NationStates Jolt Archive

Read the above title. LET IT GO!!! 1173 more people liked it than hated it. This is not a slim margin here. This resolution passed. It was more or less well written. LET IT GO! Fellow members, like this post, you are becoming repetitive. It's kind of pathetic.

I apologise for my usage of the word "Bloody". I'm sorry.

Actually, in comparison to a lot of resolutions, that's a quite slim margin. All it would have taken would have been a couple of large regions voting the other way, and it would have failed.

Alright, the margin's not that big. But still, at one point I counted at least five repeal resolutions. Does that not seem a bit much for a subject so trivial? Fifty years ago I might have understoo, but now?

Read the above title. LET IT GO!!! 1173 more people liked it than hated it. This is not a slim margin here. This resolution passed. It was more or less well written. LET IT GO! Fellow members, like this post, you are becoming repetitive. It's kind of pathetic.

While I, as one of the authors to Right to Divorce, am frustrated by some of the repeal attempts, this is neither unusual or unwarrented. There is no question there are flaws in Right to Divorce and I have already given my support to one attempt to repeal the resolution. I hope to replace it with an improved version sometime early in the new year.

However, I thank you for your sentiments.

They have freedom to propose it if they want. I'd would consider this ourburst unacceptible even 50 years ago. Though, you do have the right to say this if you want

No one here understands me (cries softly and runs off to room).

Sorry this (and the one above) should be by Pulcifer. Assume that it is.

Alright, the margin's not that big. But still, at one point I counted at least five repeal resolutions. Does that not seem a bit much for a subject so trivial? Fifty years ago I might have understoo, but now?

When the infringement upon national sovereignty by a resolution is so egregious, it's not that surprising.

When the infringement upon national sovereignty by a resolution is so egregious, it's not that surprising.

Debatable - few resolutions go through where this isn't the case. The question is more in what happens after the dust settles.

Debatable - few resolutions go through where this isn't the case. The question is more in what happens after the dust settles.

The critical phrase in my comment was "so egregious."

The critical phrase in my comment was "so egregious."

No - I mean few resolutions don't see this many repeals within hours of their passing.

That's because few resolutions don't infringe upon national sovereignty. This like many other resolutions just micromanages social issues that should only be handled at a federal level and in the case of the IT education act the local level. This current Forced Banishment Ban is one of the first resolutions to actually discuss an international issue rather then a local social issue that the UN shouldn't be dealing in. The Right to Divorce while the proposal may have been legitimate, it was one that should only be taken to the federal level.

Sorry. I'll shut up about the fact I am now forced to allow paedophiles regular access to children. I'll shut up about the fact my people's culture has been judged inferior to that of others. And I'll shut up about the fact that, if you're right, my repeal won't have 100 approvals.


OH WAIT.

No one here understands me (cries softly and runs off to room).

Probably because none of us has a clue what "devorce" is.

Read the above title. LET IT GO!!! 1173 more people liked it than hated it. This is not a slim margin here. This resolution passed. It was more or less well written. LET IT GO! Fellow members, like this post, you are becoming repetitive. It's kind of pathetic.
As Enn (and possibly others) have said, 1173 is not really a slim margin. And the reason is because of how UN votes are decided:

First, if you take the Gatesville model of UN voting, only 2000 of the 10,000-some that voted would've actually read past the proposal's title, so how large the margin is (so long as it's more that 8,000) is irrelevant. So, as long as the "repeal of X" title is still in the vogue it once was, the repeal would have a sizable chance of passage.

Second, even if you believe that every nation that voted read the entire proposal, it is severely unlikely that all of those offered it severe enough scrutiny to consider the whole of possible problems (or "forum-level" scrutiny as some might call it). That another nation could convince 586.5 nations who didn't make "forum-level" scrutiny to change their votes (or, in the UN world, get 1 Pacific region change its vote).

Lastly, many nations do not look on repeals as the same thing as the oroginal resolution. It's really kind of misleading to say "convince 586.5 nations change their votes", because that implies that all who voted For the resolution will havea default vote Against a repeal of it. This is simply not the case. Depending on how the repeal argues its case, and what the replacement is proposed to be (be there one) it's a fresh division of members--the old numbers are largely irrelevant. And if the old numbers are irrelevant, it could be a 10,173 vote margin and a repeal could be worth a shot.

But, you have a good point in complaining about the number of repeal attempts. Looking through a proposal list and see a tons and tons of the same proposal can be really disheartening ("disheartening" as in *walks to top of building and jumps*).

Actually, the high number repeal attempts is likely hurting the repeal campaigners more than anyone else. In telegramming it's harder to direct your telegrammees to your own repeal attempt when there are fifty repeals of the same resolution surrounding yours. It took me a long time to get a proposal list clear enough of "Legalize Prostitution" repeals to start my own campaign. The more people that propose the repeal, the less likley it'll go through, quite frankly. That's part of why it was a month or two after repeals were introduced the first repeal got passed: everyone was submitting the same one.

