NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear fellow nations, kingdoms, empires, and principalities,

The Holy Empire of Soocks is an unusual nation, in that we carry forward democratic and socialist tendencies, but are ultimately guided by our fervent faith and belief in the Way of Soocks.

The United Nations is a pleasant, powerful organization to be a part of -- however, resolutions such as #8 do hinder our participation. We grant amazing freedoms within our humble nation but to be required to by some outside body counters our own liberty. There are many other nations, small and large, that are equally hindered by this resolution. We seek to be involved in discussion and participation in the UN, to maintain the peace, justice, and improvement of our world, but we would like to have such barriers removed from entry. The diversity of nations deserves to be represented by a more carefully worded and balanced resolution.

I graciously seek support of this resolution from the world.

I would also ask that nations that feel hindered by Resolution #8 to comment here -- to cement the strength of the submitted Repeal.

Peace, freedom, and quail,
the Holy Empire of Soocks
UN Department

Note: Resolution #8, not #6 -- I apologize, but a blackened quail interfered with this message.

Please post a link to your proposal next time. I'll do it, though.

Repeal "Citizen Rule Required"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #8


Proposed by: Soocks

Description: UN Resolution #8: Citizen Rule Required (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UN Resolution #8 presents an idyllic notion, however, this rule does not accurately reflect the diversity among leadership and government styles in our modern world. By repealing UN Resolution #8, we can open the UN up to new leadership and experience from nations on the cutting edge of governmental structure.

Approvals: 2 (Desert Storm Iraq, FOR SCIENCE)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 119 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Jan 31 2006


No support. All you need is some elected town councils and you're good to go. I don't see why this needs repealing, especially since it's not a well-written repeal.

Plus, Ceorana likes our democracy, and we want you to have one too!

Original Resolution:

Citizen Rule Required

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Aschen

Description: This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.

Votes For: 11,546
Votes Against: 7,233

Implemented: Fri Apr 4 2003

There are a lot of worse resolutions to repeal before we get around to this one...

I promise my support should this resolution come up for a vote in the UN. My nation will continue to enjoy all kinds of civil rights, but I do not wish to grant them any political rights. I think the other UN nations need to realize that some heads of nations feel they know what is best for their citizens and don't need them interfering with their abilities to govern as they best see fit.

____Queen of Robots and Ham_____

Newbies misreading another resolution. Bah

Where's the puppetwanking when you need it :p


--------------------

#1 - the people on this forum are some of the hardest political pundents here. Buttering us up to try and get us to support your proposal will not assist you in getting a resolution passed. We don't give a shit. We don't care whether you're Gruenberg, Texas Hotrodders, Compardia, Love and esterel (well.....some care about LAE), or little McNewb - the text of what you're repealing is more important - and for some (including myself) the text of your repeal is even more important than that. We don't care about the politics in your nation because we're worried about the politics on the whole of 30,000 nations.

#2 - You have COMPLETELY misunderstood what UNR 8's effect is. The entire concept is more of "once you've had a taste of democracy, you'll overthrow the government to bring in a new era of democracy for your entire nation" not "we're forcing you to have a democracy". Idealistic, sure. In fact, it's probably a great idea for most dictatorships because then you make the people think they have *some* say and bolster their ego and self-importance (which ends up helping prevent such an uprising).

If I may bring Karl Marx into this for a second, He would most likely have a problem with your assumption that democracy is the most advanced and "natural" form of government. Now I know that many people think that Marx is out dated and idealistic but his basic critiques such as this one are still major parts of modern political sociology. For this reason I believe we should allow evolving forms of government which do not meet our current criteria for citizen rule to participate in The UN. This would be positive in three ways, one it would allow them to have some equal say in world politics, two it would help prevent these nations from evolving a government which is used to simply doing what it wants with out having to considering the larger world community and finally allowing States with these types of governments to be members of the UN would therefore subject them to all other resolutions currently in place.

If I may bring Karl Marx into this for a second, He would most likely have a problem with your assumption that democracy is the most advanced and "natural" form of government.
No one said democracy is the most natural form of government because it is not. An anarchy, a.k.a. "state of nature" is the most natural. However, many people believe that a democracy naturally makes sense, if you subscribe to the idea that no person is created superior to another. Since no person is created superior to another, no person has the right to rule over people unless they choose him to lead based on what he has become.

