NationStates Jolt Archive

i only just joined the UN right, so i go through all the things that has been passed and i was so annoyed.
when a member, i cant have slaves, have to have civil rights and free education and all this other frelled stuff:

...and?

*points at the resign button

Pick - slaves or membership

Actually, the 'End Slavery' resolution only bans the sale of slaves: If you've already got some, and want to keep them, then that's technically okay...

Actually, the 'End Slavery' resolution only bans the sale of slaves: If you've already got some, and want to keep them, then that's technically okay...
They would have the right to leave after two weeks, though.

i only just joined the UN right,Which explains why the UN sucks a little bit more just recently.

Edit: Sorry I don't mean that, I'm being cranky.so i go through all the things that has been passed and i was so annoyed.
when a member, i cant have slaves, have to have civil rights and free education and all this other frelled stuff:http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

Damn, you beat me to throwing that card, Hirota! :D

They would have the right to leave after two weeks, though.


But does the right to change 'jobs' actually include a right to change employers, instead of just letting the complainers be moved to different (& possible worse) jobs within that same employer's service? I'd say that there's an arguable case against this... After all, what about those single-party states where the government is the only employer?

But does the right to change 'jobs' actually include a right to change employers, instead of just letting the complainers be moved to different (& possible worse) jobs within that same employer's service? I'd say that there's an arguable case against this... After all, what about those single-party states where the government is the only employer?You could always be unemployed. :)

You could always be unemployed. :)

That could be illegal, & maybe even punishable by enslavement...

i only just joined the UN right, so i go through all the things that has been passed and i was so annoyed.
when a member, i cant have slaves, have to have civil rights and free education and all this other frelled stuff:

You have much to learn, my friend. While it is true that the UN is in general a nagging nanny-body, in being members we do have a unique opportunity to exploit loopholes for fun and profit.

You have much to learn, my friend. While it is true that the UN is in general a nagging nanny-body, in being members we do have a unique opportunity to exploit loopholes for fun and profit.

What He said!:D *lifts glass*
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Which explains why the UN sucks a little bit more just recently.

Edit: Sorry I don't mean that, I'm being cranky.http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

spot on

Maybe Zhaan has an herbal cure that'll pull that stick out of your arse. Meanwhile, if you don't like the UN, starburst out.

Damn, you beat me to throwing that card, Hirota! :DThat card creeps me out. :eek:

That card creeps me out. :eek:

Yeah, sorry about using that picture of you to make that card, Kenny. :p

Interestingly enough, the Hynerian Empire is a UN delegate. Even if that region only contains 2 nations, it seems strange to have a delegate who hates the UN...

Interestingly enough, the Hynerian Empire is a UN delegate. Even if that region only contains 2 nations, it seems strange to have a delegate who hates the UN...


Interesting indeed. Invasion, anyone? :cool:

Interesting indeed. Invasion, anyone? :cool:
Okay...my tanks are in place. So are my nukes. Oh yeah, and so are the UN votes.;)

what would be the point in that, if you attack somone just beacuse they dislike the U.N but are still a member of it that would get no one anywhere just as the U.N normally does I openly admit that I am also a memeber of teh U.N but I feel that it is just as useless as many other people it is only somthing that I have become part of to try to understand it's use, and to be closer with fellow nations so if any one is going to invade any ones eles because of there belifs about the U.N I strongly stand aginst them!

what would be the point in that, if you attack somone just beacuse they dislike the U.N but are still a member of it that would get no one anywhere just as the U.N normally does I openly admit that I am also a memeber of teh U.N but I feel that it is just as useless as many other people it is only somthing that I have become part of to try to understand it's use, and to be closer with fellow nations so if any one is going to invade any ones eles because of there belifs about the U.N I strongly stand aginst them!First of all, good for you. Not that many nations are willing to learn. They think they can come on here, change the UN overnight with a few poorly thought resolutions, and throw a temper tantrum when they realise they can’t. It gives you great credit that you are willing to learn and are more thoughtful than the original poster.

