NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like this is about to come up to vote, and I didn't see a topic for it, so here it is. The fact that I am posting this thread is not a voicing of my opinion on the matter, either for or against. If there is already a thread for this that I didn't see, delete this thread with my apologies for the wasted space.


UN Security Act 1
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: F-Carthage III

Description: NOTES THAT

CONCERNED BECAUSE many nations crime rates are alarmingly high

CONSIDERING that crime causes a sense of fear in many nations and works against both dictatorships and democracies alike.

BELIEVING that many governments are the cause of some of the crime, intentionally or not.

ACKNOWLEDGES that other steps aside from the ones stated in this proposal must be taken

URGES NATIONS TO

put a stop to this lawlessness by increasing funding to police forces and education.

spend more then amount required in this proposal.

APPROVING of Proposal 57 Reduce Black Market Arms Sales


PROPOSES TO

INCREASE funding to police forces and education

DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal.

CREATE the UNSI (United Nations Security Inspectors) to aid the nations who can not control their crime levels but wish to.

EMPHASIZES that the UNSI will determine whether crime rates in all UN member nations are nonexistent, low, moderate, high or alarmingly high and will only help any nation who requests help and has a moderate to large crime rate

STATES that the UNSI will help the nation who has requested help regarding their crime rates by doing one or more of the following things:

1. Providing a teacher to help improve the skills of the police force
2. Suggesting many hints or tips as to how to prevent crime (these hints would be made by the UNSI)
3. Help to create an advertising campaign against crime
4. Possibly suggesting punishments that would deter criminals from breaking the law

BELIEVES that this proposal will make the world a safer place

Co-Authored by Adolf Barham

Didn't Hack delete that before or one just like it?
I'm sure I came across one like that before and hacked it to pieces...

Edit, got it mixed up with the gang one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482672&page=2

There was a topic several weeks ago, but it died because we were too frustrated about the lack of feedback AB was giving us.

Ok, the other thread looks like an old draft. The two drafts aren't the same.

I'd say go ahead with this as official - unless F-Carthage III shows up. AB spent plenty of time distancing himself from this proposal so ..... yeah.

Alright....full analysis:

UN Security Act 1
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: F-Carthage III

Who's left me TGs but ignored my recommendation he check out the forum

Description: NOTES THAT

CONCERNED BECAUSE many nations crime rates are alarmingly high

Some because they actually prefer it

CONSIDERING that crime causes a sense of fear in many nations and works against both dictatorships and democracies alike.

What about anarchy's?

BELIEVING that many governments are the cause of some of the crime, intentionally or not.

* facepalm

ACKNOWLEDGES that other steps aside from the ones stated in this proposal must be taken

Fine

URGES NATIONS TO

put a stop to this lawlessness by increasing funding to police forces and education.

Because the source of all lawlessness is a lack of funding to police forces and educational resources. Y'know, sometimes the issue is structure

Because all nations have lawlessness. After all, some of us are relatively law-abiding

Thank goodness this is merely urges

spend more then amount required in this proposal.

Well.....since we so far aren't required to spend anything, I'm leaning towards this is a rather simple clause to meet

APPROVING of Proposal 57 Reduce Black Market Arms Sales

.....ok

PROPOSES TO

INCREASE funding to police forces and education

Didn't you just say that?

DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal.

The latter being a part of the former to begin with

CREATE the UNSI (United Nations Security Inspectors) to aid the nations who can not control their crime levels but wish to.

I've got a few comments to come....

EMPHASIZES that the UNSI will determine whether crime rates in all UN member nations are nonexistent, low, moderate, high or alarmingly high and will only help any nation who requests help and has a moderate to large crime rate

1) Really feels like metagaming here.
2) Why couldn't it just be "UNSI shall analyze individual nations' crime levels and indicate to nations how serious of an issue it is"
3) I dislike the limiter, but my comment later will touch this

STATES that the UNSI will help the nation who has requested help regarding their crime rates by doing one or more of the following things:

1. Providing a teacher to help improve the skills of the police force
2. Suggesting many hints or tips as to how to prevent crime (these hints would be made by the UNSI)
3. Help to create an advertising campaign against crime
4. Possibly suggesting punishments that would deter criminals from breaking the law

I dislike 4 because there are various ways that they could deal with punishment and it makes no comments about rehabilitation. Alas

BELIEVES that this proposal will make the world a safer place

He put it in! SWEET!

Co-Authored by Adolf Barham

Who keeps running a mile away every time he's asked about this proposal. I've never seen a co-author so afraid of a proposal with his own name on it.

Anyways

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

UNSI I like as an idea, just not the way it's set up.

UNSI should be put in as a system to do cross-border exchange of crime-fighting concepts. UNSI, as it's designed, has no system to consider new methods, no real way for police forces from several nations to discuss with one another - just has a body that says "we believe this is a good way to do things". Low and null crime levels don't have any opportunity to benefit from this agency whatsoever - yes they don't need it as much, but that doesn't mean they can't find use for it (or, perhaps, they could even have things to contribute).

Heck, you make it a bloody database with the odd convention of crime fighting techniques that various nations have used - crime fighting forces then have a lot more resources to play with and you might even be able to make it self-funded.

Really, what we have been given is a bloody think tank with almost no direction and a few training gnomes running around in police uniforms.

