NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: UN Resolution #5: DVD region removal (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The U.N.

Realizing:

-A- The rights and privileges of nations and regions involving all other media types, including: Blu-ray disc, High Density DVD (HD DVD), Universal media disc (UMD), super Audio CD (SACD), DualDiscs, other record types, and nearly all computerized were not mentioned at all in the previous resolution.

-B- Other media supports exist or will arrive soon on the market and should be also free of a “regional system.” This resolution only covers one type of media which is only effective during the time in which DVDs are used as standardized media.

Regretting:

-C- This resolution is poorly written, and contains numerous grammatical errors which can be embarrassing to the U.N.

-D- This resolution is illogical to only include one type of media and this makes it in a way unenforceable and meaningless.

In light of this resolution ineffectiveness and failure to expand to other media types, be it resolved that:

Resolution #5, “DVD region removal” is repealed

Co-Authored by: Love and esterel

Centrist Britain sees no problem with this, as long as a new proposal containing the listed problems amended, is submitted in good time afterwards.

Reformentia sees no problem with this as we considered "DVD Region Removal" to be an absurd thing for the UN to be wasting it's time on, an embarassing resolution to be gracing the front page of UN legislation even if the quality of writing had been consideably higher, and will oppose any attempted replacement attempting to dictate media format guidelines after the repeal.

We surely have more pressing concerns than how easy it is for some kid to watch a movie he wants to order from another country.

Reformentia sees no problem with this as we considered "DVD Region Removal" to be an absurd thing for the UN to be wasting it's time on, an embarassing resolution to be gracing the front page of UN legislation even if the quality of writing had been consideably higher, and will oppose any attempted replacement attempting to dictate media format guidelines after the repeal.

We surely have more pressing concerns than how easy it is for some kid to watch a movie he wants to order from another country.

For once, we agree wholeheartedly with the distinguished representative of Reformentia. We support the repeal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Jeffers concurs with move to repeal "DVD Region Removal". Not only is it an absurdly pointless waste of our time, but certain types of DVD players (including but not limited to those included in many computers) can have their regions changed (albeit a limited number of times).

Finally.


Yes Support.

I'll support this repeal :D

Thank you to care about it ... at last someone is starting to clean this UN legal mess I want more of it. Each of us should work on at least one (wrongly) voted proposal and try to improve it !

Well done Love & Esterel, you have all my support !

Guillaume Ier
Grand Duchy of Trabel

Reformentia sees no problem with this as we considered "DVD Region Removal" to be an absurd thing for the UN to be wasting it's time on, an embarassing resolution to be gracing the front page of UN legislation even if the quality of writing had been consideably higher, and will oppose any attempted replacement attempting to dictate media format guidelines after the repeal.

We surely have more pressing concerns than how easy it is for some kid to watch a movie he wants to order from another country.

My thoughts and feelings exactly. I agree with you 100% :).

I will not support this repeal.

For one, I am a firm believer in the abolition of regional settings on DVD's. That is all the issue is about. DVD's. Why repeal it because you want to include other media? It's sole purpose was for DVD's and nothing else.

Secondly, it is a waste of good red tape. Why do we have to repeal a decision in order to include other media types? That would involve a vote to repeal the old law, and then vote for the revised edition. We would save time and taxpayer's expense if we instead vote to add to the Regional DVD law the other media types.

Thirdly, I strongly believe that media formats should strictly stay in the domain of the private sector, and therefore not be interfered by government rules and regulations. Besides, we have more important issues. Why not tackle alternative energies or weapons of mass destruction instead of what you're popping into your DVD player? We're the UN for Christ sakes! Let's do something IMPORTANT! Stop wasting our time with such mundane crap! GET TO WORK YOU LAZY PENCIL PUSHERS!!!!!!

This is worse than last week's. I don't think time should be wasted on repeals, especially for such trivial details. Simply put forward new legislation that includes the extra details, rather than taking backward steps all the time.

"poorly written, and contains numerous grammatical errors"
You double the embarrasment by mentioning it again.

I will not support this repeal.

For one, I am a firm believer in the abolition of regional settings on DVD's. That is all the issue is about. DVD's. Why repeal it because you want to include other media? It's sole purpose was for DVD's and nothing else.

Secondly, it is a waste of good red tape. Why do we have to repeal a decision in order to include other media types? That would involve a vote to repeal the old law, and then vote for the revised edition. We would save time and taxpayer's expense if we instead vote to add to the Regional DVD law the other media types.
I personally feel this resolution is an embarrasment to the UN and a trivial waste of its time. Why should the UN care if people can watch movies or not?

Just because this resolution is repealed, doesn't mean another one has to take its place. There is much much less support for a replacement than the repeal. You'd be surprised how many of us just want the whole subject out of the UN and back in nations hands where it belongs. We can't just add other media types to the original resolution. That is an ammendment which I'm pretty sure is against the proposal rules.

Thirdly, I strongly believe that media formats should strictly stay in the domain of the private sector, and therefore not be interfered by government rules and regulations. Besides, we have more important issues. Why not tackle alternative energies or weapons of mass destruction instead of what you're popping into your DVD player? We're the UN for Christ sakes! Let's do something IMPORTANT! Stop wasting our time with such mundane crap! GET TO WORK YOU LAZY PENCIL PUSHERS!!!!!!
Agreed to a point. Thats why I strongly support this repeal :).

Alright... so amendments are not allowed.

Let's push for amendments! We should draft a proposal to allow amendments to current laws so that we won't have to repeal so much! Now that's worth voting for.

As ammendments to resolutions are against the proposal rules, I'm quite confident a proposal asking to allow ammendments to resolutions would be against the proposal rules :D.

If you want to try, its up to you but I strongly suggest you Read This First (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465);):).

The Dominion of Canada6 is unanimously in favour of this repeal.

As ammendments to resolutions are against the proposal rules, I'm quite confident a proposal asking to allow ammendments to resolutions would be against the proposal rules

I must admit that even if I am in favor of this proposal, I would not agree to do so while it is illegal.

I personally feel this resolution is an embarrasment to the UN and a trivial waste of its time. Why should the UN care if people can watch movies or not?

The UN is made to protect private individuals. It is not about their right to watch a movie. It is aboutnot having smuggled DVD and other device on the market.

Plus if you are against the idea of the proposal you should vote yes ---> you can vote No then for the new proposal and if the majority is with you, the proposal will be completely erased.

Plus if you are against the idea of the proposal you should vote yes ---> you can vote No then for the new proposal and if the majority is with you, the proposal will be completely erased.

I intend to. Believe me :)

The Bettian delegate supports this resolution and hopes a better one will replace it.

Which reminds me... did the 'DRM & Media Act' proposal reach quorum?

The Commonwealth of Chastmere does not support this repeal.

In excerpts of a briefing to the press for the reasons of the governments standing on this repeal:

"Chastmere does not feel that the argument for the repeal of the said resolution is relevant:

A - Most of the data mediums mentioned are not commercially available to consumers as yet, so any region restrictions have not been documented so early in the development process of these technologies. It is therefore not worthy of the UN's time to even have a resolution enforcing anything on certain technologies which are not even in the market, or will be in the market in the short term i.e. its pointless.

B - The reason it is effective is that DVD is the standardised media of today, and for at least the next 4-7 years. The previous resolution specifically notarised DVD's as the region restrictions caused many problems and added increased overheads (as well as delayed release) to the production and shipment of region restricted DVD's.