As for invading this nation, the only reason I would invade their nation is because they invade the UN and leave unconstructive rubbish like this. We don’t need people telling us they don’t like the UN – they can always leave.

what would be the point in that, if you attack somone just beacuse they dislike the U.N but are still a member of it that would get no one anywhere just as the U.N normally does I openly admit that I am also a memeber of teh U.N but I feel that it is just as useless as many other people it is only somthing that I have become part of to try to understand it's use, and to be closer with fellow nations so if any one is going to invade any ones eles because of there belifs about the U.N I strongly stand aginst them!

Minnesnowta, allow me to introduce you to the wonderful punctuation mark known as the period. We use it to end declarative sentences.

what would be the point in that, if you attack somone just beacuse they dislike the U.N but are still a member of it that would get no one anywhere just as the U.N normally does I openly admit that I am also a memeber of teh U.N but I feel that it is just as useless as many other people it is only somthing that I have become part of to try to understand it's use, and to be closer with fellow nations so if any one is going to invade any ones eles because of there belifs about the U.N I strongly stand aginst them!

It is one thing to say "I dislike this, this, this and this about the UN. I think we can improve them by doing that, that, that and that." Heck, even if you have reasonings behind your dislike, you can employ that

That's not what the original poster did. He comes here indicating not a frustration with the fact that he just joined the UN and can no longer do certain things. He implied but gave little push for an actual change. Basically, he came here looking for a bitchfest.

Minnesnowta, allow me to introduce you to the wonderful punctuation mark known as the period. We use it to end declarative sentences.
This doesn't help the issue. If anything, it's only going to scare more people away from working in the UN, because they don't want to get attacked by people like you.

I am also a memeber of teh U.N but I feel that it is just as useless as many other people it is only somthing that I have become part of to try to understand it's use, and to be closer with fellow nations
I happen to think this is a very admirable goal. A lot of this is why I joined the UN myself, and began posting on these boards. Congradulations for giving some constructive feedback, and standing up for your beliefs on this with a well thought out statement.

i only just joined the UN right, so i go through all the things that has been passed and i was so annoyed.
when a member, i cant have slaves, have to have civil rights and free education and all this other frelled stuff:
Dont worry about it, those only affect you if your in the UN at the time when the resolution passes. My nation allows child labor, torture, secret police, segeration, and have "cleansed" my nation of the impure. So dont worry, fight the UN from within like the rest of us.

This doesn't help the issue. If anything, it's only going to scare more people away from working in the UN, because they don't want to get attacked by people like you.
'Attacked'? Someone needs to spend more time on teh interwebs... and learn more about a thing called sarcasm... which people tend to use for effect... you know?

Oh, and, I'm reminded of:
FACT: THE UN SUCKS.
:D

Dont worry about it, those only affect you if your in the UN at the time when the resolution passes. My nation allows child labor, torture, secret police, segeration, and have "cleansed" my nation of the impure. So dont worry, fight the UN from within like the rest of us.

OOC: You're wrong. The stat-changing aspects of resolutions only apply if your nation is actually in a member of the UN when those resolutions pass, but all member-nations are legally bound by all non-repealed resolutions regardless of when those were passed...

This doesn't help the issue. If anything, it's only going to scare more people away from working in the UN, because they don't want to get attacked by people like you.

Attacked by people like me? Don't make me invade you, too. As you can see, my soldiers are itching for a fight.

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/7375/soldierbaby0ov.jpg

The UN sucks

It's a common misconception, but the UN is an international organisation. Not a Hoover.

It's a common misconception, but the UN is an international organisation. Not a Hoover.
In addition, international organisations are not in the habit of engaging in oral sex.

In addition, international organisations are not in the habit of engaging in oral sex.They're not?! Then why the fuck did I join?! :mad:

In addition, international organisations are not in the habit of engaging in oral sex.

Unfortunately. :(

In addition, international organisations are not in the habit of engaging in oral sex.

I will refrain from asking you how you found that out. Honestly, I will.

They're not?! Then why the fuck did I join?! :mad:
That's your problem. :D

I will refrain from asking you how you found that out. Honestly, I will.
And I'll refrain from telling you. However, I think we should start an international organisation that does engage in oral sex, frequently. Any suggestions?