Now I know that many people think that Marx is out dated and idealistic but his basic critiques such as this one are still major parts of modern political sociology. For this reason I believe we should allow evolving forms of government which do not meet our current criteria for citizen rule to participate in The UN.
They can participate, they just need to adapt, aka start a town council.

very right, although not a UN member (certain resolutions have very interesting interesting implications for the way I've got my nation thought out, and probably for all Future/Transcendent tech nations)
I agree with the principle of R8. although i've seen some fairly nasty implementations. (brutal dictator holds several prominent members of every community hostage to discourage rebellion.)

There's something really fishy going on here......

That's probably the highest density for a non-official topic I've seen for non-regulars.....and with exception to one, they all have only 1 to 2 posts.....

There's something really fishy going on here......

That's probably the highest density for a non-official topic I've seen for non-regulars.....and with exception to one, they all have only 1 to 2 posts.....

Two. You forgot to include yourself. ;)

Whoops! I posted in this thread! Three now. :p

Two. You forgot to include yourself. ;)

Whoops! I posted in this thread! Three now. :p

Um.....last I checked, you and I were regulars

Yeah, I was including St Edmund in there, too.

St Edmund I'd call a regular too - you don't need to be a member of the Old Guard to be considered a regular.

Dear fellow nations,

Thank you for engaging in discussion with me on this interesting issue.

I stand by my initial request.

My plan, once the Repeal is put before a vote (and passed), is to develop a new Resolution concerning the issue of promoting democracy and self-rule. Again, I think we should be more balanced in our approach, taking into consideration the over 35,000 different flavors and understandings of government structure.

What about nations transitioning to new government structures? I know my own Holy Empire constantly is in a change as new issues and challenges address our people and leadership. At times, this may prevent us from having any democratic processes, as we deal with terrorists, quail breeding, and waste management. Sometimes, decisions must be made, and the bureaucracy is changed as a result.

In the case of a natural disaster, self-rule can immobilize a nation. When communication lines, travel ways, and leadership is disconnected, someone must act. It is unclear if such a situation will lead to a nation being ejected from the UN for suspending self-rule for a period until order is restored. This is what must be addressed with a new Resolution.

My vision of a new Resolution includes a push and promotion of democratic principles, while accepting that changes, natural disasters, and other events can require nations to operate contrary to these systems. Additionally, we must be even more clear about the amount of self-rule encouraged -- I know several dictatorships who use this self-rule loophole to gain access to the UN. They only allow a democratic process on such pathetic issues as the Council on Telephone Pole Appearance or the Commission on Crab Flavoring. These are not true elements of a democracy.

However, I will strongly be open to new ideas, especially from dictatorships and other "alternate" nations, so that we may accept new forms of government and voices in this process. Together, we can find an appropriate balance that brings our world closer together in our efforts to promote peace and security.

Sincerely,
The Holy Empire of Soocks
UN Department

#1 - the people on this forum are some of the hardest political pundents here. Buttering us up to try and get us to support your proposal will not assist you in getting a resolution passed. We don't give a shit. We don't care whether you're Gruenberg, Texas Hotrodders, Compardia, Love and esterel (well.....some care about LAE), or little McNewb - the text of what you're repealing is more important - and for some (including myself) the text of your repeal is even more important than that. We don't care about the politics in your nation because we're worried about the politics on the whole of 30,000 nations.

I agree fully with the honourable delegate of Forgottenlands and furthermore would like to thank him for his kind inclusion of our small, humble nation alongside the giants listed in his sentence of selected nations.

Let us be fair fellow delegates, with the points of the honourable representative of Soocks. We are all aware of the ideology ban and some of us would view the furtherment of democracy as the promulgation of an ideology. Yet let us be honest, ideology survives within the context of a political system, not as the actual structure of it. There have been cases where an ideology has been furthered by the chosen type of governance, yet for the most part it is as easy for a facist democracy to exist as it is for a facist dictatorship. All it requires are different political and governmental skills in order to keep the population on your side.

Furthermore, we should recognise that idealism has at least something of a place in the U.N., even if it is not universally agreed upon, for without ideals, why would we legislate? The furtherment of democracy is something to be granted to citizens as a right, yet here we have a sensible compromise which both entitles the citizens of a nation to it, to a certain degree, yet retains the perogative of the state over its chosen form of rule. It could even, as many esteemed delegates have pointed out, lead to a despotic regime gaining credulity in the eyes of its population, thus on a purely Machiavellian level, a dictatorship would be well favoured to support such a piece of legislation.