BTW - that reminds me. Anyone notice how these countries with 5 billion people are getting a (as in, one) teacher to improve their ENTIRE crime fighting force?

......

Yes there was a time when we could count on the mods to delete the blatently stupid proposals, but this is another case where they have been sleeping on the job.

I can't even begin to describe how stupid this resolution is. Look at the structure, preamble, action clause, more preamble, and a repeated action clause. "URGES NATIONS TO put a stop to this lawlessness by increasing funding to police forces and education. " And later on "PROPOSES TO INCREASE funding to police forces and education." A resolution is just too limited in terms of characters to waste it on redundancy.

So let's look at some of the points of the resolution omitting any redundant redundancies.

"CONSIDERING that crime causes a sense of fear in many nations ..." I tend to agree, although my retired naval officers in the Antartic Oasis live in fear of biker groups yet their economy is pretty good for a small yet growing nation.

"BELIEVING that many governments are the cause of some of the crime, intentionally or not." I am not a crook!

"ACKNOWLEDGES that other steps aside from the ones stated in this proposal must be taken." Like a prompt repeal of this resolution?

"URGES NATIONS TO" wait for it.

"put a stop to this lawlessness by increasing funding to police forces and education." Throw money at it!

"spend more then amount required in this proposal." Throw more money at it. Wait a minute, this resolution (it's a resolution not a proposal) There is no "amount required in this proposal." If there was this proposal would require more than that which would become the new amount of the proposal which in turn should be increased ad nauseum. Yes let's spend infinity on the police and edication.

"DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal." OK, this is either so blatently stupid as to make one wonder if we should make a resolution approving Webster's dictionary, or is so blatently clever as to allow any one nation to define a crime for all the nations in the UN. (Note it defines crime as any act against the law in any nation. If you define nudity illegal then it's a crime, but it doesn't really say it's only a crime in your nation. Of course remember that we're all crooks according to this "proposal.")

"CREATE the UNSI (United Nations Security Inspectors) to aid the nations who can not control their crime levels but wish to." I can just see a UN Gnome in an Inspector McGruff costume. No actually even I can't see that.

"EMPHASIZES that the UNSI will determine whether crime rates in all UN member nations are nonexistent, low, moderate, high or alarmingly high and will only help any nation who requests help and has a moderate to large crime rate." I can see why those with a low crime rate don't need the UNSI, but why for the love of BBQ pelican on a stick would the UNSI not help those with a ... er the first sentence says "high or alarmingly high" and the second says "large." How high is large? How large is high? My brain hurts! Forget starbucks, I'm heading straight to the bar after this post!

So let's see what this UNSI will do ...

"Providing a teacher to help improve the skills of the police force." It's police academy. Only one teacher? Only one teacher? You know if I ask this three times it must be stupid. Why oh why is it only one teacher?

"Suggesting many hints or tips as to how to prevent crime." McGruff says!

"Help to create an advertising campaign against crime." Take a bite out of crime!

"Possibly suggesting punishments that would deter criminals from breaking the law." Or then again perhaps not. That one teacher is somewhat tired from having to teach the entire police force. "Killl them all and let God decide" is a good punishment that would deter criminals from breaking the law, right? Those UN Gnomes are so funny at times.

"BELIEVES that this proposal will make the world a safer place" FOR CRIME!

So I think you might assume that I am strongly opposed to this resolution. I look forward to the "intelligent" debate ... clearly not in this thread of course, but I'm sure that I can find some on NPR.

Hippos are QUITE NICE



:fluffle:

hirota opposes, and is lobbying my regional partners to similarly oppose. Our reasons will be explained in depth later.

Opposed on the basis of bad grammar. My police arrest those who make me read bad grammar. The grammar paddy wagon is on its way.

http://h1.ripway.com/Arkacia/vote.JPG

I think this has some serious problems and just can't support it as written.

The Autarkian government would like to express its concerns over the increasing interference of UN resolutions in the national autonomy.

This resolution calls for increased spending. This discomforts us, as not all nations NEED to increase spending. Autarkiana for example has hardly any crime, due to the massive spending to order and safety. Yet, this resolution would force us to spend even more, leaving our economy strained under the increasing taxrate.

There may be nations who do not spend as much, mostly due to the LACK of income. This resolution could seriously hamper the development of our poorer neighbours.

Autarkiana therefore strongly opposes this resolution, allthough we do agree that spending on law enforcement is a positive path to follow.

I don't understand how this even made it to the UN floor in the first place. It's awful. In every respect.

I'm worried. Why is this UN Security Act 1? Are there more to follow?

There is no proof in that educating people actually works. Criminals dont think before committing a crime, they see an opportunity and take it. Deterrence punishments dont work. Not even in reality

"The latest figures (2003), show that 61 per cent of offenders were reconvicted within two years; and 73 per cent of young offenders aged 18-21 The reoffending rate for male adolescents (aged 15-18) was 82 per cent."

This idea was a bad idea and so I vote against it.

Well, as has been pointed out, crime is not caused by inadequate education or policing. Crime usually exists where there is a need for it. Poverty, unemployment, social unrest, oppression, and many more, are all factors contributing to crime. People rarely steal if money isn't an issue, for example. Social circumstances and conditions have a large part to play and these require greater solutions than are offered in this proposal.