C - The Chastmerian government finds it laughable for 'Jey' to be critical of the previous authors spelling and grammar, when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.

D - The resolution bans region restrictions on DVD's which are the standard media of the present. The Chastmerian government finds it farcical that the author suggests that merely because it only pertains to one type of media, it is therefore "unenforceable and meaningless." We suggest the author understand the scope of that statement. "

Mr I.P. Freely
Chastmerian Representative to the United Nations
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

-D- This resolution is illogical to only include one type of media and this makes it in a way unenforceable and meaningless.
In light of this resolution ineffectiveness and failure to expand to other media types,
Ah, the perfect solution fallacy (http://www.safalra.com/philosophy/fallacies/perfectsolution/)...

The nation of Independent Birmingham will be supporting the repeal of the revolution. In response to other nations accusal that it is wasting time and frivolous expenditure of red tape, I wish to remind my right honourable friends that the implementation of this resolution in the first instance was a comparatively flippant resolution at vote in an expanding world.

-

A.R.I.B. Secretary for Technological Affairs

This is silly. It's been approved. There's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's good. Why do extra paperwork to repeal it? Remember the wise saying, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it.". Same here. Why do extra work do fix something that isn't broken? If you really care about the other media types, then amend it to a general ruling that includes those media types. I don't think I need say more. Repeal is a waste. It has basically no pros, only cons. I vote to discard this silly proposal.

well lets thik about this YES!!!

C - The Chastmerian government finds it laughable for 'Jey' to be critical of the previous authors spelling and grammar, when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.So long as we are grading each other on grammar, Mr. Freely, I would kindly request that you stop misusing the pronouns "they" and "their," as they are not proper gender-nonspecific pronouns. I would also ask what spelling or grammatical errors exist in the repeal text? I couldn't find any.

The Federal Republic supports this repeal, by the way.

Why not just make a new one that replaces the old one and improves on it?

I think you'd have to repeal it first or it'd be considered an amendment.

But in any case this resolution was not only brainless, stupid, and poorly written, it was also miscategorized. They say it reduces the barriers of free trade but it actually builds barriers to free trade, saying media from region is not allowed to be viewed by another? This is free trade, on what planet? I also ask myself what the bloody point was in such resolution, is the issue of movies circulated from one country to another really a concern of the international community?? Repeal this resolution, and never pass one like it again, from the view of it not only does it prevent my citizens from seeing cool martial arts movie dubbed poorly in our language from other countries, but it is so stupid it's not even funny, it's barely a paragraph long. When I read this resolution I thought it was a joke, because it was obviously poorly written by a pathetic noob, and somehow got passed in the U.N...how that happened is beyond me.

Having contributed to the debate on the Media DMR Act, we support this repeal and give our full support to a coherent future replacement. We are committed to expanding the definitions and ensuring that no loop-holes will be exploited to the detriment of consumers.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

"This resolution is poorly written, and contains numerous grammatical errors which can be embarrassing to the U.N."

Not only does this sentence contain a grammatical error, but it is also poor writing.

Commas are not placed simply because the next word is a conjunction; they are used before conjunctions only if the following clause is a complete sentence. "Contains numerous grammatical errors which can be embarrassing to the UN" is not a complete sentence. Adding commas before an "and" is kneejerk reaction that must be curbed.

The phrase "which can be embarrasing to the U.N." makes this sentence clunky and awkward. Consider rephrasing the sentence to read: "This poorly written, grammatically erroneous resolution is an embarrassment to the United Nations."

[A general rule of grammar, too, is that you use acronyms like U.N. only when the word functions as an adjective -- as in, the U.N. Security Council. When using important words as nouns, you should spell out the entire thing. This can be ignored in informal writing, or ignored (sparingly) in journalism, but in formal writing it should always be observed.]

This may sound nitpicky, but if you're going to call out someone else's grammar you should be certain your own is impeccable.

As to the resolution...I will be casting my vote in affirmation, but would have preferred the proposal in question offer a timetable on the introduction of a new regional media strategy.

The UN should never have allowed the original resolution to pass. Nor should it be concerned with it's repeal.

The whole issue should be thrown out with the wash. It is not the UN's territory to dabble in business affairs or in the arts. Their Ultimate concern is for Human Rights on a basic level. They are only moderators for the decent and ethical treatment of persons lacking those privileges. While you all are wasting time on this issue there are more important issues not even being discussed. Why not pass a resolution to allow a World Court to be created to discuss such matters and free up the UN's time for far more important issues.

Has their ever been a discussion on creating a Human Rights day where small groups can have their issues heard in a public forum. Just food for thought.

The Holy Republic of Mumbassic does not support the repeal of this resolution. It is the opinion of this government that the free market is in a better position to govern itself and, as such, should be allowed to do so without UN interference. Allow the consumers of the product dictate to the market what they wish in regards to regional encoding. Continued and ever increasing regulation will have a negative effect on the free market and, in the end, harm that sector of our economy.

Every person has the right to watch every movie with whatever dvd player!
Why not? Has anyone a comprehensible explanation for not voting to remove the region factor?

Every person has the right to watch every movie with whatever dvd player!

Is that to be considered some kind of inalienable human right then? Like the right to buy affordably priced hair care products? Or perhaps the right to have at least one all you can eat buffet style restaurant within a 10 mile radius of your home?

We're just curious you understand... we'd like to place this 'right' you speak of in the proper context.

The Holy Republic of Mumbassic does not support the repeal of this resolution. It is the opinion of this government that the free market is in a better position to govern itself and, as such, should be allowed to do so without UN interference. Allow the consumers of the product dictate to the market what they wish in regards to regional encoding. Continued and ever increasing regulation will have a negative effect on the free market and, in the end, harm that sector of our economy.

Precisely why you SHOULD vote for this repeal, this resolution basically says you can only watch dvds from your own region, with its repeal we can get dvds from whatever region we want as consumers. I urge you to change your vote so we can repeal this restriction to free trade, now if someone makes proposition afterwards to make these requirements stricter and to cover more media, by all means feel free to vote against it.

Why was something so trivial passed through the UN in the first place? Seems like an abuse of time, management and money.

It's about time this repeal hit the floor! :)

Precisely why you SHOULD vote for this repeal, this resolution basically says you can only watch dvds from your own region, with its repeal we can get dvds from whatever region we want as consumers. I urge you to change your vote so we can repeal this restriction to free trade, now if someone makes proposition afterwards to make these requirements stricter and to cover more media, by all means feel free to vote against it.

Actually the fact this resolution is so often misunderstood and some people think it does the opposite of what it says is another very good reason for getting rid of it.

This is the original resolution....
DVD region removal


A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mercia

Description: The removal of regions in DVD's that prevent a user from one region watching the DVD's form another. One region is all wek need.

Votes For: 4266

Votes Against: 806

Implemented: Fri Jan 17 2003

It does remove region protection and make DVDs watchable anywhere.

What is the point of all these resolution repeals? Is there no way just to make a resolution amendment??

The United Socialist States of Garbage Bag Johnny approve this message as we are adamantly against poor grammar. We have also seen and fully support the new resolution being drafted and proposed.

While the original resolution is, from a consumer standpoint, essentially a good idea, it doesn't matter in the long run. Whether or not my people can watch another region's DVDs is inconsequential to this government, and should be inconsequential to other governments as well. I say we just leave it how it is. Why should it matter anyway? Doesn't the United Nations have more important things to debate? World hunger comes to mind, as does the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.