For these reasons, the Republic of Compadria opposes the repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

My plan, once the Repeal is put before a vote (and passed), is to develop a new Resolution concerning the issue of promoting democracy and self-rule. Again, I think we should be more balanced in our approach, taking into consideration the over 35,000 different flavors and understandings of government structure.
Aye, but first you need to work on the repeal if you're going to convince us that it's worth getting rid of.

What about nations transitioning to new government structures? I know my own Holy Empire constantly is in a change as new issues and challenges address our people and leadership. At times, this may prevent us from having any democratic processes, as we deal with terrorists, quail breeding, and waste management. Sometimes, decisions must be made, and the bureaucracy is changed as a result.
You seem to make a distinction between people and leadership. For heaven's sake, let the people elect a Commission on Changing the Government Structure and let it deal with it. You're making the resolution out to be way stronger than it is.

In the case of a natural disaster, self-rule can immobilize a nation. When communication lines, travel ways, and leadership is disconnected, someone must act. It is unclear if such a situation will lead to a nation being ejected from the UN for suspending self-rule for a period until order is restored. This is what must be addressed with a new Resolution.
You can't get ejected for disobeying a resolution. Plus, if you had an election before the disaster, just keep those people in place to lead during the disaster.

My vision of a new Resolution includes a push and promotion of democratic principles, while accepting that changes, natural disasters, and other events can require nations to operate contrary to these systems. Additionally, we must be even more clear about the amount of self-rule encouraged -- I know several dictatorships who use this self-rule loophole to gain access to the UN. They only allow a democratic process on such pathetic issues as the Council on Telephone Pole Appearance or the Commission on Crab Flavoring. These are not true elements of a democracy.
Yes, but any more than those commissions will be a ban on ideology. Actually, I'm not even sure if CRR would be legal if submitted now. If so, we need to keep it in place if we want to mandate any democracy at all!

However, I will strongly be open to new ideas, especially from dictatorships and other "alternate" nations, so that we may accept new forms of government and voices in this process. Together, we can find an appropriate balance that brings our world closer together in our efforts to promote peace and security.
This resolution does not outlaw dictatorships.

We oppose the repeal, but are interested in what ideas the Holy Republic of Soocks could bring in the future.

Regards,
Benjamin Qiro
Secretary of State
The Nordic Republic of Ceorana

Gruenberg's implementation: one town council is permitted to elect whether to have Digestives or Hobnobs at their meetings (although the choice between orange squash or bitter lemon remains a prerogative of the chair).

Gruenberg's status: in compliance.

Also, is this not resolution #8? Could a friendly neighbourhood mod change the title?

Gruenberg's implementation: one town council is permitted to elect whether to have Digestives or Hobnobs at their meetings (although the choice between orange squash or bitter lemon remains a prerogative of the chair).

Gruenberg's status: in compliance.

Also, is this not resolution #8? Could a friendly neighbourhood mod change the title?

To be fair, you would need "all citizens" to vote on that particularly crucial matter to be in compliance.

I see yours and other arguments as validating the need for a repeal. But I shall not propose one, for fear of being crucified by the angry selfrighteous anti-repeal mob.

To be fair, you would need "all citizens" to vote on that particularly crucial matter to be in compliance.

I see yours and other arguments as validating the need for a repeal. But I shall not propose one, for fear of being crucified by the angry selfrighteous anti-repeal mob.
Ok, well, I thought that up in 30 seconds. Our implementation is [spectacularly wanked-up method].

The point is, you cannot enforce democracy. You can still 'hint hint' democracy (Universal Freedom of Choice, Representation in Taxation), but you can't prohibit dictatorships: it's an ideological ban. CRR is about the best you can do. I don't see the point in repealing it, as it allows democratic nations to feel good about themselves, and dictatorships to get on with the business of oppression. A perfect compromise. Could you legally replace it? I don't think so. Plus, it is vital we keep 'rouge nations' on the books. It's part of UN heritage.

The point is, you cannot enforce democracy. You can still 'hint hint' democracy (Universal Freedom of Choice, Representation in Taxation), but you can't prohibit dictatorships: it's an ideological ban. CRR is about the best you can do.

Yes, I am aware of that. But since we cannot (and in my opinion, should not) ban political systems, this thing has no place in the books. It is only allowed because it fails miserably in whatever it intended to do.

I don't see the point in repealing it, as it allows democratic nations to feel good about themselves, and dictatorships to get on with the business of oppression. A perfect compromise. Could you legally replace it? I don't think so. Plus, it is vital we keep 'rouge nations' on the books. It's part of UN heritage.