Read the above title. LET IT GO!!! 1173 more people liked it than hated it. This is not a slim margin here. This resolution passed. It was more or less well written. LET IT GO! Fellow members, like this post, you are becoming repetitive. It's kind of pathetic.

Pulcifer, even if I'am myself the author of #135 and i oppose these repeals, the repeal possibility is something very democratic, and it would have been very sad if it was impossible.



Actually, the high number repeal attempts is likely hurting the repeal campaigners more than anyone else. In telegramming it's harder to direct your telegrammees to your own repeal attempt when there are fifty repeals of the same resolution surrounding yours. It took me a long time to get a proposal list clear enough of "Legalize Prostitution" repeals to start my own campaign. The more people that propose the repeal, the less likley it'll go through, quite frankly. That's part of why it was a month or two after repeals were introduced the first repeal got passed: everyone was submitting the same one.


Does this explain, this paragraph in the NSwiki timeline:

"Towards the end of the third quarter of 2004, the UN Secretariat enacted changes to the UN procedures (i.e. the moderators changed the game) to allow repeals. Though many nations attempted to repeal just about every existing resolution, it wasn't until late October that a proposed repeal achieved quorum and reached the UN Floor. The official United Nations repeal was a motion to remove the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution from the books, and this motion was carried by a supermajority. Two months later the next repeal that reached the UN Floor failed. The vast majority of the 2004 repeals were justified on the opinion that the resolutions they seeked to repeal were flawed, but many UN members disagreed with this sort of reasoning thus accounting for the lack of success of many of the proposed repeals of this time."

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline#2004_Fourth_Quarter

Does this explain, this paragraph in the NSwiki timeline:

"Towards the end of the third quarter of 2004, the UN Secretariat enacted changes to the UN procedures (i.e. the moderators changed the game) to allow repeals. Though many nations attempted to repeal just about every existing resolution, it wasn't until late October that a proposed repeal achieved quorum and reached the UN Floor. The official United Nations repeal was a motion to remove the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution from the books, and this motion was carried by a supermajority. Two months later the next repeal that reached the UN Floor failed. The vast majority of the 2004 repeals were justified on the opinion that the resolutions they seeked to repeal were flawed, but many UN members disagreed with this sort of reasoning thus accounting for the lack of success of many of the proposed repeals of this time."

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline#2004_Fourth_QuarterLikely. So far as I know, that article was complied by Mikitivity and Frisbeeteria...and Goobergunchia, the admin for NSWiki. They were all, more or less, involved with the attempt to repeal Fight the Axis of Evil--as Tuesday Heights had the premiere forum draft of the repeal (which sadly wasn't the one passed, I believe it would have had it been submitted a day or so earlier). It was a very memorable event.

A minor note, I think that article is interesting in saying "2004 repeals", not including my January 2005 repeal of Legalize Prostitution--which doesn't really attack the quality of the resolution like "2004 repeals" are said to. Though, the text of the repeal is hardly a reason for its success. The passage was secured by a group of voters who were For legalized prostitution but saw in the repeal a chance to get more adequate legislation on the books, and voted For the repeal. And the pacifics. Actually those are two main tenets of my personal "repeal theory" (for lack of a better name): the importance of offering replacement legislation, and the importance of courting the Pacifics.

I personally do not agree with many of the policies of the resolution and believe that divorce should be handled by individual states and not dictated by the UN, and neither should the definition of marriage. The UN has already passed down, or should pass down resolutions that protect the people's rights against abuse and other practices that cause the most destructive cases of divorce.

Marriage is always a senstive subject that conflicts with law, religion, finances and procreation. These matters are all senstive and change from culture to culture and region to region.

Though Psycho Duck believes that the resolution was passed for the best intentions, Psycho Duck believes that the UN should stay out of the bedroom of my country and let my government take care of our marriage customs. We shall still abide by UN resolutions for human rights, and granted we shall probably indoct many of the ideas the resolution puts forth. We just don't want it dictated to us by the UN.

Though Psycho Duck believes that the resolution was passed for the best intentions, Psycho Duck believes that the UN should stay out of the bedroom of my country and let my government take care of our marriage customs.

Fonzoland becomes ever more militant in defending cultural diversity in the UN. A nation with one bedroom? Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that... ;)

Probably because none of us has a clue what "devorce" is.
Wasnt starwars Luke once asked to use it?:D

What I think is rather humorous is that there are now sooooo many repeals for the issue. I think everyone has their right to their own decision and what not so I guess Ontario will take them with stride but damn if there aren't a lot of them last time I looked at the proposals list. >_<

What I think is rather humorous is that there are now sooooo many repeals for the issue. I think everyone has their right to their own decision and what not so I guess Ontario will take them with stride but damn if there aren't a lot of them last time I looked at the proposals list. >_<

You will be pleased to hear that the trend will subside. There is one particular repeal that made it to plenary vote, so now all the batteries are set for debating the issue yet again.

Wasnt starwars Luke once asked to use it?:D

Ah yes, devorce was strong with that one.