How can crime be so simply defined as actions against the government? There are many instances in which citizens protest against laws that are unjust. This Security Act is beneficial only to those states that have something to fear from the people, and would help solidify power by improving their police forces. Crime is the responsibility of each individual nation, the UN should not interefere in actions that affect only one country.

Not true, it is not a crime to refuse to obey the law, but to, either deliberately or accidental, do anything that is the opposite of what the law tells you to do, which is completely up to the legislature of the nation's government; NOT the U.N.

Ok, I'll admit that SWBN has had some problems funding our police lately, but we can STILL do a better job of policing our citizens than a bunch of foriegn Gnomes!

The people of Airatum urge the UN to reject the current proposal. Many nations, Airatum among them, enjoy high levels of domestic peace and extremely low levels of crime. To require that any of these nations increase spending on police has no purpose.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Ambassador to the UN

Crime is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare.

I am voting against.

The goverment of Gnejs finds the UNSA1 frightening, and badly written. We have already cast our vote, NO, and urge the rest of the UN-states to do the same.

Glenn-Kenneth Goth, UN-delegate for The People's Republic of Gnejs.

F-Carthage III has TGed me encouraging me to change my vote. I hereby respond to his TG in this public forum for all to understand why this TG is in error:

Greetings I believe that you have voted against my proposal.

Indeed I did

I believe you have made an error

I didn't make an error. I may have made a bad decision in your opinion, but an error indicates that I messed up somehow. I fully intended to vote against your proposal so the term error would be false.

and I will present several points to you which will hopefully get you to reconsiider.

Only one i on reconsider

1. The increase in funding to the police can only help to stop crime.

No. The increase in funding to police could increase corruption and end up being a waste of money. Add on that many nations have little or no need and there is no discussion about analyzing the source of crime and remedying those issues, no discussion about analyzing the efficiency of police and remedying any problems with their structure, and on and on down. Buying bazooka's instead of pistols and getting a F-16 Hornet instead of a Huey is not going to help police solve crime. Funneling money into a police force that sends a third of its funds to a bank account sitting in Hotrodia isn't going to help.

2. The funding to education will also help put a stop to crime.

How? Unlike your claims about throwing money at the police force, you actually need to have some argument on why education will help. You seem to be running on an assumption, but we don't know what it is.

3. Clearly defines crime therfore making it easier to prisicute criminals.

I'm amazed that nations would have a hard time figuring out what is and isn't a crime. In fact, your proposal actually makes prosecuting crime much more difficult because if someone spits, we have to go through the books of 30,000 nations to figure out which one it was that outlawed the right to spit

4. Creates an organization to help new people in NS run their nations.

You create an organization that, as written, was meant to help ALL nations struggling with crime to come and teach a one-size-fits-all solution to crime using a single officer. Even teaching the thousands of police officers for a 5 million population nation will not be satisfied by a single Gnome. You have made no attempt to indicate how it will determine what technique might work and no attempt to suggest it might look at improving those techniques. You have it look at crime rates, when really it should be looking at police techniques instead. You give absolutely no ability for those who have ok crime rates to possibly be advised on what techniques they could improve thus making it so that at least a third do not have any benefit from this resolution.

5. I once again understand that other steps not in this bill must be taken but as it is I believe it is a good step.

Taking a step down is never a good step. Tossing a useless proposal at us is never something good. Giving us a proposal that looks like the worst written pile of garbage since Promotion of Solar Panels or LAE's first draft of Sex-Ed act (which is not at all LAE's fault due to language impediments)

I after reviewing these points

You are reviewing your own points? Good. You might have a change of heart

you reconsider you position on the current you proposal.

You do not command me. I shall refuse

Please respond if you have point you want to make.

We gave you several opportunities and offers to draft on the forums. I, personally, already TGed you to join the forums. You have not joined the forums nor am I aware of you responding to any of our comments. You were given plenty of chances to improve this proposal and you didn't take any of them. Your proposal is a waste of time and energy and is one of the most useless pieces of garbage I've seen all year.

Now we encourage you, again, to come to the forums so that we can show you what is wrong with your proposal. This monstrosity you have created is unworthy of being a UN resolution and I happily keep my vote as against.

F-Carthage III

Sincerely,
Forgottenlord
President of the Forgotten Territories
Prime Minister of Aberdeen

EDIT: This is post 22

Not a single yay vote to-date

His Imperial Majesty objects to the resolution on the grounds of national sovereignty. While the Empire wishes to keep large numbers of military and police personnel, to force other nations to do so unfairly infringes upon their sovereignty, as well as presents an unfair burden to the economy.

Therefore, in the name of His Imperial Majesty Allech-Atreus XIV, the Empire votes nay.

His Excellency
Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador of His Imperial Majesty Allech-Atreus to the United Nations

We the proud people of Al Thera are getting more and more annoyed with weak countries trying to us the UN as a means to get their countries on track at the expense of countries like ours that are seeing few problem.

We have no crime or education problems. We are a very well rounded society and we just can see how slapping a title on yet faceless UN drone will help the world in one single way.

Here is a suggestion. If you are having problem, then you spend YOUR money on YOUR problem. Don't mandate us to spend more money on Police and Education when we obviously are spending the correct amounts as we have no problems to speak of.