As a democratic nation, we don't feel especially good about this toothless resolution, and dictators probably couldn't care less about whether this is repealed or not. But the rouge nations argument wins us over. Against.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but letting nations into the UN who wish to govern their people with 12th century principles should never be allowed. The only people who would support repealing this after any kind of serious thought are probably American Bush supporters or some kind of similiar political defects.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but letting nations into the UN who wish to govern their people with 12th century principles should never be allowed. The only people who would support repealing this after any kind of serious thought are probably American Bush supporters or some kind of similiar political defects.
Where's that "begone troll" card when you need it.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but letting nations into the UN who wish to govern their people with 12th century principles should never be allowed. The only people who would support repealing this after any kind of serious thought are probably American Bush supporters or some kind of similiar political defects.
Out-of-character response: You have to bear in mind this is a game. We're having fun. There is no George Bush in this game. In real life, I posted a pretzel to the White House (although I suspect it got mashed in the post - perhaps even into white powder!) and participated in BURNING HIM IN EFFIGY. In the game, I think playing with autocratic politics is fun.

In-character response: Gruenberg is only in its seventh century, but are at the forefront of progressive legislation in many social areas, such as the new 'rotating knives' scheme for convicted paedophiles. They progress along the conveyor belt, until...

We favour an international community in which all nations are accepted: not simply those who conform to a particular (inefficient) political model. And we would suggest that the only people who would support a repeal would in fact be those wishing to replace it with something stronger. The UN is nominally democratic; system of government, however, should remain a prerogatie of that government.

*snip*

For these reasons, the Republic of Compadria opposes the repeal.We ain't so keen on this repeal, neither, so we happily submit to the Otter Lovers' stance.

As a democratic nation, we don't feel especially good about this toothless resolution, ...As well you shouldn't, for if it had actual teeth, it would likely be illegal.

The only people who would support repealing this after any kind of serious thought are probably American Bush supporters or some kind of similiar political defects.[OOC: As an American Bush supporter with any kind of "political defect" you can imagine, I gotta say, I love my fans, even when they get my position on proposals wrong. I'm against.]

Gruenberg's implementation: one town council is permitted to elect whether to have Digestives or Hobnobs at their meetings (although the choice between orange squash or bitter lemon remains a prerogative of the chair).

Gruenberg's status: in compliance.We too are in compliance. We hold free, fair and democratic elections for most levels of government. True, the corporations own all the candidates and control the the entire process, including who can run for office and who can't, and in secret they probably run the whole damn government as a subsidiary, but no one is holding a gun to the people's heads as to whom to cast their votes for. They always have a choice. Our current leader won by just five points.

However, I will strongly be open to new ideas, especially from dictatorships and other "alternate" nations, so that we may accept new forms of government and voices in this process. Together, we can find an appropriate balance that brings our world closer together in our efforts to promote peace and security.


Ahem.

The Sea-Faring Nomadic People's of Hou Mian are mostly ambivalent on the topic of repealing this particular resolution. Our citizens do have some say in the structure of our fair government.

However, any attempt to mandate more than what is in "Citizen Rule Required" will not only be opposed by myself and my nation, but will in fact be completely impossible. Our people are, as our nation suggests, nomadic sailors. The traditional means of democracy, such as representation by location, are impossible for a nation of nomads.

Instead, we are a tribal nation, and each tribe has its own methods of selecting their Khan. These Khans collectively rule the nation, though they have delegated most of these responsibilities to me, as Khaghan. The tribes are broken into clans, which are subdivided into families. It is left up to each tribe how they will run themselves, but most run themselves in a similar style as the whole country, down to the level of families. The heads of families get together to decide who will head their clans; clan heads work together to find tribal elders.

However, we cannot have direct elections, because there are no permanent residents of any area. Even an accurate census is difficult, and only accomplished by direct count done by each tribe.

If democracy of any sort is to be mandated, we will need some idea of how to make it work in this environment. Especially with a populace as notably apathetic as the Sea-Faring Nomadic Peoples.

Fu Huangdi
Khaghan of Hou Mian
Khan of Fubai tribe

Perhaps my first post was a little rough, but the truth is rough. Don't come crying to me when the next thing you know you're getting proposals that say something like "In the name of God" at the bottom. Just remember what you all repealed when people start leaving the UN because so-called "benevolent despots" make the UN look bad. Then you'll all be looking for your so-called troll, but I won't be there. No, I'll be breeding and making millions more trolls while you suffer. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

P.S.- Long live Troll Osama. :sniper:

Perhaps my first post was a little rough, but the truth is rough. Don't come crying to me when the next thing you know you're getting proposals that say something like "In the name of God" at the bottom.Slippery slope fallacy. Do try again.