The issue of grammar, in my opinion, is much less important than we are making it. While a proposal should be reasonably understandable and mildly intelligent, whether or not your grammar is perfect is overkill. We're not in school anymore and this isn't being graded, although maybe some national leaders might do well to take a basic government class or two.

What is the point of all these resolution repeals? Is there no way just to make a resolution amendment??
No. Just look at the UN rules... it's quite clear.

And hey, as long as we are repealing everything, why don't we just skip a couple steps and repeal all UN laws in one blow, :sniper: then start over (dripping with sarcasm).

As I understand this, DVD regions comply with television systems used in those regions, so DVD Regions are needed to make the product compatible with these different systems that are in use. PAL and NTSC are completely useless to each other, and in North America with this new HDTV coming out, I'm sure that Region 1 will require either this new system be compatible or be further differentiated.

As a rule I accept this Repeal, as making television systems worldwide to be the same, add to that standards like electricity being the same too, so as to allow any electrical product be used anywhere... :) [nevermind]

Repeal "DVD Region Removal"

I do not understand just what the origional resolution means exactly, so I'm supporting the repeal. EDIT: Now I understand it. But still am repealing.

While the original resolution is, from a consumer standpoint, essentially a good idea, it doesn't matter in the long run. Whether or not my people can watch another region's DVDs is inconsequential to this government, and should be inconsequential to other governments as well. I say we just leave it how it is. Why should it matter anyway? Doesn't the United Nations have more important things to debate? World hunger comes to mind, as does the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.

An argument such as this is, of course, germane to a proposal. If there are several proposals being considered, it is only sensical to argue that those which are most important be considered and discussed.

However, this issue is now up for vote as a resolution, not a proposal, and therefore will BE the issue we discuss until the end of the voting period. If you think there are more appropriate issues, that's great. But saying so won't make the voting stop. I would reserve these sorts of arguments for those times when they are pertinent to the case at hand.

I will not support this repeal.

For one, I am a firm believer in the abolition of regional settings on DVD's. That is all the issue is about. DVD's. Why repeal it because you want to include other media? It's sole purpose was for DVD's and nothing else.

Secondly, it is a waste of good red tape. Why do we have to repeal a decision in order to include other media types? That would involve a vote to repeal the old law, and then vote for the revised edition. We would save time and taxpayer's expense if we instead vote to add to the Regional DVD law the other media types.

Thirdly, I strongly believe that media formats should strictly stay in the domain of the private sector, and therefore not be interfered by government rules and regulations. Besides, we have more important issues. Why not tackle alternative energies or weapons of mass destruction instead of what you're popping into your DVD player? We're the UN for Christ sakes! Let's do something IMPORTANT! Stop wasting our time with such mundane crap! GET TO WORK YOU LAZY PENCIL PUSHERS!!!!!!

Amen. I only voted on 2 issues, and they both really sucked. Join the UN to make a change, not to decide on DVDs!

Holy Priest Guy of Zaqari

as long as we are repealing everything, why don't we just skip a couple steps and repeal all UN laws in one blow, :sniper: then start over.

--enough said

:) ;)

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

This is worse than last week's. I don't think time should be wasted on repeals, especially for such trivial details. Simply put forward new legislation that includes the extra details, rather than taking backward steps all the time.

"poorly written, and contains numerous grammatical errors"
You double the embarrasment by mentioning it again.

yup.

i petition all of the nations in the world to boycott this legislation by either not voting at all or removing your current vote; the most ideal solution from my point of view is that this resolution simply receives NO votes at all.

And hey, as long as we are repealing everything, why don't we just skip a couple steps and repeal all UN laws in one blow, :sniper: then start over (dripping with sarcasm).
Please don't joke about that, I've seen too many people actually try that, the proposal queue doesn't need any more garbage proposals than it already gets.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

"This resolution is poorly written, and contains numerous grammatical errors which can be embarrassing to the U.N."

Not only does this sentence contain a grammatical error, but it is also poor writing.

Commas are not placed simply because the next word is a contraction; they are used before contractions only if the following clause is a complete sentence. "Contains numerous grammatical errors which can be embarrassing to the UN" is not a complete sentence. Adding commas before an "and" is kneejerk reaction that must be curbed.

The phrase "which can be embarrasing to the U.N." makes this sentence clunky and awkward. Consider rephrasing the sentence to read: "This poorly written, grammatically erroneous resolution is an embarrassment to the United Nations."

[A general rule of grammar, too, is that you use acronyms like U.N. only when the word functions as an adjective -- as in, the U.N. Security Council. When using important words as nouns, you should spell out the entire thing. This can be ignored in informal writing, or ignored (sparingly) in journalism, but in formal writing it should always be observed.]

This may sound nitpicky, but if you're going to call out someone else's grammar you should be certain your own is impeccable.

As to the resolution...I will be casting my vote in affirmation, but would have preferred the proposal in question offer a timetable on the introduction of a new regional media strategy.

May I suggest knowing what you are talking about as a further stipulation on grammatical fascism. The word 'and' is a conjunction, not a contraction. A rule of generative grammar, too, is that anything produced by the human language component is, in fact, grammatical. Thus, if I say "boy, the UN sure has passed a whole bunch of pointless resolutions," we can assume that 'UN' is an acceptable abbreviation, regardless of your prescriptivist rules. Also, my understanding of general rules of grammar is that they are presented in a form like:
NP--> (AP)N'

I will now stop posting jokes that no one gets.

If you really want to pick on the grammar of Jey and Love & esterel (and I don't) the only legitimate error is the lack of a possessive affix in the last sentence. But this is irrelevant because the repeal is legitimate. The existing proposal has a short life, and the composition issues are much worse than mere prescriptive grammar. Rather than pass new laws every time a new medium is introduced, why not just make a proposal with universal application.

Incidentally, the free trade arguments are pretty worthless. If you think that free trade actually works ( :rolleyes: ), then it would deal with region removal through matters of marketplace expansion. Who benefits from different DVD regions? That's right, the folks who make the machines. Obviously the region differentiation generates more profit (the only concern of a free market system). That means the only issue is whether or not you can get your Japanese porn in a watchable form which, frankly, is of no concern to the United Nations (ahem).

Repeal and don't (psst... that last word was a contraction) replace this piece of fluff.
:)

So long as we are grading each other on grammar, Mr. Freely, I would kindly request that you stop misusing the pronouns "they" and "their," as they are not proper gender-nonspecific pronouns. I would also ask what spelling or grammatical errors exist in the repeal text? I couldn't find any.

Well, Omi, they just do happen to be recognised as non-gender specific 'pronouns' (I suggest you brush up on what a pronoun actually is [either that or you made an error in bolding your quote]) in my neck of the woods. Whether they are just colloquially recognised or not is not for me to say.

I used that language as the nickname 'Jey' is a non-gender specific name in itself, so, not wanting to cause confusion or embarrassment, I chose to use that language.

Without being pedantic; there is incorrect use of colons, inconsistent use of capital letters (especially in referencing acronyms), and spelling errors (which may or may not be geographically specific).

Good day to you sir/madam.

Ms I.C. Heart on behalf of:
Mr I.P. Freely
Chastmerian Representative to the United Nations
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

I will not support this repeal.

For one, I am a firm believer in the abolition of regional settings on DVD's. That is all the issue is about. DVD's. Why repeal it because you want to include other media? It's sole purpose was for DVD's and nothing else.