I have spoken with our God-King on this matter and his answer was clear. If you can't handle the problems of your own society, don't go about suggesting how to make the world better. If fact how is a country with a serious crime problem even in the position to suggest a fix? Obviously your country doesn't know how to combat crime for it to be a problem and now you want to force an experimental fix on the rest of the UN?

Maybe your next law should require the blind to become the sole teachers on classes on colors and hues. they have the same qualifications for that job as your esteemed nation does for suggesting this bill.

Perhaps if your nation didn't have such a huge crime problem, we would be more inclined to thing you could develop a working solution to global crime. Currently if feels as if your are saying. "We have a serious crime problem, no clue how to fix it or we would have started at home, and now we want the UN to back our "ideas" and hopefully not experience a huge surge in crime because we, as our record shows, have no real clue how to deal with crime and this is our best untested and unproven guess to a solution. But let's make it a law so we can all fail together."

*snip*

No. The increase in funding to police could increase corruption and end up being a waste of money. Add on that many nations have little or no need and there is no discussion about analyzing the source of crime and remedying those issues, no discussion about analyzing the efficiency of police and remedying any problems with their structure, and on and on down. Buying bazooka's instead of pistols and getting a F-16 Hornet instead of a Huey is not going to help police solve crime.

*snip*

OOC: The F-16 is the Fighting Falcon. The Hornet is the F/A-18 (or F-18 for some users, while Canada uses the designation CF-18 and Spain uses EF-18).

/excessive nitpicking ;)

Oh, and this proposal sucks -- and not in a good way.

Received the same TG from F-Carthage III.

I directed him here.

For perhaps the first time in recent memory, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the honorable representative of Forgottenlands. We have cast our vote AGAINST this piece of legislative trash.

The author and co-author apparently believe in the absurd notion that throwing money at a problem will make it go away. And the proposed role of the organization they wish to establish reveals that they haven't a clue as to any meaningful strategy to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement. Add to that the fact that this resolution was so carelessly written as to be replete with errors of grammar and consistency and even misspells a four-letter word.

This resolution is an insult to the intelligence of this Assembly. The author and co-author should be ashamed of their obvious lack of concern for quality in legislation.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

For perhaps the first time in recent memory, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the honorable representative of Forgottenlands. We have cast our vote AGAINST this piece of legislative trash.

I think last time was Meteorlogical Act

And add yet another vote against this proposal...

Regarding the recent UN legislation,

One of the major criticisms of non-member and skeptical member states of the UN is that there is some concern that they may have too much power over sovereign member states. This bill would only encourage such criticism- allowing the UN to tell nations that they MUST make a move towards being police states, that they MUST put a cop on every street corner and treat their own citizens with suspicion is a solidly bad move for the UN, on both publicity and principle.

The damage this bill would do to national sovereignty rights and the imminently Orwellian power granted to states and the UN by this bill savagely curtail civil rights programs in nations such as mine. I strongly urge you to vote against this bill.

WOW! I'm happy I opened this thread. I am absolutely amazed at the level of unity that has been generated by UNSA1. Never before have I witnessed so many nations from so many disparate backgrounds and beliefs join their voices together in a vote of solidarity in the form of "HELL NO!" It almost brings a tear to my eye. While it has already been done by many, I too wish to add our voice to the opposition of this tripe. At length, even.

UN Security Act 1
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

We'll start here. This isn't significant. Mild, at best.

Proposed by: F-Carthage III

I have yet to be introduced to F-CIII. Perhaps they are shy.

Description: NOTES THAT

CONCERNED BECAUSE many nations crime rates are alarmingly high

As FL mentioned, there are some who prefer it that way.

CONSIDERING that crime causes a sense of fear in many nations and works against both dictatorships and democracies alike.

We, in Kivisto, are a dictatorship. Crime does not work against us. Fear is a tool that can be utilized either for or against crime. We chose the latter.

BELIEVING that many governments are the cause of some of the crime, intentionally or not.

If it is intentional, they won't support anything that might get in their way. If it is unintentional, they will undoubtedly be insulted with the aspersions cast upon them with the implication that they are the cause of the crime in their own nation, whether true or not.

ACKNOWLEDGES that other steps aside from the ones stated in this proposal must be taken

Why not state them? Why submit a proposal that you admit is incomplete?

URGES NATIONS TO

put a stop to this lawlessness by increasing funding to police forces and education.

As mentioned by others, these tactics will not necessarily help. There are other causes of crime. On the note of increased police spending, Kivisto currently devotes 48% of it's budget (nearly a trillion Squees) to Law and Order. If we had a crime problem, which we don't, adding to the police budget would not help.

spend more then amount required in this proposal.

Should have included an actual required amount, then...

APPROVING of Proposal 57 Reduce Black Market Arms Sales

uhhh....okay...

PROPOSES TO

INCREASE funding to police forces and education

See above.

DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal.

Essentially meaning that if it's against the law in Kivisto, it's against the law everywhere in the UN. Or vice-versa. I can think of a number of nations that won't like that. Most of them in fact. There may be a few who aren't concerned by this, but I doubt that they've really thought it through.

CREATE the UNSI (United Nations Security Inspectors) to aid the nations who can not control their crime levels but wish to.