Perhaps my first post was a little rough, but the truth is rough. Don't come crying to me when the next thing you know you're getting proposals that say something like "In the name of God" at the bottom.
Actually, only two NSUN resolutions employ that tactic, one more prominently than the other. The phrase 'God forbid' appears in "Legalise Euthanasia", whilst there is some theological speculation on the existence of a benevolent deity in "Right to Learn about Evolution".

Euthanasia. Evolutionary theory. Think about it for a moment. Are these pedestals of conservative ideology?

Just remember what you all repealed when people start leaving the UN because so-called "benevolent despots" make the UN look bad. Then you'll all be looking for your so-called troll, but I won't be there. No, I'll be breeding and making millions more trolls while you suffer.

P.S.- Long live Troll Osama.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad0iy.png

We ain't so keen on this repeal, neither, so we happily submit to the Otter Lovers' stance.

Surely you can do better than that Kenny? Still, I'm mildly shocked that you agree with me, given that this is an event rivalling blue moons for rarity.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I'm not talking about your "ideololigies" as you so bluntly and generally put it, but the entire fact that you are attempting to repeal an amendment is rediculous. It's a good amendment and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not saying I don't understand your peoples' arguements, but dictatorships simply cannot be allowed in the UN. And yes, a good deal of them are conservative and if you remember my dear whatever-the-heck-your-name-is, absolute power corrupts absolutely. No despotism wil remain benevolent forever and if you would care to take a look around you, you'll find that most corrupt people are conservative. And they usually use religion as a springboard for their montra.


May the Troll Al-Qaeda destroy you. Or at least Crawford. :mp5:

Although it would seem that this resolution has little chance of being passed, the People of the Free State of Rhoanon would take a moment to note Our official opinion.

Rhoanon is a small, relatively new nation. We are built upon the belief that liberty is a right most fundamental. Rhoanon is exceedingly democratic; each and every Citizen of Rhoanon may elect to do whatever He or She may wish. Rhoanon is, therefore, in full compliance with U.N. Resolution #8.

However, it is the opinion of the People of Rhoanon that Resolution #8 does not promote full liberty. Just as the fully and rightly elected Leaders of Rhoanon have the right to perform their jobs as they believe fit, We believe that other leaders in other nations should be afforded the same right. The belief that the U.N. should not support certain nations' choices regarding governmental power on the basis of certain other nations' individual beliefs on that subject is disturbing to the People of Rhoanon. We view Resolution #8 as oppressive and ironically anti-democratic. As noted by the writer of the repeal in question, this repeal does not demonize democracy, but simply allows People in every nation the freedom to live in a non-democratic nation if they so wish.

The People of the Free State of Rhoanon are in full support of this repeal.

*snip*Dude. Seriously. Fuck off.

Surely you can do better than that Kenny? Still, I'm mildly shocked that you agree with me, given that this is an event rivalling blue moons for rarity.Yes, yes. Pigs are flying and hell hath frozen over (and we dwell on its ice shelves.)

May all the infernal machinations of our evil exploding suicide penguin commandos be upon you. :p

I just logged onto my nation and realised that SOMEONE ELSE HAS BEEN LOGGING ONTO MY NATION!!!!!!!! This is horrible, and so embarrassing. It was probably someone I know; I know a few people who have accounts on here and I bet ya I mentioned my password to one of them. Actually I know I did. I mentioned my password to all of them, which was BEYOND STUPID :headbang: and the idiot who's been putting up all the dumbass crap that they've been putting up has TICKED ME OFF SO MUCH WITH HIS ARROGANT CRAP!

That, said, the REAL nation of Alta Vexus would like to humbly submit its opinion on this matter:

We understand both sides of this issue and would like to offer a compromise to the United Nations:

We think it would be best for humanity if the proposal were repealed. In its place, we think a proposal should be drafted requiring all members of the UN to have a highly literate population. That way, whatever decision member nations make on that issue will be best for them, since their literate population will better society no matter what government they have.


I'm so grateful you can understand my situation and I can assure you I'll be changing my password so no one else will EVER log onto my nation again.

Sincerely and still grateful,

The Humble but Nevertheless Distinguished Prime Minister of Alta Vexus.

We already have Universal Freedom of Choice. We already have Reformed Literacy Initiative. We already have Free Education. We already have UN Educational Committee...

