NationStates Jolt Archive

i was wondering who else is getting mad at all the proposals to repeal resolutions where the only argument is "it should be the nation's right to choose". i mean come on, the point of the UN is to make decisions together, so when you think that you're nations rights are being limited by the UN, then leave the UN!

who else is getting mad at these proposals?:mad:

i was wondering who else is getting mad at all the proposals to repeal resolutions where the only argument is "it should be the nation's right to choose". i mean come on, the point of the UN is to make decisions together, so when you think that you're nations rights are being limited by the UN, then leave the UN!

who else is getting mad at these proposals?

Not me. There are areas where it is more effective for a local or national government to effect laws than for the UN to do so. Bear in mind, I consider the UN a body with the potential for great good, and have supported even some of its less sovereignty-wanking resolutions. Membership of the UN for some is hardly an option - take CACE members who need to be in an economic bloc, or people in founderless regions - and in any case, simply leaving the UN everytime you disagree with the majority is enforcing fascism, not democracy.

I normally don't give those proposals my consideration. Waste of my time....yep

i was wondering who else is getting mad at all the proposals to repeal resolutions where the only argument is "it should be the nation's right to choose". i mean come on, the point of the UN is to make decisions together, so when you think that you're nations rights are being limited by the UN, then leave the UN!

who else is getting mad at these proposals?:mad:

While I'm certainly sick of proposals that do little more than wave around a trump card with absolutely no thought to them, I disagree with your conclusions. As Gruenburg said, it is better for more votes rather than less so we can have a true democracy here.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #49

Rights and Duties of UN States
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Not to mention that the stuff you quoted is not entirely interpreted the way you seem to feel it is:

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Let's see - Hackian Laws include the Idealogical Ban section which pretty much mod-rules on article 1. The dictation is not by any individual NationState, but by the democratic vote of the body.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

You are allowed to do whatever you want AS LONG AS it doesn't contradict any International Law your nation has agreed to follow. This includes every single piece of UN legislation that has passed so long as you are a member of this United Nations - as well as any regional laws and committee decisions if you subscribe to the latter.

Not this again...

It's really simple: The United Nations is not a "nationstate". Therefore anything dealing with non-interference from "other nationstates" does not apply to the UN.

Not this again...

It's really simple: The United Nations is not a "nationstate". Therefore anything dealing with non-interference from "other nationstates" does not apply to the UN.
I realize that.

However, I think that some people are viewing the proposals as interference, and are trying to reduce that interference by submitting Repeals.

I realize that.

However, I think that some people are viewing the proposals as interference, and are trying to reduce that interference by submitting Repeals.

So how does your argument pertain to the original debate on the fact that some of us are getting frustrated by people submitting repeals with no more content than "violates NatSov"? Yes, nations are getting frustrated with interference, but there is no resolution out there that says we can't interfere at the UN level so why are you trying to suggest anything else?

So how does your argument pertain to the original debate on the fact that some of us are getting frustrated by people submitting repeals with no more content than "violates NatSov"?
It doesn't.

If you don't like the proposals, though, why don't you just quit the U.N.?

After all, wasn't that the suggestion made to people who object to the Resolutions and submit the content-light Repeal proposals?

It doesn't.

If you don't like the proposals, though, why don't you just quit the U.N.?

After all, wasn't that the suggestion made to people who object to the Resolutions and submit the content-light Repeal proposals?

Well, if it doesn't add anything, then Hack's comment was absolutely correct so why you went after him or, really, any of the responses to your post is beyond me.