YAAAY!! Another useless committee.

EMPHASIZES that the UNSI will determine whether crime rates in all UN member nations are nonexistent, low, moderate, high or alarmingly high and will only help any nation who requests help and has a moderate to large crime rate

So if a nation has only a small crime problem, and they want help eliminating it, we should just turn up our noses at them and tell them to sod off. How noble.

STATES that the UNSI will help the nation who has requested help regarding their crime rates by doing one or more of the following things:

1. Providing a teacher to help improve the skills of the police force

In case it hasn't already been made clear by the many others mentioning this, a single teacher to deal with police officers numbering in the thousands?
...
....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA! oooh, mercy. I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

2. Suggesting many hints or tips as to how to prevent crime (these hints would be made by the UNSI)

Teach the cops to be cops. Good idea.

3. Help to create an advertising campaign against crime

Good god, why?

4. Possibly suggesting punishments that would deter criminals from breaking the law

Not all would agree that punishment is the best deterrent. Prevention over cure, as it were. Execution is an excellent way to prevent repeat offenders. Many would disagree that it is effective punishment, though.

BELIEVES that this proposal will make the world a safer place

I have no idea how...

Co-Authored by Adolf Barham

I don't think he's shown up on this thread yet. I don't really expect him to.

For what it's worth, I think that UNSA1 has actually managed to gain a few FOR votes by now. I somehow doubt that this'll end up being a close race though.

Yay, let's create a police state everyone! Let's have so much police funding that we can have an extensive secret police too, how about we reward the civilians for telling the police what their neighbours are upto? they won't make things up will they? Let's scare the population into submission the democratic way...well you might get to vote on this?

Better make sure we have a clause to clear land for prison camps, lots of criminals to house. We could always put them to productive work, perhaps any anti secret police dissenters ought to go there too, just in case the populace decides that a little crime isn't so bad after all.......

Any guesses which kinds of nations may vote this one in? The government armbands may be a clue.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yeldan UN Mission has cast our vote against and will encourage our regional delegate (The Black New World), as well as the delegate for our home region (Kungpaomao), to vote against as well.

A truly, truly bad piece of legislation.

Telegram from F-III:

listen to me now you noob. if this proposal was garbage it woult NOT be a proposal!!!! plenty of resollutions are garbage NOT this one. You can dissagree however you can NOT I repeat NOT say it is garbage!!!!!!!

so you don't need to say this. I have indeed played NS longer than you, my nation would be 5 bil right now had I not lost the internet for months!

Population still in the millions, and calling folks noobs? Barely a stripling of a nation. Hmmm not sure about the billions claim, but let's face it, such a petty bit of one upmanship. A nation is judged by it's behaviour, not by it's length of participation.

Voted against before the unnecessary rudeness. Besides the mother in law doesn't approve of police states, she can't see the need for them.....

Response:

Jey has brought your recent telegram to the forum. I take serious issue with it.

You are not, by any stretch of the imagination, more experienced within the perview of the UN than Jey is. He has passed several resolutions which have seen moderate to excellent support, is founder of an offsite community known as "Reveal and Repeal", and a full member of the UN Old Guard. He is respected by many members within the UN and is well known for his work throughout the forums.

You are a person that we never heard about until Adolf Barham brought your proposal forth. You continue to not participate in the forum debate. Little patience is given to those that cannot listen to arguments, and there have been several members that have indeed called this proposal garbage.

Your population is a mere 443 million indicating your nation has not been activated for more than 4 months - consecutive or not. Jey has been active since the latter months of 2005 meaning that in terms of actual time spent within the game, he outstrips you by a wide margin.

Proposals that are absolute crap reach quarom all the time. Rights of the Disabled's first draft was total garbage but it too reached quarom. The community explained to Tarmsden what was wrong with his proposal and he took the liberty of asking it to be removed from the floor. After further debate, we got another version ready to go on the forums and he submitted it. The result was a proposal that passed by a large margin just before yours came to vote.

This TG is being made available to all

Telegram from F-III:

If not in chronology, he has proven it in maturity. FC3 wins the
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/newbie.gif
award.

Reply

actually just to make a point I played ns since 04. longer then he has, I slacked off when I lost the internet and my two nations bit the dust HARD!!! Ya ok Jey voted against my proposal called it garbage insulted my opionions and I have little tolerance for him. I am more then willing to listen to ideas along with you and him I have been having conversations with 13 delegates all day about where my proposal is wrong and I acknowledge several points of error in my proposal. If you organization is what it claims to be your members should not insult others ideas make suggestions yes point out errors yes but insult NO.

I am still interested in obtaining your help in a future UN resolution and urge you to disregard the entire Jey arguent thing.


PS if you want some sorces as to how long I have played NS ask Aylandandfive or the KANGAROO. SO yes I am more experianced then Jey is.

This is a rather naive way of viewing the problem of crime. There are numerous typos, my favorite being that all countries, ignorant of size or scope of their crime problem, would receive all of 1 teachers, which alone renders this proposal virtually useless. Second, it just throws money at education and the police force without any constructive plan for the use of it in order to better combat crime. The idea of a UNSI group that would help nations get a rein on their crime rate is a good idea, but this proposal, sic, is simply not up to par.

