. However, I'm a bit anal-retentive about such matters, and it's probably not a good idea if you do any more RPing than I do (i.e. any RPing).

This has been an OOC post.

I would label him as a smart political operative, who deserves a great deal of respect for managing to get such a well-crafted and uniquely insightful resolution to the floor without undue difficulty.OK. What you are telling me is that we should ignore the process of discussing crucial matters in an open forum and just submit future proposals right away.

If you're going to flame me, do try to be more creative. "Parasite of the UN's weaknesses" was a nice one, but "hypocrite" is overdone. I'm sure you can think of a better way to insult me. Whoever submits proposals without having them open to the scrutiny of this forum, where said person often actively participates is in my opinion a hipocritical action. Being called a hypocrite is a day in the life of a politician. Not a flame or insult.

You can consider it however you like. If you've already reached a conclusion that my behavior was "shamefull" and "inexcusable" then you really have no need of any further explanations, do you? It sounds like you're quite happy believing what you want to believe. Good for you. Don't let me spoil it with reasonable explanations.
If you read carefully I haven't reached any conclusion other than labeling your actions as hipocriticial.
As far as shamefull and inexcusable goes... That is my opinion based on the limited information I have. I am perfectly open for dialog and willing to listen to any particular reason you may have for not subjecting your proposal to this forum prior to having it submitted.
The next time you criticise another proposal someone will probably remind you of your diminished moral right to do so. Since you are not willing to do the same when it comes to your proposals. Nevertheless I have given you an opportunity to clear this matter once and for all. If you choose not to... it is you who stands to lose as far as your reputation goes.

Whoever submits proposals without having them open to the scrutiny of this forum, where said person often actively participates is in my opinion a hipocritical action. Being called a hypocrite is a day in the life of a politician. Not a flame or insult.

Are the two mutually exclusive? It seems quite possible that someone could be insulted as part of a normal day in their life. That hardly justifies the insult, as far as I'm concerned.

If you read carefully I haven't reached any conclusion other than labeling your actions as hipocriticial.

As far as shamefull and inexcusable goes... That is my opinion based on the limited information I have. I am perfectly open for dialog and willing to listen to any particular reason you may have for not subjecting your proposal to this forum prior to having it submitted.[/quote]

Ah...so you didn't make any conclusions...other than that one you'll freely admit to making. Also, your attempt at saying you were labeling my actions hypocritical is contradicted by what you actually posted.

His failure to submit his proposal to this forum's approval before oficially submitting combined with his quickness to criticise other proposal's that don't deserve his approval, give me the right to personally label him as a hypocrite and a parasite of the UN's weaknesses.

That sure doesn't look like a label of my actions. It looks very much like an attack on my character. Perhaps you truly meant to cast aspersions on my actions rather than my character but that's not what you actually did.

And I suggest you do some reading, both in this thread and the official UNSA thread. I have explained my actions twice now, and it seems a bit odd that you, someone who seems to have such a vital interest in the UNSA and myself, has not read carefully my posts regarding those two topics in the official thread. But it's likely that you missed them through some unfortunate and unintentional accident. That explanation is much more probable than the alternate suggestion that you have already read them and are just intentionally flamebaiting me.

The next time you criticise another proposal someone will probably remind you of your diminished moral right to do so. Since you are not willing to do the same when it comes to your proposals. Nevertheless I have given you an opportunity to clear this matter once and for all. If you choose not to... it is you who stands to lose as far as your reputation goes.

How very kind of you to give me an opportunity to do something I've already done. And don't worry, I doubt my reputation will suffer. I wasn't going around calling people hypocrites and requesting explanations of them. I wasn't going around assuming that another person was engaged in dishonest actions when I don't even know the person or their motivations. Those sorts of things might hurt my reputation, and make me feel bad for mistreating other people like that.

If you have a problem with me criticizing proposals, then it will be a relatively simple matter to add me to your ignore list so that it won't bother you again.

Are the two mutually exclusive? It seems quite possible that someone could be insulted as part of a normal day in their life. That hardly justifies the insult, as far as I'm concerned.It was not my intention at all to insult you. If you feel that I have then I apologise for anything that you consider to be offensive. It was my intention to make a personal accusation concerning political dealings for the reasons previously stated.

That sure doesn't look like a label of my actions. It looks very much like an attack on my character. Perhaps you truly meant to cast aspersions on my actions rather than my character but that's not what you actually did.It is an attack on your character yes indeed. And that too is a day in the life of a politician. Particularly a politician that keeps his proposals to the back alleys while he trots down the main boulevard.