Secondly, it is a waste of good red tape. Why do we have to repeal a decision in order to include other media types? That would involve a vote to repeal the old law, and then vote for the revised edition. We would save time and taxpayer's expense if we instead vote to add to the Regional DVD law the other media types.

So true. sadly tho, it seems this repeal will pass.

Thirdly, I strongly believe that media formats should strictly stay in the domain of the private sector, and therefore not be interfered by government rules and regulations. Besides, we have more important issues. Why not tackle alternative energies or weapons of mass destruction instead of what you're popping into your DVD player? We're the UN for Christ sakes! Let's do something IMPORTANT! Stop wasting our time with such mundane crap! GET TO WORK YOU LAZY PENCIL PUSHERS!!!!!!

lol.

Well, Omi, they just do happen to be recognised as non-gender specific 'pronouns' (I suggest you brush up on what a pronoun actually is [either that or you made an error in bolding your quote]) in my neck of the woods. Whether they are just colloquially recognised or not is not for me to say.

I used that language as the nickname 'Jey' is a non-gender specific name in itself, so, not wanting to cause confusion or embarrassment, I chose to use that language.

Without being pedantic; there is incorrect use of colons, inconsistent use of capital letters (especially in referencing acronyms), and spelling errors (which may or may not be geographically specific).

Good day to you sir/madam.

Ms I.C. Heart on behalf of:
Mr I.P. Freely
Chastmerian Representative to the United Nations
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

I don't think that prefacing your pedantic comments with the phrase "without being pedantic" removes that description from them. Being very pedantic; you have a copular disjoint in your list. You are attempting to conjoin a singularly conjugated verb ('is') with a plural object ('spelling errors'). Sorry. ;)

On a more interesting note (to me), it is curious that both of you dealt oddly with pronoun selection. I am not sure what pronouns Omigodtheykilledkenny would have you use, but it would also be a poor choice to say 'he' or 'she.' The proper noun 'Jey' names a country, not a person. 'They' is really the only choice, as 'it' would sound odd when applied to a group of people.

This talk of grammatical constructions is far more interesting than the issue of DVD region removal. Thanks, all.

(I suggest you brush up on what a pronoun actually is [either that or you made an error in bolding your quote])Whatever (education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pronoun), smart guy. :rolleyes:

Well, Omi, they just do happen to be recognised as non-gender specific 'pronouns' in my neck of the woods. Whether they are just colloquially recognised or not is not for me to say.I see you use the King's English, yet you bastardize the use of pronouns. For shame. ;)

On a more interesting note (to me), it is curious that both of you dealt oddly with pronoun selection. I am not sure what pronouns Omigodtheykilledkenny would have you use, but it would also be a poor choice to say 'he' or 'she.' The proper noun 'Jey' names a country, not a person. 'They' is really the only choice, as 'it' would sound odd when applied to a group of people.When referring to a nation, the pronoun is "it." When referring to a hypothetical person, the pronoun is "he." Not exactly politically correct, but grammatically so.

When referring to a nation, the pronoun is "it."

According to your dialect or native country, perhaps. The pronoun used for countries [especially in reference to one's own country] actually varies quite a lot. This is based partly on the languages spoken in the country, and partly on history.

When referring to a hypothetical person, the pronoun is "he." Not exactly politically correct, but grammatically so.

According to pedantic so-called "grammarians." Linguists real grammarians] have long since recognized they as an appropriate pronoun to be used for a singular entity of unknown gender.

Whatever (education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pronoun), smart guy. :rolleyes:

I see you use the King's English, yet you bastardize the use of pronouns. For shame.

When referring to a nation, the pronoun is "it." When referring to a hypothetical person, the pronoun is "he." Not exactly politically correct, but grammatically so.


While I might agree with you, in general, on this point, the following sentence does not sound grammatical to me:

C - The Chastmerian government finds it laughable for 'Jey' to be critical of the previous author's spelling and grammar, when it itself is guilty of the same thing.

If this sounds fine to you, then that is all the more interesting (from a syntactician's point of view [which I happen to have]). In this case, I think that the pronoun is referring, implicitly, to the members of Jey's government responsible for penning the repeal. This is done by equating them (heh) with the authors of the original proposal. So, I am not sure that I would make such a strong point about the grammaticality of 'it.'

well, well... i was the meaning i made myself clear... WELL NO its not like having allyoucaneatrestaurant within a 10miles radius! its more like.. hm... its about comfort for everyone... comfort which can be so easy made... you know..?
its ridiculous that we must discuss this here..dont you think? of course its quite important somehow, but, i think there are more important things we should talk about than DVD´s and anger about the word "rights" in this content... :rolleyes:

According to pedantic so-called "grammarians." Linguists real grammarians] have long since recognized they as an appropriate pronoun to be used for a singular entity of unknown gender.Would you count the Associated Press among the "pedantic so-called 'grammarians'"?

Would you count the Associated Press among the "pedantic so-called 'grammarians'"?

Without question.

Who the he11 cares about such useless resolutions? Agreed also with wasting time on repealing them. Wem ist es scheissegal!?? Too bad that's not as strong as the english. At least be creative or fun with resolutions and don't waste everyone's time with these useless, booooooooring ones and all the PC crap; eg, the incredibly stupid resolution about equal marraige and adoption rights for whatever the **** gender or sexuality you can dream up for your "population of 25 million." As if we don't get enough of that liberal garbage in real life. Give it a rest. Does anyone truly care about that for an online simulation roll playing game? Why not do something exciting that you couldn't really do in real life. I really don't care if people completely disagree with me, or think I am a jerk. I'll be the first to admit it. Because the truth is, your opinion really doesn't matter to me, especially since this is an ONLINE GAME. Maybe people will get anfry and try to do something about this. Come one, come all. At least it would liven this up from repealing resolutions on dvd BS.

This resolution might not be creative but the germane debate to it is recreational. I must say that the grammar lesson is a sheer delight to me. I am French and I would like to thank you all for allowing an improvement to my English language.
Besides, I am truly sorry if I said anything grammatically incorrect or slightly too colloquial in this message or any previous one. Please, feel free to correct me. I would be grateful if you do.

By the way, I am the translator for several French regions and since I started to implicate the arguments of your debates in the aforementionned regions, their votes have been more rationnal and disciplined. For the first time, my French peers have felt they were part of the UN and this makes them more conscious of the decisions they make.

Again, I am sorry if I have made a botch of your language but I am sure my point was loud and clear.

Guillaume Ier,
Grand Duchy of Trabel

The Theoretical Dominion of Ficticious Proportions supports this repeal, as it supports it's proposed replacement, which sadly didn't reach quorum first time (Worldwide Entertainment Act) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446611).

It seems to me that in recent weeks, the current concensus on the best course of action for improving resolutions of "repeal, then replace" seems to be causing uproar from nations who don't see why we can't amend resolutions, which would solve the problem in one step (The reason is purely technical; the game engine doesn't let us do this). Perhaps we should appeal to the technical forum to introduce amendments to the game, and in the meantime, perhaps take the approach we did to "Required Basic Healthcare" (Resolution #16, now repealed) - Get the replacement voted in first which anulls the previous, whilst covering all its angles again (Resolution #19 in this case), and then repeal the original due to it's obsolescence (The Repeal being #102 in this case). I know that in the case of "Required Basic Healthcare", it had to be that way around because repeals hadn't been introduced at the time both #16 and #19 passed, but at least this way, we address the points beforehand, with the assurance that there is always some legislation covering the issues at hand.

I'll start a seperate thread on this line of thought, so it doesn't cause this topic to go off at a tangent.