OOC: You're wrong. The stat-changing aspects of resolutions only apply if your nation is actually in a member of the UN when those resolutions pass, but all member-nations are legally bound by all non-repealed resolutions regardless of when those were passed...
How am I legally bound if my nation was allowed to pass all of them? Didnt i just defy the UN?

How am I legally bound if my nation was allowed to pass all of them? Didnt i just defy the UN?

Because it was in the contract you signed when joining the UN. Don't you read what the Gnomes stick under your nose? "By signing this contract, you pledge that so long as you remain a member, the UN Gnomes have full right to force your nation to remain in compliance with all active resolutions". Every time you try to defy the UN with the passing of some law or another that counters it, the Gnomes go in and change it to bring you back into compliance.

What, you think a resolution stops having an effect before it's repealed? Why do you think duplication isn't permitted? We don't need 20 resolutions that do the same bloody thing on our nations. Why do you think we have the repeal function? So that we have the ability to stop following even Scientific Freedom at some point. The Paragraph above might not be the most accepted form of enforced compliance out there, but your form doesn't even make logical sense in the universe that exists.

Because it was in the contract you signed when joining the UN. Don't you read what the Gnomes stick under your nose? "By signing this contract, you pledge that so long as you remain a member, the UN Gnomes have full right to force your nation to remain in compliance with all active resolutions". Every time you try to defy the UN with the passing of some law or another that counters it, the Gnomes go in and change it to bring you back into compliance.

What, you think a resolution stops having an effect before it's repealed? Why do you think duplication isn't permitted? We don't need 20 resolutions that do the same bloody thing on our nations. Why do you think we have the repeal function? So that we have the ability to stop following even Scientific Freedom at some point. The Paragraph above might not be the most accepted form of enforced compliance out there, but your form doesn't even make logical sense in the universe that exists.
I think your lying, my civil rights and political freedoms go down, meaning the laws my nation passes are working. I dont think there are gnomes, I think you just dont want to me use the loophole. I didnt sign anything, I just applied.

I think your lying, my civil rights and political freedoms go down, meaning the laws my nation passes are working. I dont think there are gnomes, I think you just dont want to me use the loophole. I didnt sign anything, I just applied.

*sighs*

There is an important distinction between gameplay and RP - and this is the unquestioned truth.

When you look at your nation, what you see on your national page is all gameplay. All of the daily issues are gameplay. Period. Your TGs might be gameplay or roleplay - depends on how you play - but that's the only area within the structure of the game code that would constitute as roleplay.

Now we move to UN Resolutions. The category and strength are GAMEPLAY, the title and text of the resolution is ROLEPLAY. When the resolution passes, the game stats don't give a damn what was being passed (The Mods have too much to do to program that in). It just looks at the category and strength to determine what to do. You can have a resolution pass that bans same sex marriage and be looking at an issue the next morning that counters it.

THIS forum is COMPLETELY a roleplay forum - both IC and OOC comments, but it's completely RP. The reason is that enforcing the UN resolutions is an impossibility at the gameplay level - the game isn't complex enough to be able to. However, at the roleplay level, compliance is enforce. You MUST be in compliance with a resolution or you must explicitly roleplay non-compliance.

The Gnomes know.

And perform certain favours if you know how to deal with them ;)

And I still think implied (or even express) repeal through new legislation, should be incorporated and quit with all the unecessary 'badly written well meaning proposal passes, proposal has to be repealed before better worded proposal can replace it, states who don't visit the debating table don't know the better worded proposal is on its way, roadblock.'
Better to have proposals that say 'this replaces section x (v) of Resolution g-minor, and expands on section i (c)'

That's your problem. :D


And I'll refrain from telling you. However, I think we should start an international organisation that does engage in oral sex, frequently. Any suggestions?

You're going to want to head it up, aren't you? :rolleyes:

;)

The Gnomes know.