And I suggest you do some reading, both in this thread and the official UNSA thread. I have explained my actions twice now, and it seems a bit odd that you, someone who seems to have such a vital interest in the UNSA and myself, has not read carefully my posts regarding those two topics in the official thread. But it's likely that you missed them through some unfortunate and unintentional accident. That explanation is much more probable than the alternate suggestion that you have already read them and are just intentionally flamebaiting me.

You must mean this...
(...) I wasn't playing anyone. Well, I wasn't trying to, anyway. I just didn't really feel like getting an early start on the bullshit, the appeals to emotion, the false claims of illegality, and the conspiracy theories...all while doing the same old national sovereignty dance around a new and more controversial bonfire. Less is more beneficial when it comes to that sort of thing. :)
I'm quite frankly dissapointed that you consider debating a proposal before it's submission as "bullshit" among other things. Not only are you denigrating this particular section of the forum but also naming an activity that you also frequently participate in, when it comes to proposals you don't agree with, as "bullshit".

(...) I wasn't going around assuming that another person was engaged in dishonest actions when I don't even know the person or their motivations. Those sorts of things might hurt my reputation, and make me feel bad for mistreating other people like that.I have not questioned your honesty. It has never been brought up at all in this debate but if you feel so once again I apologise.

If you have a problem with me criticizing proposals, then it will be a relatively simple matter to add me to your ignore list so that it won't bother you again.I have no problem whatsoever with you criticizing other proposals so long as you are willing to submit yourself to the same scrutiny. I call it coherence.

You must mean this...

Actually, he's thinking of a different thread. After the old thread became a bit too bloated, Reformatia posted the final draft (once he submitted) on this thread.....and the old thread kinda....died. It was an honest mistake in his part - especially since I made the same mistake myself.

Nevertheless, in that post he was adressing the very issue of avoiding having to debate his proposal before submission and refered to it as avoiding "bullshit". Certainly his most recent opinion on this matter must not be discarded for previous ones. Also I have just looked through the official UNSA thread and I could not find a post in which he addresses this issue as directly and clearly as he does with his comment in this thread.

UNSA was submitted quietly by Texan Hotrodders while Resolution 108 (Repeal Elimination of Bio-Weapons) was still under vote. He never mentioned it on the forums and it was only posted on the forums when myself and one other member noticed it (and the fact that it was getting a lot of endorsements - indicating it was quitely being petitioned for via TG campaign) within about 10 minutes of each other.


While I think it is *nice* to bring proposals to this forum for input, in the past year this forum has become much more hostile to proposal authors. Techwank in particular has become problematic here ... and this is not a problem I see in the non-Jolt forums.

Do not mistake the fact that proposals aren't exclusively worked on in this forum to suggest that nations (i.e. players) are trying to by-pass the UN. They aren't.

UN Delegates still see proposals, and are free to comment and make suggestions on them. I know my region's current delegate does. He also informs my region (on our regional board) about what proposals he supports. And at times as asked for us to volunteer to help telegram for proposals from our allies.

The argument that proposals must be posted here is as weak as the argument that all nations must read the UN forum debates prior to voting on a resolution.

For the record, not having been a delegate, I have gone through the UN proposal queue (which is public) and telegrammed UN proposal authors to give them advice. Sometimes I've suggested changes to their proposals, other times I've asked them to join us here. I've sent fewer UN proposal authors to this forum due to the increasing hostility I've seen in the past 18 months as an active member of this forum.


We'd like people to seriously consider bringing more proposals here, I think we need to limit the techwank and ping-pong / table tennis styled arguments and instead focus on rewrites and amendments to draft proposals. In other words, be a bit more helpful.

Edit: I wanted to add, that there is a great deal of UN politicing in the feeder and larger regions. Just because you don't see something pass through the Jolt UN forum, doesn't mean it wasn't a group project.

The part that gets me - fine, he didn't want to debate it here, but even after he posted it and (obviously) started campaigning through (what I'm guessing was) a TG petition, he doesn't post it here. Someone else posts it when it started getting some speed - that's where my comment comes in. Considering who it was and that he was a regular forum member....I find it had to find reasons for this action - though I admit they are there. It's one thing to not want to debate it on the UN forum (I actually wouldn't want to be under DLE's barrel when I start making proposals), but to not make a post about it when you're campaigning so effectively strikes me as....odd.