We aren't denying that there's a question that people don't like the interference that is happening, but what do we keep saying: give an ARGUMENT. If you say "I don't like this interference", that's not an argument, that's an opinion. You give a statement of what your feelings are but no reasoning, no explanation, no debate of your opinion. THAT'S what's frustrating about these NatSov repeals. It's not that they're NatSov, it's that they're only NatSov and no content. People spend on the order of weeks to months working on resolutions. LAE had first suggested Right to Divorce to me back in September, and I know he's been thinking about it a lot longer than that - probably since his first resolution was passed. To see someone just scream a repeal text through that has absolutely no content in it after the hard work that went into the resolution its repealing from someone who's practically a nobody is nothing short of disrespectful. Even Solar Panels - we had about 11 pages of debate with the author and then high-profile members worked on various aspects of getting the repeal drafted, edited, submitted, and campaigned for. Other high-profile members had been working actively against the initial passing of the resolution and we went ahead with the blessing of Starcra II. A lot of time and effort by a lot of people went into repealing it.

You want to repeal it: fine. But do it the right way - put some effort into it.

You want to repeal it: fine. But do it the right way - put some effort into it.
If I ever submit a Repeal proposal, I will... I have not submitted any proposals as of yet, although I have made some off the cuff comments in existing threads.

However, based on the last sentence of the OP, the author seems to be angry about ANY Repeal proposals. ("so when you think that you're nations rights are being limited by the UN, then leave the UN!")

If that's acceptable, I think it's more than fair to respond "if you don't like the proposals, then YOU leave the U.N.".

Interesting.

Because a drive-by troll said something, it's a valid argument? Hmm...

If I ever submit a Repeal proposal, I will... I have not submitted any proposals as of yet, although I have made some off the cuff comments in existing threads.

However, based on the last sentence of the OP, the author seems to be angry about ANY Repeal proposals. ("so when you think that you're nations rights are being limited by the UN, then leave the UN!")

If that's acceptable, I think it's more than fair to respond "if you don't like the proposals, then YOU leave the U.N.".

Isn't it interesting that at the start, everyone was targetting that line from his post, but after you tried to post Rights and Duties quotes, they started gunning for you? I don't think anyone disagrees with your point, but you might want to play your cards a bit more carefully in the future. In my opinion, you sounded like you were attacking everything he said, rather than attacking the one line. His first paragraph was absolutely correct, his last line was absolutely stupid.

I don't think anyone disagrees with your point, but you might want to play your cards a bit more carefully in the future.
Good point... I'll try to work on that in the future.

Awwwww, you're getting angry? Sounds more like cranky to me.

Look: The UN has absolutely NO business messing around with the internal affairs of its member nations on such issues as are intimately connected with that nation's internal culture. I daresay marriage & divorce fits into that category.

You want to talk issues that require cooperation, then there needs to be an issue that DOESN'T infringe on a sovereign nation's right to self governance. International treaties, border disputes, trade regulations, and other issues which REQUIRE international dialogue -- not pathetic attempts to "make the world a better place" quasi-socialist crap like regulating divorce or mandating a fiber-optic computer network or all kinds of crap that many nations couldn't afford even if they wanted to comply.

The most egregious pile of dreck in this category is the in-queue proposal about "the rights of biological sapients" -- what the hell is this, Star Trek? Last time I looked, the beavers in my backyard feasting on the young cottonwoods haven't stopped by to ask for a cup of sugar and voting rights. It's resolution proposals like those that get ME angry.

So, sorry if a slew of repeals has pissed you off, but until the proposals start MAKING SOME DAMN SENSE, I and others will continue to attempt to purge them from the body of UN law.

Magister Jubal Harshaw of Intangelon
UN Delegate for Greater Seattle

The most egregious pile of dreck in this category is the in-queue proposal about "the rights of biological sapients" -- what the hell is this, Star Trek? Last time I looked, the beavers in my backyard feasting on the young cottonwoods haven't stopped by to ask for a cup of sugar and voting rights. It's resolution proposals like those that get ME angry.



