NationStates Jolt Archive

if your a delagate please look at my proposals i think they are nessasary
they are too destoy gambling and define human rights

In future, link to them, and post a copy of the text in the forum. If you want delegates to take the effort of reading and approving, the least you can do is make it easier for them to find them, instead of having to dig through pages of proposals.

In future, link to them, and post a copy of the text in the forum. If you want delegates to take the effort of reading and approving, the least you can do is make it easier for them to find them, instead of having to dig through pages of proposals.

You know what? I think this kind of thing needs to be added as a topic in it's own right.

Allow me, I know it a little better :p

Don't we have the Universal Bill of Rights?

I would accept the gambling one, because Assatru people have a gambling problem, but I would not be able to accept your Human rights, because it contradicts the Universal Bill of Rights, and it decreases the rights of most people.

Example, it does not make mention of gay people

It says, marriage is between a man and a woman. The United Socialists States of Assatru doesn't mind that, but it allows for discrimination against gay people then. At the very least your resolution could have said, and we recommend that discrimination because you are attracted to the same-sex should be banned.

And it makes no mention to women's rights in general, children or ethnic minorities so unless it was revised no we would not support it. Because if all that falls under the state, then whose rights are being supported. No ones!

You know what? I think this kind of thing needs to be added as a topic in it's own right.

Allow me, I know it a little better :p

Do you mean an 'ATTN all delegates': please post a link type thread? Yeah, that'd be a good idea.

Don't we have the Universal Bill of Rights?

I would accept the gambling one, because Assatru people have a gambling problem, but I would not be able to accept your Human rights, because it contradicts the Universal Bill of Rights, and it decreases the rights of most people.

Example, it does not make mention of gay people

It says, marriage is between a man and a woman. The United Socialists States of Assatru doesn't mind that, but it allows for discrimination against gay people then. At the very least your resolution could have said, and we recommend that discrimination because you are attracted to the same-sex should be banned.

And it makes no mention to women's rights in general, children or ethnic minorities so unless it was revised no we would not support it. Because if all that falls under the state, then whose rights are being supported. No ones!
where is this bill of universal rights

Here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25).

where is this bill of universal rights
also if individual states have all rights then the un would have less power which i want

but i dont agree with that many rights being under the UN

I just went through and found your proposals. Think I got all of them.

Repeal "Diplomatic Immunity "

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #127


Proposed by: LOLRI

Description: UN Resolution #127: Diplomatic Immunity (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: no one should be above the law do to their political position

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 14 2005
No support


Repeal "Sexual Freedom"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #7


Proposed by: LOLRI

Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: having total sexual freedom like that is against my religon i cannot alow this in my nation. i suggest that you give this right to the individual nation to keep religous people like me from anger

Approvals: 1 (Trinidad n Tobago)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 14 2005.
No support. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no business of their government.

Defing humnan rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: LOLRI

Description: 1)womens right to have a abortion
2)marriage is one man and one women
3)to be innocent until proven guilty
4)all other rights go to the individual nations
also the nations my have a death penalty as a punishment for murder

Approvals: 1 (Poletopia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 14 2005
1 - Abortion is already legal
2 - You have 2 or is it 3 resolutions to repeal first
3 - Think this is already covered under other resolutions
4 - Hell no. National soverignty be dammed, the rights of individual citizens are way, way more important.

Eliminate gambling

A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.

Category: Gambling


Legalize/Outlaw: Outlaw


Proposed by: LOLRI

Description: elimate any forms of gambling

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 14 2005
You'd need to give an arguement why nations should eliminate it. I couldn't be bothered with gambling proposals, so no support.




Repeal "The Universal Bill of Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #26


Proposed by: LOLRI

Description: UN Resolution #26: The Universal Bill of Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: this gives the un to much power

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 14 2005
Two words...Hell no.

Less support on proposals

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: LOLRI

Description: in order to allow proposals to be seen by the entire assembly of the UN i propose that:
1)for a proposal to go to quorum it needs 50 in approval
2)for a repeal to go to quorum it needs 70 in approval
under this new procedure more proposals shall be admitted

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 14 2005
Illegal. Game mechanics.

Repeal "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #126


Proposed by: LOLRI

Description: UN Resolution #126: Fossil Fuel Reduction Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: why didnt this get repeled before and the dolphin act did i
erge you to reconsider repealing this act

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Nov 14 2005
The last thing the UN voted on a few days ago was an attempted repeal of this resolution. It failed. The discussion on it is here....

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451767)

I just went through and found your proposals. Think I got all of them.


No support



No support. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no business of their government.


1 - Abortion is already legal
2 - You have 2 or is it 3 resolutions to repeal first
3 - Think this is already covered under other resolutions
4 - Hell no. National soverignty be dammed, the rights of individual citizens are way, way more important.


You'd need to give an arguement why nations should eliminate it. I couldn't be bothered with gambling proposals, so no support.


Two words...Hell no.


Illegal. Game mechanics.