It seems to me that in recent weeks, the current concensus on the best course of action for improving resolutions of "repeal, then replace" seems to be causing uproar from nations who don't see why we can't amend resolutions, which would solve the problem in one step (The reason is purely technical; the game engine doesn't let us do this). Perhaps we should appeal to the technical forum to introduce amendments to the game, and in the meantime, perhaps take the approach we did to "Required Basic Healthcare" (Resolution #16, now repealed) - Get the replacement voted in first which anulls the previous, whilst covering all its angles again (Resolution #19 in this case), and then repeal the original due to it's obsolescence (The Repeal being #102 in this case). I know that in the case of "Required Basic Healthcare", it had to be that way around because repeals hadn't been introduced at the time both #16 and #19 passed, but at least this way, we address the points beforehand, with the assurance that there is always some legislation covering the issues at hand.

The duplication rule makes it problematic to do it that way. And they're not going to introduce amendments no matter how much it is requested, that's been covered in previous discussions of the topic.

According to pedantic so-called "grammarians." Linguists [including real grammarians] have long since recognized they as an appropriate pronoun to be used for a singular entity of unknown gender.Whoa, whoa! Where did this come from?

As a Linguistics student, I wholeheartedly disagree.

First, there're already appropriate neuter, singular pronouns (that is if you're so 'progressive' that you reject the neuter for of "he"): "one", or even "he or she". The use of "they" in place of "he or she", "he", "one", is similar to some person's use of "there's" in place of "there're" ("there's five of them"). It's common colloquially, but it still isn't grammatically correct.

Second, you don't have to be that much a grammarian to believe that "they" is not on equal status with "he", "he or she" or "one": it's a part of one of the first rules of English grammar: verb-subject agreement.

Lastly, the original poster has already admitted that the use of "they" in place of "he or she" may full well be a colloquial home-brewing.

Well, Omi, they just do happen to be recognised as non-gender specific 'pronouns'...in my neck of the woods. Whether they are just colloquially recognised or not is not for me to say.
Now, I'm not in any way suggesting that we be anal retentive about grammar. I can't tell you how many people would say "each person gets their own" where I live. Or how many would feel nonplussed with a "don't" instead of a "doesn't" in one of their sentences. But, when it comes time that we're actually discussing the rules of grammar, let's not substitute the vulgar langue for the official langue.

Besides the humor I find in watching people assert their local grammar for an official grammar of English, I also find it humorous that the original post may have full well been misunderstood. C - The Chastmerian government finds it laughable for 'Jey' to be critical of the previous authors spelling and grammar, when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.It's fully possible that in laughing at 'Jey', the Chastmerian government was laughing at a whole country, or a government. Both of which, according to English English, anyways, are suitable nouns for plural pronoun (and verb) attachment (ie. Poland laughs that FEMA are the way they are).

Anyway let's try to get back on the topic of saving the UN from unnecessary past legislation:

I take down my vote as "For".

(I also take credit, any cash prizes, and multiple scandalously-clad ladies of ill-repute for my cultivation of a "repeal previous legislation for replacement or because it's badly written" constituency. So there. *sticks out tongue*)

May I suggest knowing what you are talking about as a further stipulation on grammatical fascism. The word 'and' is a conjunction, not a contraction. A rule of generative grammar, too, is that anything produced by the human language component is, in fact, grammatical. Thus, if I say "boy, the UN sure has passed a whole bunch of pointless resolutions," we can assume that 'UN' is an acceptable abbreviation, regardless of your prescriptivist rules. Also, my understanding of general rules of grammar is that they are presented in a form like:
NP--> (AP)N'

I will now stop posting jokes that no one gets.

If you really want to pick on the grammar of Jey and Love & esterel (and I don't) the only legitimate error is the lack of a possessive affix in the last sentence. But this is irrelevant because the repeal is legitimate. The existing proposal has a short life, and the composition issues are much worse than mere prescriptive grammar. Rather than pass new laws every time a new medium is introduced, why not just make a proposal with universal application.

Incidentally, the free trade arguments are pretty worthless. If you think that free trade actually works ( :rolleyes: ), then it would deal with region removal through matters of marketplace expansion. Who benefits from different DVD regions? That's right, the folks who make the machines. Obviously the region differentiation generates more profit (the only concern of a free market system). That means the only issue is whether or not you can get your Japanese porn in a watchable form which, frankly, is of no concern to the United Nations (ahem).

Repeal and don't (psst... that last word was a contraction) replace this piece of fluff.
:)

You are correct. It appears I committed the cardinal sin -- chastising another on their grammar without ensuring the accuracy of my own diction. Although, I'm quite certain you knew good and well that I had intended to say "conjunction." I was just not thinking at the time.

The comma error WAS legitimate.

Furthermore, the words I used indicated clearly that using the UN as an abbreviated noun was perfectly acceptable informally, in tightly crafted journalism, or everyday speech. The question, however, of what is and is not professional within the context of formal writing is still pertinent, especially if one seeks to demean another's work through the medium of UN proposals. It's a matter of mutual respect, not grammar.

In any case, it is silly to debate grammar and clarity within UN resolutions. Most of the writing is not good, yes, but we're not in a creative writing workshop. I regret to have stooped to doing so -- I merely thought it necessary that the grammar of the resolution be corrected, considering the resolution author's pains to attack another's writing.

The duplication rule makes it problematic to do it that way. And they're not going to introduce amendments no matter how much it is requested, that's been covered in previous discussions of the topic.

Thanks for the information, Reformentia. I understand the duplication rule, but perhaps if they include lines like Resolution #20 did declaring the previous one #17 null and void or similar. (Yes, I got the numbers wrong first time around. I'm too used to the numbers you have type in the address line, which start from zero :rolleyes: )

The exact line was "1) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be no longer enforced by the UN. "

I agree it's a tricky issue. But I won't go off on a tangent in here. It'd better be taken to another thread.

Thanks for the information, Reformentia. I understand the duplication rule, but perhaps if they include lines like Resolution #20 did declaring the previous one #17 null and void or similar. (Yes, I got the numbers wrong first time around. I'm too used to the numbers you have type in the address line, which start from zero :rolleyes: )

The exact line was "1) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be no longer enforced by the UN. "

That'd be correct, if "Required Basic Healthcare" and "RBH Replacement" were written with the duplication rule in place. However, the "Enodian protocols" (which introduced the duplication and contradiction ruled, and have since been replaced by the "Hackian Rules") were not in place when those two resolutions were passed. Or, at least, the duplication rule (as well as the contradiction rule, which would make the line "resolution ## is no longer in effect" illegal in proposals) were not being enforced at the time.

That's a large part of why I repealed "Required Basic Healthcare", to simplify our resolution history. It's harder to preach certain rules when your case history doesn't reflect those rules. Actually, I'm pretty certain that if I hadn't passed the repeal of RBH that Cogitation would have removed it or RBH Replacement. At least this way it's still visible to the UN public, a piece of UN history.

That'd be correct, if "Required Basic Healthcare" and "RBH Replacement" were written with the duplication rule in place. However, the "Enodian protocols" (which introduced the duplication and contradiction ruled, and have since been replaced by the "Hackian Rules") were not in place when those two resolutions were passed. Or, at least, the duplication rule (as well as the contradiction rule, which would make the line "resolution ## is no longer in effect" illegal in proposals) were not being enforced at the time.