Your nation might not include any sapient non-humans, but others do...
Oh, and as you've mentioned 'Star Trek', the list of species which people commenting on the thread where that proposal was drafted mentioned having seen does happen to include Vulcans... ;-)

The UN is slowly dissolving it's princaples. Many new resolutions are picking apart the right for a nation to have it's own political ideoalagy(SP)

But...are there really any penalites for not listening to a resoulution. They can't launch an invasion, that's against their princiaple of respecting a nation's soverignty. It'd be very bad to quit the UN for most nations, it'd leave them with no contact to much of the world.

But...are there really any penalites for not listening to a resoulution.
As I understand it, "not listening to a resolution" is not an option, except as it pertains to RP.

The telegram that members recieve that "legislation has been enacted" indicates that behind-the-scenes adjustments to nations' settings have been made, IIRC.

wait a minute, wait a minute, i was reffering to proposals where that is the only argument, if they can convince me that it should be the states right then it is valid, but just because you dont like a proposal doesnt mean that it should be repealed immediately

Awwwww, you're getting angry? Sounds more like cranky to me.
<snip>

He's cranky?

So, sorry if a slew of repeals has pissed you off, but until the proposals start MAKING SOME DAMN SENSE, I and others will continue to attempt to purge them from the body of UN law.

Magister Jubal Harshaw of Intangelon
UN Delegate for Greater Seattle

Fine - take the time to argue the logic failings in them - don't write two lines going "violates natsov so should be repealed"

This is a messy issue, especially for someone new to the game. The UN is where the bulk of the interaction takes place... but when the people who pointed me here formed their own region after leaving the UN because of its newest intrusive resolutions, it makes for a rather tough decision. As the FAQ says though, the UN is a two edged sword.

Obviously there is some growing resistance to intrusive legislation by the UN. As per normal, not all of the discussion regarding that legislation is as intelligent and thought out as it should be. I think that perhaps there should be a Un commision formed to look at the possability of developing guidlines for the scope of UN resolutions, and proper channels for redressing grievences regarding that scope. It would seem to me that such a system could easily be player implemented.

Just my $.02
Tholomyes,
Chief Programmer,
People's Republic of Pirate Code Monkeys

And been done (points to Consolidated UN sticky). Doesn't mean people read it. Heck, I'm having a hard enough time convincing one person in another thread that the UN has rules it must follow.

Obviously there is some growing resistance to intrusive legislation by the UN.Actually, there's been "growing resistance" since... oh... April of 2003. Kind of amusing seeing the complaints bubbling up again every few months...

The most egregious pile of dreck in this category is the in-queue proposal about "the rights of biological sapients" -- what the hell is this, Star Trek? Last time I looked, the beavers in my backyard feasting on the young cottonwoods haven't stopped by to ask for a cup of sugar and voting rights. It's resolution proposals like those that get ME angry.


hehehehe, then the *serious* debates that were going on when three UN members were arguing why Star Wars technology was real and Star Trek technology fake might have driven you insane! ;)

To answer your question, there probably are players whom do have the beavers stopping by their embassies asking for a cup of maple sugar and franchisement. ;)

Just don't let these things bother you -- "roleplay" that your nation doesn't believe that beavers are entitled to the same rights as humans *or* ignore those ideas. There are so many regions and styles of roleplay, that it is possible isolate ones self. The UN however, hmmmm, I just don't know how the mods will treat it -- their rulings on what are "within" the bounds of the UN and not have varried over the years. Sapient rights might make it, while beaver rights probably won't.

Sapient rights might make it, while beaver rights probably won't.Well, actually, if some nutter wants to give unintelligent beavers full rights, and they managed to make it look like something other than a PETA rant, it would probably be fine.

As for non-human intelligent citizens... well... my nation's got somewhere around 11 different intelligent species, so...

Well, actually, if some nutter wants to give unintelligent beavers full rights, and they managed to make it look like something other than a PETA rant, it would probably be fine.

As for non-human intelligent citizens... well... my nation's got somewhere around 11 different intelligent species, so...

Wasn't it the moderation staff that basically discouraged the Zombie (?) Act from last year which would give undead similar rights to the living?