Nevertheless, in that post he was adressing the very issue of avoiding having to debate his proposal before submission and refered to it as avoiding "bullshit". Certainly his most recent opinion on this matter must not be discarded for previous ones. Also I have just looked through the official UNSA thread and I could not find a post in which he addresses this issue as directly and clearly as he does with his comment in this thread.
Canada6, I believe that this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423922) is the kind of "bullshit" that Texan was trying to avoid. And after going through it myself I can understand why he wanted to avoid it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The part that gets me - fine, he didn't want to debate it here, but even after he posted it and (obviously) started campaigning through (what I'm guessing was) a TG petition, he doesn't post it here. Someone else posts it when it started getting some speed - that's where my comment comes in. Considering who it was and that he was a regular forum member....I find it had to find reasons for this action - though I admit they are there. It's one thing to not want to debate it on the UN forum (I actually wouldn't want to be under DLE's barrel when I start making proposals), but to not make a post about it when you're campaigning so effectively strikes me as....odd.

I think you've answered your own question ... why place your proposal, which clearly is getting tons of UN Delegate support, into a place where somebody who loves to just attack everything for the fun of it *without* ever suggesting anything positive, can distract you?

I've campaigned for a number of resolutions, and I can tell you that this forum means _squat_ when it comes to finding UN Delegate support. There are over 2,000 UN Delegates. How many do you think read this forum? I think if we assume 200 that we've made a very liberal estimate. Now if we assume that of them, half of them are willing to listen to an endorsement request posted here, why would they *not* also be open to a direct telegramming campaign?

The answer is that if a UN Delegate is going to spend time reading posts here, they *also* are likely to respond to telegrams. Now knowing that we need around 140 +/- these days, to reach quorum in the proposal queue, a proponent's time is better spent telegramming and *maintaining* friendly relations with UN Delegates ... not UN forum regulars (many of which, like me, are not UN Delegates).

Oh, if I see a proposal I like, I will contact my Delegate and ask that he / she endorse the proposal. :) That is why I've endorsed them to be my Delegate. But I think wasting time in what is a stupid ping-pong / table tennis match *before* the proposal even is a resolution is ultimately a big mistake for a resolution proponent.


I've said this elsewhere in this forum, but I too currently have a proposal that I'm drafting *with* input from my region. We are in a region for a reason ... we see eye-to-eye politically and respect each others opinions greatly! :) Naturally I'm going to give IDU members first shot at something, because I *will* change it to meet their needs.

Once they are finished, I'll take my proposal to the feeder regions: North, East, West, and South, and ask that their nations (not just Delegate) look over the proposal. The ACA and Texas will probably see copies at the same time, because I like both of those regions and have long standing relationships with them. Nederlands will *also* get a copy, same reason. Smart friendly nations.

This isn't to suggest that I don't appreciate the advise that can be offered here, but the system really is designed to think locally and slowly build up. Having lurked in a small number of off-site forums, the government of Hotroddia *has* been already working with their political allies ... and is doing this exactly the way I would.

Ultimately if *we* (UN forum regulars) want to see more nations bring proposals here, *we* have to stop tech-wank and hostile posts and instead offer actual amendments. We also have to be accommidating. We can't be willing to *not* sacrafice a few of our opinions if we want others to adopt some of our suggestions.

In 18 months of UN activity there are a few nations that will post really great rewrites to other nation's proposal and do so on a regular basis. I'd rather encourage more of that behavior because ...

If you write it, they will come! :)

Canada6, I believe that this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423922) is the kind of "bullshit" that Texan was trying to avoid. And after going through it myself I can understand why he wanted to avoid it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
*IC btw...

I hardly consider thee pages of one interesting but nevertheless unfounded illegality claim (DLE) and for the most part, short one line approvals, to be "bullshit".

By "going through it yourself" you relieved yourself of all doubts and possible questions of irregularities in your proposal.

Allthough it's allready passed and approved now but I must applaud your attitude and also add that I truly feel it should be common practice, in particular with issues that are known to have been relevant to the UN forum.

why place your proposal, which clearly is getting tons of UN Delegate support, into a place where somebody who loves to just attack everything for the fun of it *without* ever suggesting anything positive, can distract you?Forgottenlands and I are refering to the time period just before a proposal is officially submitted for minimum delegate approval.