That's a large part of why I repealed "Required Basic Healthcare", to simplify our resolution history. It's harder to preach certain rules when your case history doesn't reflect those rules. Actually, I'm pretty certain that if I hadn't passed the repeal of RBH that Cogitation would have removed it or RBH Replacement. At least this way it's still visible to the UN public, a piece of UN history.

I understand and agree entirely, and good on you for getting the repeal done, I just feel that there's a tricky situation nowadays with repeals and it's a bit of history repeating. It's me pondering over it. Nonetheless, I'll take it to another thread to prevent me hijacking this one unintentionally. Look out for it, I'd be more than happy to debate it - I'm just doing a bit of looking around to present a case at present.

Whoa, whoa! Where did this come from?

As a Linguistics student, I wholeheartedly disagree.

First, there're already appropriate neuter, singular pronouns (that is if you're so 'progressive' that you reject the neuter for of "he"): "one", or even "he or she". The use of "they" in place of "he or she", "he", "one", is similar to some person's use of "there's" in place of "there're" ("there's five of them"). It's common colloquially, but it still isn't grammatically correct.

Second, you don't have to be that much a grammarian to believe that "they" is not on equal status with "he", "he or she" or "one": it's a part of one of the first rules of English grammar: verb-subject agreement.

Lastly, the original poster has already admitted that the use of "they" in place of "he or she" may full well be a colloquial home-brewing.

Now, I'm not in any way suggesting that we be anal retentive about grammar. I can't tell you how many people would say "each person gets their own" where I live. Or how many would feel nonplussed with a "don't" instead of a "doesn't" in one of their sentences. But, when it comes time that we're actually discussing the rules of grammar, let's not substitute the vulgar langue for the official langue.

Besides the humor I find in watching people assert their local grammar for an official grammar of English, I also find it humorous that the original post may have full well been misunderstood. It's fully possible that in laughing at 'Jey', the Chastmerian government was laughing at a whole country, or a government. Both of which, according to English English, anyways, are suitable nouns for plural pronoun (and verb) attachment (ie. Poland laughs that FEMA are the way they are).

Anyway let's try to get back on the topic of saving the UN from unnecessary past legislation:

I take down my vote as "For".

(I also take credit, any cash prizes, and multiple scandalously-clad ladies of ill-repute for my cultivation of a "repeal previous legislation for replacement or because it's badly written" constituency. So there. *sticks out tongue*)


I apologize for continuing in this vein, but there are some statements here that should be addressed for the betterment of PC's linguistic training.

As a professional linguist (adjunct faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst) I must disagree with your pedagogical classification of the pronominal structures in question. 'They', aside from the point you made at the end of your post (which was simply an echo of my previous post), can be legitimately utilized as a singular pronoun. The fact that people use it on a daily basis is proof of that. If you are studying linguistics, then you should know that the underlying tenet of the modern field is that the performance of the language component, which has full potential competence, is always a legitimate output. If you would like to talk about professional writing, where terms like "appropriate neuter, singular pronouns" might have a place, then you should not preface that with your pronouncement of knowledge of linguistics.
Furthermore, the verb conjugation in the original post (which, mind you, is not professional writing) is correct. It states:

"... they themselves are guilty..."

Still, the output "there's five of them" is grammatically correct in that it is regularly produced by human grammars. There is no argument against the claim that these things must follow prescriptive rules when one is, say, writing a paper for school, an article for a professional journal, or a grant proposal. However, the conversation here, from my, and, I assume, Potomania's point of view, is dealing with pedantic mockery of linguistic truisms. These do not represent a "vulgar" language. They are the reality of our communication system; a construct of our brains that can be found in all English speaking areas.
Finally, I don't recall hearing anyone boasting to have the 'official dialect' of English except, ummm... you. And I must say again that if you wish to preach prescriptive grammar, you had better check your own writing.

Anyhow, I still think that this repeal should pass and that it is not an issue of any concern for the UN to replace it.

Since when is a nation a "them"? Is a committee also a "them" (or, for that matter, an agency)? This reminds me of George W. Bush repeatedly referring to "America and our allies" in the "fight against terror." For God's sake, Georgie! It's "America and its allies"! A nation is not a conscious being, nor is it a group of conscious beings; it is the creation of conscious beings; therefore, it is an "it."

I regret I have not any linguistic credentials to back me up; just the recommendation of the Associated Press Stylebook:

it: Use this pronoun, rather than she, in references to nations and ships.

I apologize for continuing in this vein, but there are some statements here that should be addressed for the betterment of PC's linguistic training.

As a professional linguist (adjunct faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst) I must disagree with your pedagogical classification of the pronominal structures in question.
First, I should make it clear that claims of expertise made on the internet are just about never confirmable. As willing as I am to believe that you actually hold a degree in Linguistics and are employed by a university, I must impress upon you that I do this only out of the goodness of my heart, as I am under no obligation to accept your claims as true.

Besides that, I would advise you that talking down to other posters (which could be interpreted from your statement about needing to help in my training) is harmful, not helpful, to your standing in the forum.

Anyway, let's continue.

'They', aside from the point you made at the end of your post (which was simply an echo of my previous post), can be legitimately utilized as a singular pronoun. The fact that people use it on a daily basis is proof of that. If you are studying linguistics, then you should know that the underlying tenet of the modern field is that the performance of the language component, which has full potential competence, is always a legitimate output. If you would like to talk about professional writing, where terms like "appropriate neuter, singular pronouns" might have a place, then you should not preface that with your pronouncement of knowledge of linguistics.
This, I think I may take issue with. Yes, there are no received, rigid rules by which a language is spoken, and regional and local dialects, variations, etc. persist and must, by nature of their ability to communicate to those who speak such a dialect, be considered viable. However, I'm not certain that just because a language is spoken and understood in a certain way that must be considered "correct". Perhaps if you were to explain what you mean by this a little more I could respond more fully.

Also, since you don't seem to have extracted this from my post, my mention of being a linguistics student is in response to Potomania asserting that "all [or almost all] linguists feel a certain way" (paraphrased, of course) because that is not the impression I have been left with in my interactions with university linguists. Perhaps this impression is a misinterpretation on my part, but even if it is, I hardly see that as warranting the belligerence which you have just wielded against me.

Furthermore, the verb conjugation in the original post (which, mind you, is not professional writing) is correct. It states:

"... they themselves are guilty..."

Still, the output "there's five of them" is grammatically correct in that it is regularly produced by human grammars. There is no argument against the claim that these things must follow prescriptive rules when one is, say, writing a paper for school, an article for a professional journal, or a grant proposal.
Yes, and Omigodtheykilledkenny's post was attempting to coordinate the admittedly informal post with that more rigid exacting professional style. I was just putting in my two-cents as to what would be the "correct" singular pronoun were we to do that. If you are upset that informal language is being compared to formal language, I would advise you not be angry at my continuation of the thought in the thread, but that you take it up with Omigodtheykilledkenny, who birthed the thought.

However, the conversation here, from my, and, I assume, Potomania's point of view, is dealing with pedantic mockery of linguistic truisms. These do not represent a "vulgar" language. They are the reality of our communication system; a construct of our brains that can be found in all English speaking areas.
With "vulgar", I'm referring to commonness, not grossness or delinquency. I'm referring to the actual usage of language--the informal means of communication in which, as you say, whatever effectively communicates among a group is correct--rather than the formal English that some attempt to press down upon others as "right" or "official". I think if you think of my post as referring to this exigency in that way, you'll find the harshness toward me in your response as undue.