How the f**k did a crappy ass proposal like this make quorom and my beautiful Repeal Euthanasia Resolution #43 didn't?

--Rooty
PS: Voted against. I'm sure that comes as a shock.
PS2: Provide a teacher????

My response:

Suggestions? We're in the voting stage. There is no "drafting" going on right now. You missed that chance. You want to draft it again - fine. Make a new thread for redrafting and we'll give you loads of advice. However, our concern is what's at vote - and that version CAN'T be changed.

Note: by the most techincal of details, I've been around longer than any member of the UNOG. The first resolution I ever voted on was Ban Slavery. However, when it comes to the UN, those that have been proposing ideas for 3 years straight, campaigned for all those years to get their ideas passed, edited many proposals, have an idea of the many faces that have come and gone over the years and what their beliefs were, and on and on and on, I'm a relative newbie. I've been an active part of the drafting community for a mere 10 months and my first resolution didn't get passed until December - only to be repealed two weeks later because of an oversight during drafting. Whether you have been playing longer or not than Jey, you have no right to claim he is more of a newbie than you are and ABSOLUTELY no right to suggest that he has less experience with the UN than you do. Even if you did, you would still be listening to me rant because you sure as heck don't have the right to say "I've been here longer, I know better".

As I've said before, the community is weighing in. 41 posts and not a single supporter in sight. The community is saying your proposal is crap. The community has never been this unanimous in its opposition. Jey's statement is proven by this very fact.

There's no way of determining F-Carthage III's experience, since he might have been playing with a different nation. But I don't think it matters how long he's been playing. It's still a bad proposal.

There's no way of determining F-Carthage III's experience, since he might have been playing with a different nation. But I don't think it matters how long he's been playing. It's still a bad proposal.

And it seems he's behaving like an asshat.

Its rather sad to see the way the liberals have hijacked the UN. We should be a non-partisan governing body who acts for the best interest of mankind. Kevcompman voices his approval for this resoloution, and urges other conservative nations to approve this as well to fight the liberal bias in the UN.

I would like to point to F-CIII that I have been playing since 2004 as well and unlike F-CIII I have been playing Tzorsland non stop since May 9th 2004.

Personally Jey, I would have taken F-CIII's TG to Moderation.

Actually what does time on NS have to do with anything, consecutive or not? What's important is how you write resolutions not some outdated mode of senility. And one step in writing is knowing the rules, going to the forums to actually read the rules. Then going to the forums to actually submit a trial baloon. F-CIII didn't do this. Instead F-CIII tried to ram his resolution onto the floor and has used intimidation through TG messages.

Who on earth is voting against this?:confused:

It seems like a no brainer...:rolleyes:

On the 45th post, one person finally indicates his support.

Its rather sad to see the way the liberals have hijacked the UN. We should be a non-partisan governing body who acts for the best interest of mankind. Kevcompman voices his approval for this resoloution, and urges other conservative nations to approve this as well to fight the liberal bias in the UN.

Have you read this resolution?

Do you want your businesses to be at the mercy of my government's regulations? If I require that all businesses remove all forms of lighting, your businesses would have to follow those laws. If I outlaw the death penalty, your nation can't hang people. This isn't a matter of conservatism vs liberalism, this is a failing to properly write a good proposal.

Its rather sad to see the way the liberals have hijacked the UN. We should be a non-partisan governing body who acts for the best interest of mankind. Kevcompman voices his approval for this resoloution, and urges other conservative nations to approve this as well to fight the liberal bias in the UN.
This isn't about liberal or conservative. It's about fucktarded legislation. It'd be nice if there could be some bipartisan agreement that passing this kind of shit would not be a good idea.

And so concludes Round 7
of course do you think I am a MORON!?

If you want a reputation don't go sluring my opionions or anyones for that matter be respectful. That message was really applying to Jey.

As to the me having no right to say "I know better" I am not saying that.


I am getting tired of your organization Jey and you, my ideas are mine alone. You wish to insult them go ahead you wish to call my ideas Crap I invite you to. But I am tired of listening to your organization.

Meaning no offense I have gotten more insite from delegates with populations under 200 million then from your organization. All you can do is say you don't like it and give it no credit. If I ever propose another proposal then I hope you will not work against it as that would be unfair and would not polish your repretation.


F-Carthage III Defender

I vote DEFCON take the proposal over and rewrite it and slip in a usable version that reserves UNSI.

I vote DEFCON take the proposal over and rewrite it and slip in a usable version that reserves UNSI.
I vote we sink this pile of crap and try to forget about the whole, sorry mess.

Cayr and the Archipelago Region don't support this resolution, because it is too strict. When this resolution has failed, we will come with a better security resolution.

On the 45th post, one person finally indicates his support.

Have you read this resolution?

Do you want your businesses to be at the mercy of my government's regulations? If I require that all businesses remove all forms of lighting, your businesses would have to follow those laws. If I outlaw the death penalty, your nation can't hang people. This isn't a matter of conservatism vs liberalism, this is a failing to properly write a good proposal.

Of course I have. As a UN delegate, I wouldn't have it anyother way. Its a very straight foward resolution that implements tighter security laws on all UN nations (which I might add, have been lacking for some time due to the ovbious liberal bias that is plaguing the UN.)