However after having read your opinion about this forum I still defend the usefullness of this forum for that very purpose (in a "what have you got to hide" manner) and will intend to use it for double checking any proposal's I may come up with in the future, unless it is imposed upon me to do otherwise by my region's government members.
It is my personal intention to go about my affairs in a clarified manner, particularly when my decisions can affect other nations.

Forgottenlands and I are refering to the time period just before a proposal is officially submitted for minimum delegate approval.


Mikivity actually got my point on the head. Sorry.

Mikivity actually got my point on the head. Sorry.Yes I'm aware of that but his question...
why place your proposal, which clearly is getting tons of UN Delegate support, into a place where somebody who loves to just attack everything for the fun of it *without* ever suggesting anything positive, can distract you?Isn't a fair one becuase of the time period he suggests.

Yes I'm aware of that but his question...
Isn't a fair one becuase of the time period he suggests.

I mean I'm talking about while he was campaigning for it. I don't care if they post before it gets proposed - you'll find the vast majority of proposals do that (even good proposals) for all sorts of reasons. I just found it odd that he would not mention it while he was campaigning for it on the forums (actually, I found it suspicious - but we've already been over this). Mikivity has pretty much fixed my ignorance on the matter (I guess it's partly for my love to take a battle head on :P)

*IC btw...

I hardly consider thee pages of one interesting but nevertheless unfounded illegality claim (DLE) and for the most part, short one line approvals, to be "bullshit".You've never been raked over the hot coals for proposing or defending a "NatSov" resolution, have you?

I believe that's the sort of BS Tex is alluding to. On the NSO forum, someone else posted my experience at the hands of an unnamed mod (operating through a puppet) in defending the concept of National Sovereignty. It wasn't pleasant.

Not that I was going to complain about it, although I felt the attack to be needlessly harsh and condescending. Apparently, though, others thought that it was rough enough to post as an example.

Opponents of National Sovereignty don't seem to want to debate the issue of whether this body's actions should be limited in scope in a polite and respectful way; its all vitriol, "read-the-d_mn_d-FAQ-you-clueless-newbie", with an unhealthy dose of "you-should-have-known-that-you-gave-up-all-right-to-your-country-when-you-came-in-the-door". No willingness whatsoever to distinguish between what this body can do and what it ought to do, nor to tolerate any effort to put in place a framework that makes people stop and think about scope of action before legislating.

Indeed, I believe - perhaps wrongly - that the last two debates have been hotter than one might expect (even of an arms debate) due to the fact that (some) people feel that Tex has come up with an "unfair trick" for enforcing scope considerations. We're not just saying that people can keep their nukes (and whatever else they need to survive) and therefore angering the pacifists with our refusal to buy into their idea that getting rid of weapons is the way to create a peaceful world, we're also throwing a spanner in the works of the absolutist framework that says that nations are the instruments - or "subjects", if you will - of the Great Global Government.

I'd love to sit back and look at this whole battle from a PoliSci POV. To me, the United Nations is kind of like what the U.S. might have become if they'd stuck with the Articles of Confederation while allowing secession, and then experienced the same kind of growth in Federal power that every other nation on Earth has experienced over the last few centuries. Bizarre, but fascinating.

And thus, the question: while we'll never have a Constitution, can we have some rights, please? And does that include States' Rights, or just the individual liberties du jour promulgated by the current majority?

And thus, the question: while we'll never have a Constitution, can we have some rights, please? And does that include States' Rights, or just the individual liberties du jour promulgated by the current majority?That's what we're all here for I guess. :D

Perhaps I'll begin drafting a proposal that deals with diplomatic international relations to compensate my recent shortcomming.

However after having read your opinion about this forum I still defend the usefullness of this forum for that very purpose (in a "what have you got to hide" manner) and will intend to use it for double checking any proposal's I may come up with in the future, unless it is imposed upon me to do otherwise by my region's government members.
It is my personal intention to go about my affairs in a clarified manner, particularly when my decisions can affect other nations.
Well, there is definitely usefulness to the forum. I mean, just look at NSoT. There is a blatant typo really really early, and the whole idea was a little mis-represented (I failed to include exceptions for international issues, etc.) If I'd drafted it in the forum, these problems might have been solved. Of course, they might not have also, since the proposal might have just been attacked and attacked with hardly an ounce of constructive criticism--but, still, there are forum posters that contribute a lot to drafted proposals. Just look at some of the recent collaborative efforts (The Global Library replacement, Ecopoeia's new proposal, The Natural Disaster Act, etc.)