And perform certain favours if you know how to deal with them ;)

And I still think implied (or even express) repeal through new legislation, should be incorporated and quit with all the unecessary 'badly written well meaning proposal passes, proposal has to be repealed before better worded proposal can replace it, states who don't visit the debating table don't know the better worded proposal is on its way, roadblock.'
Better to have proposals that say 'this replaces section x (v) of Resolution g-minor, and expands on section i (c)'

Alright, here's the quick and dirty of everything - let's go back to the House of Cards resolution. The theory with HoC is "what happens if your resolution is based upon a different resolution, and that other resolution is repealed. What happens?" Obviously, a serious gaping hole exists in UN Law and your resolution becomes an impossibility. This is an important starting point (and no, I wasn't here when the debate for ammendments/repeals was raging, so this is just stuff I've figured out since I've arrived. Indeed, I'm thinking about it this much right now). The other important starting point is Mods are volunteers, let's not give them even MORE work - therefore our solution can't require that a mod to have to manually do something with the resolutions.

Alright - you ammend a resolution - what do you do with it. You could:
A) Have both ammendment and non-ammended resolution exist simultaneously.
B) Strike out the original resolution and have it in its ammended form (which means rework the ammendment so all the changes it makes are now written in it).
C) Rewrite the original so that the ammendment has been put in place - either keeping or removing the ammendment text itself.

A is obviously the simplist, but it also proves to be the most complex possibility. #1, you have to have people continually re-referencing new players to the ammendments so they realize what really is there. #2, if a repeal attempt on the original resolution actually goes through, you get really messed up on HoC - what do you do if it succeeds? Do you claim that both are repealed? How do you code that? Do you go through the database saying "are you an ammedment for that resolution? Yep? Ok!" Coding wise, that's also the simplist, but all of a sudden, you can see a scenario of 15 resolutions being struck out, and the program having to compute the effects of all 15 across all nations.

B and C are complex enough trying to develope code that can implement the changes suggested - especially if there's a typo somewhere (in which case, it's damn near impossible). You also run into questions of repeals - especially if a repeal repeals an ammendment of a resolution that has multiple ammendments. That would be difficult enough for a lawyer to do, but for a program - damn near impossible. What are we supposed to do when we hit UNR 1000? B also has an issue of not being able to repeal an ammendment while trying to keep the original resolution

Of course, you could limit the number of ammendments - but then we have a recursive debate ("we have to repeal an ammendment to reammend a resolution? Why not just ammend the ammendment?") and boom, we're right back where we started.

Oh, look. It's a nice and complicated set of scenarios, and this is just the start!

If this were a game where we paid money to play and the moderators were paid to moderate and not give up what little freetime and sanity they had left, ammendments might be a practical solution. However, for anything that's auto-computer generated, it is waaaaaay too complicated

While I do not have a position on the amendent debate, you seem to have missed the easiest option. It is simply coding an amendent as an automatic repeal/replace. So, you rewrite the resolution in any way you see fit (provided it is on the same topic, which is as complicated as any other proposal rule), and if it passes, you have a new resolution with the previous one striken out.

While I do not have a position on the amendent debate, you seem to have missed the easiest option. It is simply coding an amendent as an automatic repeal/replace. So, you rewrite the resolution in any way you see fit (provided it is on the same topic, which is as complicated as any other proposal rule), and if it passes, you have a new resolution with the previous one striken out.

Alright - what if you want to repeal/replace and revert back to the original? Do you do a repeal/replace with a form (since exact copies aren't permitted) of the original? You also have to make arguments on why the first one doesn't work, make arguments on why the replacement does work AND put in the operative clauses. Uuuuuugly! Plus you'd have fun with category checks and such (but that is a minor issue since mods have to read every resolution anyways and it would easily fall under honest mistake)

Alright - what if you want to repeal/replace and revert back to the original? Do you do a repeal/replace with a form (since exact copies aren't permitted) of the original? You also have to make arguments on why the first one doesn't work, make arguments on why the replacement does work AND put in the operative clauses. Uuuuuugly! Plus you'd have fun with category checks and such (but that is a minor issue since mods have to read every resolution anyways and it would easily fall under honest mistake)

Even though it is a very hypothetical situation, why is a perfect copy not permitted? I agree with the mess writing a preamble, but it can be done. And anyway, I didn't say it was problem-free; I said it was simpler to code than your options. ;)