Of course I have. As a UN delegate, I wouldn't have it anyother way. Its a very straight foward resolution that implements tighter security laws on all UN nations (which I might add, have been lacking for some time due to the ovbious liberal bias that is plaguing the UN.)
And as a UN delegate, you should be acting more responsibly than you are now. Stop yammering about liberal bias, and reading the fucking proposal. When you've done that, point out one single security law this implements.

Of course I have. As a UN delegate, I wouldn't have it anyother way. Its a very straight foward resolution that implements tighter security laws on all UN nations (which I might add, have been lacking for some time due to the ovbious liberal bias that is plaguing the UN.)

Implements tighter security laws? It implements any laws? All it does is make it so that the legal code for all member nations is the bloody set-union of the legal codes of the individual member nations. With the sheer complexity of the UN, it probably means you can't do shit and you'd still be breaking the law.

Lawyer 1: "You must perform this abortion because Nation C260s requires that all pregnancies must be terminated unless they were biologically engineered"

Lawyer 2: "You can't perform this abortion because Gruenberg has outlawed it"

Doctor: "But I'm a Forgottenlands UN doctor"

Lawyer 1, Lawyer 2: "So?"

Lawyer 1: "By UN Security Act I, violating the law of any nation is a crime"

Lawyer 2: "So therefore, if you kill that fetus, you're committing a crime"

Lawyer 1: "And if you don't kill that fetus, you're committing a crime"

Lawyer 2: "And in both cases, the punishment for commiting that crime is death"

Lawyer 1: "Which is, in itself a crime"

Lawyer 2: "That's right. Waterana outlawed the death penalty."

Lawyer 1: "So the person that gives you the lethal injection (who cannot refuse because of a law in Cluichstani UN Mission) will be charged with murder by Waterana's laws and since it's obviously premeditated, it would be first degree so by Adolf Barham's laws, he would have a mandatory minimum of a death penalty"

Yay, let's create a police state everyone! Let's have so much police funding that we can have an extensive secret police too, how about we reward the civilians for telling the police what their neighbours are upto? they won't make things up will they? Let's scare the population into submission the democratic way...well you might get to vote on this?

Better make sure we have a clause to clear land for prison camps, lots of criminals to house. We could always put them to productive work, perhaps any anti secret police dissenters ought to go there too, just in case the populace decides that a little crime isn't so bad after all.......

Any guesses which kinds of nations may vote this one in? The government armbands may be a clue.
*Begins singing the chorus for "Spring time for Hitler"*

Implements tighter security laws? It implements any laws? All it does is make it so that the legal code for all member nations is the bloody set-union of the legal codes of the individual member nations. With the sheer complexity of the UN, it probably means you can't do shit and you'd still be breaking the law.

Lawyer 1: "You must perform this abortion because Nation C260s requires that all pregnancies must be terminated unless they were biologically engineered"
*snip*

Ah such fun infinite loops. I'm sure somewhere those lawyers are breaking the law to by even mentioning crime, or for having an individual thought. This is not so much, as I'd hope F-Carthage III intended when he wrote this tripe, bringing order to chaos. But rather the opposite, bringing chaos to order.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bowel.jpg

As many of you know, Bahgum wholeheartedly approves of proposals which give one a laugh. We like to campaign and remind the powers that be in the UN that the odd bit of silliness is fun.

This proposal made Bahgum laugh, but not because it was amusingly silly, or pleasantly funny. It made us laugh in the same way a freshly laid steaming dog turd appearing in the middle of a governmental debate would.

However, the TG actions are not funny in any sense, and we would urge an open apology if only to show a sense of matureness, so that the nation in question may eventually be welcomed to the UN.

Regarding the recent UN legislation,

One of the major criticisms of non-member and skeptical member states of the UN is that there is some concern that they may have too much power over sovereign member states. This bill would only encourage such criticism- allowing the UN to tell nations that they MUST make a move towards being police states, that they MUST put a cop on every street corner and treat their own citizens with suspicion is a solidly bad move for the UN, on both publicity and principle.

The damage this bill would do to national sovereignty rights and the imminently Orwellian power granted to states and the UN by this bill savagely curtail civil rights programs in nations such as mine. I strongly urge you to vote against this bill.
New Arpad has not voted on the issue yet, but would like to point out that the draft does not give the UN the power to force you to increase your police force. All it would do is a) to urge you to do so and b) to offer you some means to do so effectively. The ultimate decision for your own nation would still be up to your own nation.

Implements tighter security laws? It implements any laws? All it does is make it so that the legal code for all member nations is the bloody set-union of the legal codes of the individual member nations. With the sheer complexity of the UN, it probably means you can't do shit and you'd still be breaking the law.

Lawyer 1: "You must perform this abortion because Nation C260s requires that all pregnancies must be terminated unless they were biologically engineered"

Lawyer 2: "You can't perform this abortion because Gruenberg has outlawed it"

Doctor: "But I'm a Forgottenlands UN doctor"

Lawyer 1, Lawyer 2: "So?"

Lawyer 1: "By UN Security Act I, violating the law of any nation is a crime"

Lawyer 2: "So therefore, if you kill that fetus, you're committing a crime"

Lawyer 1: "And if you don't kill that fetus, you're committing a crime"

Lawyer 2: "And in both cases, the punishment for commiting that crime is death"

Lawyer 1: "Which is, in itself a crime"

Lawyer 2: "That's right. Waterana outlawed the death penalty."