Finally, I don't recall hearing anyone boasting to have the 'official dialect' of English except, ummm... you.
First, I'm not certain where I "boast" of having some sort of 'official dialect'. If I left you with that impression that I had an 'official' version, I'm sorry you misunderstood. I used the word ‘official’, in the place of ‘published’, in place of ‘formal’. I'm simply saying that I feel there's a commonly accepted formal style in which, I feel, "they" is not viable as a singular pronoun. This formal style is pushed as "official" by dictionaries, by grammatical texts. Perhaps I should have used quotation marks instead of italics. If the word choice and presentation threw you, I'm sorry you didn't ask for clarification.

And I must say again that if you wish to preach prescriptive grammar, you had better check your own writing.
Ah, but here (in contrast to you previous calling down of one “preaching” grammar) you're off base. See, I never made an attack on another's grammar. I simply disagreed with another's opinion on a rule of grammar. If I were pointing out mistakes in Potomania grammar you'd have grounds upon which to accuse me of picking motes out of his or her eye while having a beam in my own. But, since I'm simply engaging in a discussion on grammar in general--rather than attempting to assert that another poster’s usage is inferior to my own--you do not have a right to make an advance.

In the end, I think what we have is a misunderstanding. You seem to be interpreting my remarks as asserting that the grammar of formal writing is the “right” grammar for informal speaking and writing. I, though I may not have made such a distinction in my post, did not intend to communicate this. If this is the case, and you are simply misunderstanding my admittedly inexact post, perhaps we should learn to 1) be more precise in our posts and 2) not become aggressive with another poster’s perceived offensiveness until it has been confirmed. And even then, mods and poster regulars all agree, ignoring an offense is often much more constructive than responding to it. At all.

Since when is a nation a "them"? Is a committee also a "them" (or, for that matter, an agency)? This reminds me of George W. Bush repeatedly referring to "America and our allies" in the "fight against terror." For God's sake, Georgie! It's "America and its allies"! A nation is not a conscious being, nor is it a group of conscious beings; it is the creation of conscious beings; therefore, it is an "it."

I regret I have not any linguistic credentials to back me up; just the recommendation of the Associated Press Stylebook:
Well, I'm pretty sure the AP recommendation is largely right for written work in America. But it's my understanding the English use plurals for 'implied plural groups' (my own made-up, redundant term). A "committee" is an implied plural, as a committee almost always has more than one member. So, too is "parliament", as it contains a number of representatives. So, if my memory serves, the BBC might say "Parliament are voting on a bill...", since "parliament" is an impied plural.

I just figured that Chastmere might have meant that a nation (or a nation's government, since that would seem to fit IC) is an implied plural.

Since when is a nation a "them"? Is a committee also a "them" (or...
Jeeze, go to a grammar forum or somtin, this aint the place, nor the topic.

I agree, let's debate the UN Resolution Repeal rather than a few grammatical errors... I thought this forum was for "Repeal "DVD region removal"" not a lesson in english grammar.

Linguistic pedantics and semantics in political discussions? Imagine that. And the AP style book should replace Robert's Rules of Order? LMAO. The only AP rule I remember from my newspaper days is that "Dumpster" is spelled with a capital "D."

Speaking of Dumpsters, I support this repeal, and will support the repeal of ANY UN resolution that was written with the intent of chiselling away at national sovereignty.

AK_ID
Delegate, The Wild West

Repeal a resolution for not going far enough? How about expand the resolution to include all listed types, instead of trying to eliminate the types it does enforce?

Repeal a resolution for not going far enough? How about expand the resolution to include all listed types, instead of trying to eliminate the types it does enforce?

I believe the right word is "type" not "types". Singular. As in only one type. As in who cares about the one type. Would you rather have the next resolution say "Worldwide Media Act...Except DVDs"

Think.

I find it insane that more than one page has been dedicated to criticizing the gramatical errors that have been posted. Frankly, the only thing that should matter when we're debating a resolution is the content, not how it is displayed. The resolution or repeal itself should be error free; but we shouldn't be sniping each other because someone used a ; where he shouldn't have. The first and foremost priority should be to make an argument and then back it up with facts. While proper grammar IS something that we should all strive for, we shouldn't have to worry about someone ripping us apart because we mispelled a couple of words and used faulty sentence structure. That is all, carry on with your pointless sniping, I believe I may have left a few errors for you to mull over.

Valua is for the repeal because the reasons presented in the repeal make sense to the clueless dictator of that country.

the queendom of non-mainstream sees no problem

_motion granted_

Also, my understanding of general rules of grammar is that they are presented in a form like:
NP--> (AP)N'

yeah, but is np = p?

i bet even fewer people will get that one...

as for these grammar rules...

language is designed to transfer ideas from one individual to another and back again. the mere process of categorizing and regulating grammar and punctuation is really rather disturbing......i like to blather on about orwell......

that being said, i do understand that there are idiots on the planet and they will continue to write such things as:

"@n@rki5t 3133715t5 4eva!!!!!11!!!!1!!!11!!!!"

....and they should just be shot.

but not following the "rules" for contractions, capitals, etc.....bah....whatever.....grow up, guys. as long as the point got across, the medium has served it's purpose.

however....maybe we should put one of you grammar geeks in charge of cleaning up the resolutions BEFORE they get put to a vote.

eh?

that being said, i do understand that there are idiots on the planet and they will continue to write such things as:

"@n@rki5t 3133715t5 4eva!!!!!11!!!!1!!!11!!!!"

....and they should just be shot

H3¥! 1 t4k3 0ff3n$3 4t th4t $t4t3m3nt!

The Theocracy of Micronanta is for the motion, for the reasons stated within said motion.

The United Socialist States of Capitalist Hedonism votes in favor of this resolution. Should we not be wasting our time on other, less trivial matters?

Jim Illin' Sung
Great Deified Emperor of USSCH

The Oppressed Peoples of Ultravibe:

Agrees with this motion for repeal.

Make it so.

Respecting the outlooks and opinions of its neighbors in bodering regions and in the world as a whole, the Democratic States of Deretopia vote against the repeal of the said motion, for its leader finds the motion at vote is dangerous and harmful to a broader economy.

If the motion is passed, the leader of Deretopia wishes to make it noted that he sees good reason for a replacement bill to be passed, which includes a removal of all regional encodings on all types of media, inculding games, DVDs, CDs, and all modified versions of the previously mentioned formats.

Following a floor debate over the issue, the Necrillite senate has voted in favor of repealing this absurd addition to the United Nations Charter, 95-5. It is a wonder how such an insignificant issue as DVD watching managed to make it to the United Nations and actually pass. Despite the claims that the DVD regions expand the free market, I cannot help but believe that their effects are just the opposite on a global scale.

-From the desk of:
Imperial Senator Jel Mekizdek

If the motion is passed, the leader of Deretopia wishes to make it noted that he sees good reason for a replacement bill to be passed, which includes a removal of all regional encodings on all types of media, inculding games, DVDs, CDs, and all modified versions of the previously mentioned formats.

There already is a replacement resolution in the list of proposals. It is authored by Richard 2008 and called "Worldwide Media Act". I believe it already has a large amount of endorsements.

I second Jey's recommendation, having debated the original proposal for the DRM Act when Richard 2008 proposed it. Thus, I suggest all look at the forum posting for it and endorse it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The board members of the Incorporated States of Befuzinia have decided to vote against this preposterous idea to repeal the affected resolution. This decision is based on the following:

1: A resolution should be judged on its intent and purpose. Commenting on grammar is but childish and hardly a reasonable argument for a repeal.