The last thing the UN voted on a few days ago was an attempted repeal of this resolution. It failed. The discussion on it is here....

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451767)
notice eveything ive done is giving more power to the nations,hell no national soverienty is the best,and if i have a law i want and it contradicts the UN im secedding and i know all my laws screw you

notice eveything ive done is giving more power to the nations,hell no national soverienty is the best,and if i have a law i want and it contradicts the UN im secedding and i know all my laws screw you

No, you're not 'secedding'. You're submitting illegal or just poorly worded proposals, and in the process giving the National Sovereignty movement, who you claim to be supporting, a very bad name. Flaming respected forum members - no, wait, flaming ANYONE - is not exactly a great way of showing that you're a responsible legislator. If you want to get some legislation passed, I suggest you post a draft on the forums, and we can help you make it i) legal and ii) well-written.

There is no need for flames/insults. I didn't insult you personally, just criticised your proposals as I and every other UN member have the right to do.

its a freaken game no need for that

theres no need for people to get worked up.

we were all new members at some point and we all submitted our first proposal at some point as well.

LOLRI, this is part of the drafting process and over a period of time the problems with a proposal can be eliminated.

if you want to discuss these with me i'm only a PM away as is everyone whose trying to help you.

its a freaken game no need for that

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's just a game. Calm down. Stop insulting us, and play nice. Who knows? We might even help you with some of your proposals. I agree with some of them. They're just not well-written. If you post them as drafts, then we can help you improve the language and style.

im not going to write a 400 word proposal so it sounds right

im not going to write a 400 word proposal so it sounds right

Then you have lost the game.

notice eveything ive done is giving more power to the nations,hell no national soverienty is the best,and if i have a law i want and it contradicts the UN im secedding and i know all my laws screw you
If you want to "secede" just go to the United Nations section and click the "Resign" button. That's easier than complaining about UN in the forum, after all, everyone else here is in because they want to. Everyone except you, apparently.
its a freaken game no need for that
Granted.
im not going to write a 400 word proposal so it sounds right
Wait, the point of this game is to RP as a real UN. If you hate this game so much, stop playing it. After all, it is just a game.

if you read another one of my quotes iam treating it like i like it i just dont like typing and there are members of the UN (george bush (America) )that hate the extensive control of the UN

notice eveything ive done is giving more power to the nations,hell no national soverienty is the best,and if i have a law i want and it contradicts the UN im secedding and i know all my laws screw you

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is stripping away power like nobody's business. At least have the decency to admit you are doing it when you are.

if you read another one of my quotes iam treating it like i like it i just dont like typing and there are members of the UN (george bush (America) )that hate the extensive control of the UN

OOC: RL references don't really carry much weight around here. But if we are going to make them, I'll just stop and say that Bush isa complete idiot in my view and that the only reason he opposes UN control is because its not his control.

IC: I don't get why you can't understand that the UN wll take away some National Sovereignty. As I have told you already, I believe, if you don't want the UN to have any control over your nation, its as easy as leaving.

i think the UNs job is to dicuss not make laws

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is stripping away power like nobody's business. At least have the decency to admit you are doing it when you are.
what? you dont make sense read the bible sodom destroyed science proved it

i think the UNs job is to dicuss not make laws
Not really. Period.
what? you dont make sense read the bible sodom destroyed science proved it
Sorry of this goes against your beliefs, but the Bible is not a legal document. And what scientific study are you referring to. Please cite it and its source.

but on the discovery channel the said sodom is a real city and it was burned to ashes

im not going to write a 400 word proposal so it sounds right

There are 130,000 players in this game of which 30,000 are members of the United Nations. On the average day, each of the 2000+ delegates is given up to 30 different proposals to look at and consider. Some of them are well written, well thought out, and show clearly both what and why the author was thinking such a thing. They are written in such a manner such that the author can actually convince those who aren't certain of their position on the matter before they read the proposal. Some of them are a handful of lines stating what should be done, but giving no arguments, no reasons, no intentions, no logic and therefore, absolutely no justification for voting for it other than "because I want you to". The UN can only vote on one proposal at a time and each one is up for vote of 5 days - meaning that by the numbers I've posted we have to figure out which of the 150 (often it's between 50-100) proposals we think is actually WORTHY of being put before the general assembly for vote. If it comes down to a well reasoned proposal versus a one line comment saying what should happen, I will always pick the well reasoned proposal - and I think that it is true of most delegates. If you are not willing to spend the time to make a well argued proposal, someone who did will have their proposal put on the floor instead and all of yours will be panned.

Love and esterel who has so far had 6 different proposals, 3 of which have hit the floor, 1 that is on hold, 1 that is on active draft stage and 1 that is in pre-draft stage. He spends, on average, a month building, editing, refining and correcting each proposal before it is ready to be sent to the UN. A MONTH. Some of the more skilled writters can often pull it off in 2 weeks at best (Yelda's Dolphin resolution repeal I believe took a week plus campaign - not including pre-draft). However, the last person who didn't take the time to edit his resolution currently holds the record for fastest repealed resolution in UN history (no time on editing, so all the time was on pre-draft - and even that was a well argued, well worded proposal - just not a practical proposal).