So, while the forum's very helpful, it can be a nightmare to get help out of at times. Just like anything, though, data of when why and how this forum abuse occurs can be used to indicate, roughly, its causation (that is to say, after watching a werewolf for a few months one begins to realize that only when the moon is full does he turn into a monster). As a regular forum poster, I've begun to develop a bit of an appreciation (and really it is only "a bit") for 'what type of proposals', 'from whom', 'when' makes it more likely to get flak from the forum, rather than advice. I didn't post NSoT on the forum because I had reason to believe it would be gravely disliked (because of what it was, who was submitting it, and when it was being discussed).

I think Texan Hotrodders thought the same thing. For good or ill, there was reason to believe there would be more harm than good done by a forum preview. Let's break this down into a a crude economic model:
REVENUE GENERATED BY A FORUM TOPIC:
*Approvals for the proposal
*Advice on the proposal's content
*Possibility of greater acceptance from some forum goers (instead of the "Why didn't you ask us first?" effect)

EXPENDITURES INVESTED INTO A FORUM TOPIC:
*Time and effort
*Emotional energy
*Dampened political capital (ie. getting only criticism)

In the case of NSoT, and presumably UNSA, the revenue of a forum topic was almost gauranteed to be low. Forum topics in general don't produce a substantial number of approvals, and the likelihood of forum goers being more amiable to the idea of nat'l sov. proposals after a forum topic seemed outlandish. Also, both of the proposal authors felt they had little to gain from any proofreading from the forum (I did so incorrectly, and Texan Hotrodders did so correctly--his proposal being so much more clearly thought out than mine :)).

On the expenditure side, the costs were high. For NSoT, the time involved in a forum topic, the emotional energy of taking the flak and not retaliating, and the hurt to the proposal's standing from forum opponents attacking it seemed, to me, great in cost.

So, if there's little to gain, and a lot to lose from a financial investment, is it reasonable to expect investors to invest in it? No, of course not. This is a lot like (RL reference) Germany or France. They make it incredibly hard to fire someone, and hold employers to a lot of costly standards in pensions, employment standards, etc. It's a large cost for a company to hire someone in Germany or France, and the quality of their work is not necessarily reflective of that increased cost. So, are new jobs likely to come to Germany or France? No, at least, not as soon as they'll come to Ireland or the UK, who have made it much more financially sound for businesses to expand, hire, and create new jobs in their countries.

That boils down to this: if the forum wants to have more proposal authors posting and drafting here they need increase the worth of their advice and decrease the cost of proposal authors asking for it. And, to be fair, there are a lot (and I mean *a lot*) of posters who are willing and trying to do just that. Every non-confrontational constructive post on the forum increases its worth to proposal authors. I think, in the future, now that the forum is much more open to nat'l sov. ideas, proposals like UNSA or NSoT will not be kept from the forum, but willingly divulged and asked advice upon. At least, it is my hope that that is possible.

It was not my intention at all to insult you. If you feel that I have then I apologise for anything that you consider to be offensive. It was my intention to make a personal accusation concerning political dealings for the reasons previously stated.

It is an attack on your character yes indeed. And that too is a day in the life of a politician. Particularly a politician that keeps his proposals to the back alleys while he trots down the main boulevard.

Ah. So an attack on my character was not meant to insult me? That's reassuring to some extent, but you may want to keep in mind that less tolerant persons than myself will report you to the Mods for flaming when you make attacks on their character, which would likely cause you significant inconvenience.

You must mean this...

I'm quite frankly dissapointed that you consider debating a proposal before it's submission as "bullshit" among other things. Not only are you denigrating this particular section of the forum but also naming an activity that you also frequently participate in, when it comes to proposals you don't agree with, as "bullshit".

You call that "debating a proposal"? That looks more like a lot of...things I can't say because they would be flamebaiting. To make a long story short, the incessant baseless claims of illegality, the ridiculous claims that this will lead to arms races (as if there aren't already enough arms races and arms in NS to potentially destroy our world as it is), the ludicrous conspiracy theories, and the posts by people who clearly had not read and/or understood the proposal...yeah, I'd call that bullshit.

The only actual debating point that I recall was one brought up by Goobergunchia and several others regarding the future of UN legislation. I happen to think that's a very important issue that needs some illuminating debate and I'm glad I had a chance to bring that issue to new light with this proposal.

I have not questioned your honesty. It has never been brought up at all in this debate but if you feel so once again I apologise.