2: As it has been pointed out, there do exist more then one form of media then the DVD. So there should be a new resolution to take the existing ones place with the purpose to include all existing and future forms of media types. But to repeal the existing one before a new one supersedes it would only result in unnecessary confusion and instability on the market.

Therefore the members of the board have decided to vote against the repeal.

Anagonia strongly supports this Repeal, due to in part that Resolution #5 makes absolutely no sense and describes nothing in detail concerning the Resolution itself. We shall not have pathetic wastes of paper in the UN that make no sense whatsoever, and have no pratical applications besides two-liner sentences.

I would enjoy to see greater detail, meaning more than two sentences that describes further the Resolution in question.

I hope after this Repeal is completed that the UN can work on, and for, something greater.

Thank you.

2: As it has been pointed out, there do exist more then one form of media then the DVD. So there should be a new resolution to take the existing ones place with the purpose to include all existing and future forms of media types. But to repeal the existing one before a new one supersedes it would only result in unnecessary confusion and instability on the market.

To form a resolution as you have recommended would be against the UN rules for submitting proposals. Passing the Worldwide Media Act before the repeal would be illegal, and therefore, the Repeal must be submitted first.

With this repealed how am I going to watch my foreign films on the dvd player.

To form a resolution as you have recommended would be against the UN rules for submitting proposals. Passing the Worldwide Media Act before the repeal would be illegal, and therefore, the Repeal must be submitted first.

Official response

The Incorporated states of Befuzinias legal department is aware of this flaw in the UN regulations. Nevertheless the Incorporated states of Befuzinia firmly stands by its decision not to support the repeal. To suggest that the Incorporated states of Befuzinia is fallible is by Befuzinian law unwise: you are hereby advised to report to the nearest Befuzinian office for re-education. Where you will receive a complementary bottle of Befu-Cola and a waterproof almanac.


News from the Incorporated states of Befuzinia

The VP of the Befuzinian legal department was sacked earlier today after the internal revenue department found him guilty of “unprofitable business practices”. As a result the former VP was fined 100,000 tampax (the Befuzinian currency) to cover the expenses of his execution.

The Wild West has voted FOR this repeal. Worthy of note is that we will continue to support the repeals of any resolutions which impinge upon national or regional sovereignty.

AK_ID

The popularity of PlayStation Portable imports in LA Ice makes our Government strongly support this repeal, particularly for UMDs.

I Demand acess to information and If I want to buy DVD's or other media from another country then I should be able to without buying their players, etc. I hereby vote against this resolution. The Cult of Pi has spoken

As I do not lead a nation hungry for self profits, yet have no desire to impede the economic progress of others, I think it is honorable for me to abstain.

Square Rootedness

Technically i see nothing wrong with the original document, the original resolution simply because it is writen poorly or lacks proper grammar or spelling does not give reason for someone to repeal it.

Frankly, im a bad speller, and if everyone dismissed what I said mainly on the grounds of my spelling and/or grammar, I'd not only be offended by I'd find it imature of stupid.

I voted against.

Technically i see nothing wrong with the original document, the original resolution simply because it is writen poorly or lacks proper grammar or spelling does not give reason for someone to repeal it.

Frankly, im a bad speller, and if everyone dismissed what I said mainly on the grounds of my spelling and/or grammar, I'd not only be offended by I'd find it imature of stupid.

I voted against.

Honestly, why does everyone ONLY concentrate on the "spelling/grammar" part of the repeal. There were plenty of other reasons noted in the repeal as to why the resolution must be repealed. Why is it that only the grammar point is brought up in debate? If thats the only one you disagree with, you should vote FOR it.

Due to the poor quality in both content and technics, Crussia voted firmly FOR this repeal, and eagerly awaits another resolution regarding world-wide media regulations.

Yeah i agree with that but still what does it coast us to let the damn thing past it cant be negative aniway!

Honestly, why does everyone ONLY concentrate on the "spelling/grammar" part of the repeal. There were plenty of other reasons noted in the repeal as to why the resolution must be repealed. Why is it that only the grammar point is brought up in debate? If thats the only one you disagree with, you should vote FOR it.

People are focusing on the spelling/grammar aspect of the resolution becuase once the decision was made to include it, it made it become clear that the "repeal" proposal was somewhat based on a personal issue.

Instead of a repeal, what is needed is an updated ammendment of the original order, instead of getting rid of the old one, and then writing a new one.

Ok, I just read a few things, nad see that ammending is not possible for exsisting UN resolutions.

Forgive me... repealing is the only option if one is to fix it up.

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote FOR the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

Another appeal on the fast track to approval. I'll be quite happy when 80% or more of the current UN resolutions are repealed.

AK_ID
Delegate, The Wild West

Lets just hope that the new resolution will be spelling error free and will have correct grammar and maybe we can add a few points to the resolution that has not been mentioned before.

Also some DVD Players can be hacked anyway (This may be the truth in the Real-World but I am not sure about the Nation States World) to play multi-region, but this illegal unless this resolution is going to be given the "Yes" Vote.

The Kingdom of Brningpyre wishes to suggest a replacement:

Category:
Free Trade

Resolution Name:
Media Region Desegregation

Description:
Given that the previous resolution repealed the "DVD Region Removal" resolution, the Kingdom of Bringinpyre feels it is appropriate to reintroduce proper legislation to replace the hole left by the repeal of the previous ruling.
Accepting the mistakes of the last resolution, this new legislation must be more comprehensive. Thus, let it be resolved that:

1) This resolution applies to all media producers and marketers, regarding all types of portable media storage (hereafter referred to as PMS), including but not limited to DVD, Blue Ray, and CD.

2) There may be no restrictions put in place on the region in which the PMS may be used, accessed and/or played. This would require the removal of segregation between NTFC, PAL and all other likenesses of format in PMS.

3) This resolution would apply only to PMS released after the passing of this resolution, and would not be applicable to any PMS already released. Note that the resolution would still apply to any PMS in development and/or production at the time of this resolution’s passing.

Strength:
Mild

The resolution Repeal "DVD region removal" was passed 11,801 votes to 2,320.

Jey, congrats

The resolution Repeal "DVD region removal" was passed 11,801 votes to 2,320.

Jey, congrats

Thank you, Love and esterel, and all others who assisted with this resolution.

Laws have been enacted to bring Omigodtheykilledkenny into compliance with the passed UN resolution "Repeal "DVD region removal"".Woo-hoo!!! [/Homer Simpson]

It is my duty to inform you that all DVDs manufactured in the Proletariat Coalition are forthwith banned for sale in Antarctic Oasis. As regional commerce secretary, I have the authoritah. ...

RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!! :mad:

(Oh yes, and all due congratulations to Jey and Love and esterel are in order. ... Any replacement legislation can count on no support whatsoever from this regional delegate. Sorry.)

Woo-hoo!!! [/Homer Simpson]

It is my duty to inform you that all DVDs manufactured in the Proletariat Coalition are forthwith banned for sale in Antarctic Oasis. As regional commerce secretary, I have the authoritah. ...

Not that we weren't also in favor of the repeal... but you could have done that while the resolution was still in place.

Not that we weren't also in favor of the repeal... but you could have done that while the resolution was still in place.Now I know I'm not the first one to be confused by the wording of the original resolution, so I suppose I'm easily forgiven if I asked what exactly "DVD region removal" banned??