If you WANT your views to be heard, you have to be willing to spend the time to convince your fellow UN members - and that takes time including the time to write and edit a 400 word proposal. If you are unwilling to commit that time, I can assure you that your voice will not be heard in this United Nations.

but on the discovery channel the said sodom is a real city and it was burned to ashes

As was Carthage, and they're pretty sure that a man named "Jesus Christ" did exist - but just because the city existed doesn't mean the bible's comments about it are true and just because a man named Jesus Christ claimed he was the son of God and truly did exist doesn't mean he was truly the son of God (afterall, the Jewish leaders didn't believe him when they heard it at the time). Science would be hard pressed to prove he was the son of God - even today. If we had DNA evidence from 2000 years ago, we might have been able to prove Joseph wasn't his father, but even then we couldn't tell if he was the son of God.

but on the discovery channel the said sodom is a real city and it was burned to ashes
So? Many cities have been burned in History. Alexandria, Paris, Chicago, London, Rome, and the list goes on. That doesn't mean they were punished.
As was Carthage, and they're pretty sure that a man named "Jesus Christ" did exist - but just because the city existed doesn't mean the bible's comments about it are true and just because a man named Jesus Christ claimed he was the son of God and truly did exist doesn't mean he was truly the son of God (afterall, the Jewish leaders didn't believe him when they heard it at the time). Science would be hard pressed to prove he was the son of God - even today. If we had DNA evidence from 2000 years ago, we might have been able to prove Joseph wasn't his father, but even then we couldn't tell if he was the son of God.
Precisely. We really cannot rely on religious documents to make law. I would argue not even scientific studies are completely reliable, as new hypothesis are drafted every day. I have no problem with someone else having a theocracy. In fact Habardia has a great history of the collaboration of Religin and State (although without privileging any given religion) but this is just not the way the UN works. One learns to accept this, just as my feudalist state has no problem with democraticy within the UN, because that is how the UN works.

I consider the Soddom story from the bible to be as true as the Troy story from Greek myth. Both cities existed yes, both were destroyed yes, but there is no evidence that a God or Gods were involved in either sceario and no evidence to support the involvement of angels, trojan horses, beautiful women, sins, half mortal heroes or anything else mentioned in either account.

Religious arguements are usually ignored in the UN forum because most of us don't think religion has a place in UN legislation. I know during my stints as a delegate that as soon as I saw the words God or religion being used to support an argument outside separation of church and state, I stopped reading and went onto the next proposal in the list.

sodom existed? in what nation? we need to update our history books so often because there are so many nations here...

do you get my drift? you are fighting arguments based on RL. the NSUN is nothing like the RLUN. and also, to some NS nations jesus or mohammad was som crackpot over in _Myopia_ (sorry _Myopia_, just first nation that came to mind). the UN has a lot more power here, but it is only over those which are members, which is only 1/3 of the NS nations, if i remember rightly. and as stated before, if you dont like it, and are not willing to put in a descent argument against things, hit the resign button so we can deal with descent UN proposals....

i appologise for any flaming, but i believe i am telling the truth, and it is probably also the consensus of most nations here too

i appologise for any flaming, but i believe i am telling the truth, and it is probably also the consensus of most nations here too
It is. Also, thanks for reminding us about the NS/RL divide, more than one nation (including myself) got dragged into a RL discussion without even realising it.

sodom existed? in what nation? we need to update our history books so often because there are so many nations here...

do you get my drift? you are fighting arguments based on RL. the NSUN is nothing like the RLUN. and also, to some NS nations jesus or mohammad was som crackpot over in _Myopia_ (sorry _Myopia_, just first nation that came to mind). the UN has a lot more power here, but it is only over those which are members, which is only 1/3 of the NS nations, if i remember rightly. and as stated before, if you dont like it, and are not willing to put in a descent argument against things, hit the resign button so we can deal with descent UN proposals....

i appologise for any flaming, but i believe i am telling the truth, and it is probably also the consensus of most nations here too

RL arguments are only invalid in actual resolutions, they can be used in the actual debate. This forum is semi-IC, semi-OOC. The default is actually "depends" - which differentiates it from any other thread in the game.

RL arguments are only invalid in actual resolutions, they can be used in the actual debate. This forum is semi-IC, semi-OOC. The default is actually "depends" - which differentiates it from any other thread in the game.
Absolutely. But you must agree we all lost track ofthe real argument just because of our eagerness to discuss RL issues.

RL arguments are only invalid in actual resolutions, they can be used in the actual debate. This forum is semi-IC, semi-OOC. The default is actually "depends" - which differentiates it from any other thread in the game.
the problem here is that the lines got blurred way too much. usually the tags OOC and RL get applied when talking about those references, but for quite a bit of this argument, it has been blurred