The implication of dishonesty seemed fairly obvious, but I do appreciate the apology and your assertions that it wasn't intentional.

I have no problem whatsoever with you criticizing other proposals so long as you are willing to submit yourself to the same scrutiny. I call it coherence.

*shrug* I have no problem with it being scrutinized or I wouldn't have bothered to propose it. I just wasn't exactly eager to get to the sort of nonsense I knew was coming.

You call that "debating a proposal"? That looks more like a lot of...things I can't say because they would be flamebaiting. To make a long story short, the incessant baseless claims of illegality,

Ahem...

Seeing as it took the moderators a week of deliberating to come to a decision on the legal status of the proposal, and that at at least one point Fris was inclined to call it illegal, calling the claims "baseless" might be stretching things a wee bit.

Ahem...

Seeing as it took the moderators a week of deliberating to come to a decision on the legal status of the proposal, and that at at least one point Fris was inclined to call it illegal, calling the claims "baseless" might be stretching things a wee bit.

:confused:

I really don't see how the length of Moderator deliberations or the fact that a Mod suggested that it be ruled illegal is particularly relevant to whether the claims had a legitimate basis. Mods can rule something illegal just because they feel like it or on the flimsiest of excuses. That sort of thing is frowned upon, but they can do it.

By the way...I realized I was probably coming off as a bit too combative with you earlier in the debate over the UNSA, and wanted to apologize for any offense I caused.

I really don't see how the length of Moderator deliberations or the fact that a Mod suggested that it be ruled illegal is particularly relevant to whether the claims had a legitimate basis. Mods can rule something illegal just because they feel like it or on the flimsiest of excuses. That sort of thing is frowned upon, but they can do it.

But unless you're suggesting that they were doing so in this case (which it seems clear they weren't) the fact that it took them a week to decide what to do regarding the legality of the proposal offers fairly compelling testimony that the proposal was walking a thin line legally speaking.

By the way...I realized I was probably coming off as a bit too combative with you earlier in the debate over the UNSA, and wanted to apologize for any offense I caused.

No apologies necessary, no offense caused.

But unless you're suggesting that they were doing so in this case (which it seems clear they weren't) the fact that it took them a week to decide what to do regarding the legality of the proposal offers fairly compelling testimony that the proposal was walking a thin line legally speaking.

Actually I do think there was one specific occasion in which a ruling that the UNSA is illegal was proposed (but not presented as binding) by a Mod that was based on the flimsiest of excuses. Well, at least from a rules standpoint. From a political philosophy standpoint there may well have been something to it.

And really the length of deliberations does not suggest that it was walking a thin line legally. What it suggests is that the Mods were either busy or having trouble deciding whether it was illegal. Maybe both. And before you suggest that if the Mods were having trouble deciding whether it was legal then it must have been walking a thin line, do remember that the Mods aren't infallible. They are very good, but even they might not necessarily be sure of something as complex as the UNSA without lengthy analysis. That's something I really should have taken into account beforehand and requested a private audience with the Mods for a ruling so they had plenty of time to devote to analyzing it. I have no obligation to do that, of course, but upon reflection that may have been a better course of action.

No apologies necessary, no offense caused.

Good. :)

Actually I do think there was one specific occasion in which a ruling that the UNSA is illegal was proposed (but not presented as binding) by a Mod that was based on the flimsiest of excuses. Well, at least from a rules standpoint. From a political philosophy standpoint there may well have been something to it.

And really the length of deliberations does not suggest that it was walking a thin line legally. What it suggests is that the Mods were either busy or having trouble deciding whether it was illegal. Maybe both. And before you suggest that if the Mods were having trouble deciding whether it was legal then it must have been walking a thin line, do remember that the Mods aren't infallible. They are very good, but even they might not necessarily be sure of something as complex as the UNSA without lengthy analysis. That's something I really should have taken into account beforehand and requested a private audience with the Mods for a ruling so they had plenty of time to devote to analyzing it. I have no obligation to do that, of course, but upon reflection that may have been a better course of action.

Perhaps, but the actual wording of the ruling is a different matter. They said they bounced on both sides of legality several times.

That said....I'm not entirely certain it was so much they were uncertain as they were trying to find an excuse to make it illegal - their bias on the matter was rather evident throughout the process.

Now the big question - after UNSA passes, isn't this one illegal?

Now the big question - after UNSA passes, isn't this one illegal?

I'm still maintaining the argument that it's not... I'm hoping to get a mod response in Moderation sometime soon.