It was silly. But I and others thought it would have been fun and appropriate. Fris might still have the link to the thread.

To answer your question, there probably are players whom do have the beavers stopping by their embassies asking for a cup of maple sugar and franchisement. ;)

Considering that there's already a region called 'Narnia', I wouldn't be at all surprised...

The right to divorce should be able to be decided by nations and regions for themeselves. Some regions and nations might want to not have divorce. That is their choice. NOT THE UNs

this si one of the many repeal right to divorce proposals, that is the only argument put up by some conservative in alabama. now tell, is that argument convincing?

this si one of the many repeal right to divorce proposals, that is the only argument put up by some conservative in alabama. now tell, is that argument convincing?

The UN is an open organization. Conservatives in Alabama are welcome to join the UN, and campaign for their opinions to be heard.

Actually, as long as we leave it down to the nations to choose, then thats okay by me.

this si one of the many repeal right to divorce proposals, that is the only argument put up by some conservative in alabama. now tell, is that argument convincing?

If one believes the UN is overstepping its bounds, then yes, that argument is convincing (circular, but ::shrug::).

It is, of course, extremely unlikely to convince anyone that does not already agree with the premise. However, unless the proposal violates the rules, the author is perfectly within ihs rights to submit it.

I'm not sure what your complaint about conservatives, or people from Alabama has to do with anything...

I'm not sure what your complaint about conservatives, or people from Alabama has to do with anything...
where else in the world can you find people who think that divorce should be outlawed?

where else in the world can you find people who think that divorce should be outlawed?

In Gruenberg. And I'd advise you to stop trolling like this. People are entitled to their views, and the fact that over 6000 votes were cast against this resolution means either your generalisations are false data or there's a whole of Alabamans playing NS.

In Gruenberg. And I'd advise you to stop trolling like this. People are entitled to their views, and the fact that over 6000 votes were cast against this resolution means either your generalisations are false data or there's a whole of Alabamans playing NS.
you are trolling too, you naturally assume that people from alabama cant play nationstates

you are trolling too, you naturally assume that people from alabama cant play nationstates
yeah they can, its easy! all they need to do is go to www.nationstates.net, click on create a nation, and follow through the options! its that simple!


OOC: soz, couldnt resist ;)

you are trolling too, you naturally assume that people from alabama cant play nationstates

...

Anyway, if a repeal reaches quorum, we'll see what peoples arguments are. Certainly, not everyone supporting a repeal believes divorce should be outlawed: just that certain conditions of the specific resolution are fallible.

where else in the world can you find people who think that divorce should be outlawed?

Vatican City?

Vatican City?
name one cardinal who plays NS

name one cardinal who plays NS

Why?

You said to name a place. Alabama had been previously mentioned: I figured you were asking for a real world place in order to be consistent.

Why?

You said to name a place. Alabama had been previously mentioned: I figured you were asking for a real world place in order to be consistent.
well dont count the vatican, since no one there plays NS.

Can we end this hijack, please?

well dont count the vatican, since no one there plays NS.
And just how would you know that, for all you know I could be the pope himself.
I'm not but my point stands.

As to the horrible arguments- you're absolutely right. While the authors of those proposals have the right to be heard, it would be much more effective for them to just wait and endorse a well written one.

That's why the only endorsement we'll support is Gruenberg/Fonzoland's.

Geoffrey Arctus
UN Permanent Ambassador for Cantarch

well dont count the vatican, since no one there plays NS.

Okay.

Before I do any research, does your bigotry extend to any other nations?

And just how would you know that, for all you know I could be the pope himself.
I'm not but my point stands.

You can'ta bea da pope. I'ma da pope!

I'm pretty sure my brother -- who lives in Alabama, supports divorce, and plays NS -- would disagree with such broad generalizations.

Anyway, there's been enough trolling in this thread and it's accomplishing... well... nothing. If you have a problem with a Repeal, debate it in the thread dealing with said Repeal.