...there is nothing to replace in this resolution, and we will oppose those who support a repeal, as we suspect them of being in the pay of mascara corporations.

Oh, and I don't believe you.

I didn't think any of you would belive me, but I'm telling you it's the truth.

Plus I know you already have what you entioned, what you don't have is a resolutin that requires member nations to be well-educated before they even enter the UN. The only good thing to force on people, and yes, I mean force, is education and literacy (I realise that's two things, but hey). If I'm mistaken about the missing resolution, let me know and I'll change my opinion accordingly. Thanks.

I know it's really hard to believe, I really do, but I'm telling you on my word as a good, Christian man that is is indeed the truth. If you don't want to believe me, you don't have to, but eventually you'll realise it's true, i hope.

A resolution to force nations to be educated before entering the UN would be illegal. So no, perhaps unsurprisingly, we don't have one of them.

Sorry; I'm relatively new at this. Is it possible, however, to make a particular level of literacy (almost like a percentage amount) a requirement before admitting nations to the UN? Or is that illegal, too?

Sorry; I'm relatively new at this. Is it possible, however, to make a particular level of literacy (almost like a percentage amount) a requirement before admitting nations to the UN? Or is that illegal, too?
Any restriction on UN membership is illegal. Resolutions cannot:
1. bar nations from joining the UN
2. bar nations from rejoining the UN
3. set requirements for UN membership
4. eject nations from the UN

It's called 'game mechanics'. You can't change how the UN works, and that includes who is a member.

So: no.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465 <-- Rules

Sorry; I'm relatively new at this. Is it possible, however, to make a particular level of literacy (almost like a percentage amount) a requirement before admitting nations to the UN? Or is that illegal, too?

There is one requirement to join the UN: the ruling forces of the country must wish to join the UN. (OOC: And it must be your only nation there.) Legislating on criteria for admission is not only illegal, but also a pretty bad idea. This assembly is not a private club; we want to change rouge nations, not exclude them from our cocktail parties.

There is one requirement to join the UN: the ruling forces of the country must wish to join the UN. (OOC: And it must be your only nation there.) Legislating on criteria for admission is not only illegal, but also a pretty bad idea. This assembly is not a private club; we want to change rouge nations, not exclude them from our cocktail parties.


Again, I'm new at this, so sorry. However if you have no requirements for joining the UN then why does Resolution #8 still exist? It should have been repealed a long, long time ago. I hope you agree with me, since you said yourself that the UN isn't a private club.

Again, I'm new at this, so sorry. However if you have no requirements for joining the UN then why does Resolution #8 still exist? It should have been repealed a long, long time ago. I hope you agree with me, since you said yourself that the UN isn't a private club.
Because it doesn't do anything. It's so terminally vague that no one can be bothered to repeal it. It doesn't quash autocracy, it just whines about it a bit. There are many attempts to repeal it made each week, but there's no concerted effort, because there's little point. Repealing it is a token gesture, just as the original resolution is a token gesture.

Exactly my point, in a way. But if we just repeal it and get it iver with, we won't have to be bothered with it again.

Exactly my point, in a way. But if we just repeal it and get it iver with, we won't have to be bothered with it again.
Actually, I've already got over it. Maybe if you just dropped it, we wouldn't have to be bothered with it again.

........sorry.:(

I just logged onto my nation and realised that SOMEONE ELSE HAS BEEN LOGGING ONTO MY NATION!!!!!!!!OOC: Right, I'll buy that excuse right after the mods do.:rolleyes:

We think it would be best for humanity if the proposal were repealed. In its place, we think a proposal should be drafted requiring all members of the UN to have a highly literate population. That way, whatever decision member nations make on that issue will be best for them, since their literate population will better society no matter what government they have.

IC: I'm unsure as to how this would actually help at all, unless you're trying to say that smart people don't make mistakes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

SOMEONE ELSE HAS BEEN LOGGING ONTO MY NATION!!!!!!!!

If the style proves to be different and the argument is different, we might buy that. However, I don't necessarily see that.

Regardless, whether this is a truth or fiction, you haven't gotten into Mod trouble for what was done while your nation was stolen, so everything else is quality of arguments - and I honestly don't give a shit whether your nation was hijacked, your quality of arguments has not, necessarily, improved.

I just logged onto my nation and realised that SOMEONE ELSE HAS BEEN LOGGING ONTO MY NATION!!!!!!!!Uh-huh. OPSEC is your responsibility.