Lawyer 1: "So the person that gives you the lethal injection (who cannot refuse because of a law in Cluichstani UN Mission) will be charged with murder by Waterana's laws and since it's obviously premeditated, it would be first degree so by Adolf Barham's laws, he would have a mandatory minimum of a death penalty"
DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation.
New Arpad has to admit that the actual wording would allow for such a crazy interpretation, but would also like to point out that it would also be very unlikely.

New Arpad has not voted on the issue yet, but would like to point out that the draft does not give the UN the power to force you to increase your police force. All it would do is a) to urge you to do so and b) to offer you some means to do so effectively. The ultimate decision for your own nation would still be up to your own nation.

Though I find it rather humorous that it urges 3 times we increase funding.

I really don't need a world police organization coming in and telling me how to run my already efficent police force. The crime rate in Smallish Bear is already at a all time low so I don't see how some outside force could come in and do a better job then what my police are doing already.

Bahleted and voted no.

DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation.
New Arpad has to admit that the actual wording would allow for such a crazy interpretation, but would also like to point out that it would also be very unlikely.

You are required to follow the letter of the law, even if the intent of the law is much more reasonable.

Though I find it rather humorous that it urges 3 times we increase funding.
New Arpad agrees that this is what the author of the UN Security Act 1 would like us to do, but New Arpad sees no way how the UN could force a nation to actually do so.

New Arpad agrees that this is what the author of the UN Security Act 1 would like us to do, but New Arpad sees no way how the UN could force a nation to actually do so.
By making it a mandatory clause. And in fact, your spending on Defense and Law & Order would increase anyway if this passed.

New Arpad agrees that this is what the author of the UN Security Act 1 would like us to do, but New Arpad sees no way how the UN could force a nation to actually do so.

No, it doesn't. It's more of the fact that the author showed no attempts to actually edit his work and the lack of effort put into the actual writing of the proposal is rather evident.....and annoying. The quality makes it the worst-written proposal to reach the floor this year.

EDIT: Why state something 3 times when the third time you're giving no more arguments than you gave on the first time. Cut it down to one and leave it there.

If this passes, I plan on illegalising not putting the authors testicals in a vice and attaching the handle to the high pressure reciprocal motion steam engine manufactured for the abortive HES Crikey, a ship so large it may have had to had been moored in space...

EDIT: Yep, I went there. I used the future pluperfect passive subjunctive

You are required to follow the letter of the law, even if the intent of the law is much more reasonable.
New Arpad admits that the wording is ambigous and that it could a) either expand the definition of "crime" of any given nation to any given nation or b) it could mean that "crime" is defined locally, within the boundaries of a given nation by the given nation, i.e. nation XY's laws what crimes are in nation XY etc.

Still, this kind of ambiguity can definetly become a legal nightmare.

I am sorry, hyradia is a small nation with no crimes at all or so few that they arent worth counting.

First

Disuasion is way more efficient that acting once the crime is done.

See everything, teatch people so they know they are always seen, made educate them in the light of the truth and for any controvenent use a définitive sanction.
The few crimes that happend are juste public exemples.

Secondary

As most small nations, hyradia dont have an expencive budjet and must do with what we can get. There is no way we can buff the police budget like this.

Third

I see in this "security act" a violation of our national independancy !
How can the UN force us to inflate our budgets for some uses that lots of nations like me think are useless for different reasons.
And how come the UN want to impose people in our nations to look at our acts and give us tips on how to react to crimes?


For all of that i vote NO to this resolution and hope it will never pass.

I may or may not have suffered a massive brain hemmorage after reading that proposal. Unfortunately, due to the large number of brain cells that have died because of this malady, I am now only as intelligent as Bahgum.

It is the intention of the government of Sophista to bring suit against the proposal's author. We are seeking a neutral venue for the hearing.

The ongoing discussion is beginning to make New Arpad think that it would indeed be wise to reject the UN Security Act 1 but takes itself the right to follow the international discussion a bit more and to iniate a similar discussion in New Arpad itself. Be that as it may, right now New Arpad is tending to reject the security act.

The ongoing discussion is beginning to make New Arpad think that it would indeed be wise to reject the UN Security Act 1 but takes itself the right to follow the international discussion a bit more and to iniate a similar discussion in New Arpad itself. Be that as it may, right now New Arpad is tending to reject the security act.

The author has assured me that failing to pass this will mean he will redraft and try again. With that in mind, I encourage you to oppose this monstrosity so we can get a much more intelligent draft up to vote.

Third

I see in this "security act" a violation of our national independancy !
How can the UN force us to inflate our budgets for some uses that lots of nations like me think are useless for different reasons.
And how come the UN want to impose people in our nations to look at our acts and give us tips on how to react to crimes?


For all of that i vote NO to this resolution and hope it will never pass.
Well, judging by the response in this forum and the current vote count (can it be - the numbers of the vote and the forum debate agree for once!) the UN doesn't want to do this.

New Arpad has not voted on the issue yet, but would like to point out that the draft does not give the UN the power to force you to increase your police force. All it would do is a) to urge you to do so and b) to offer you some means to do so effectively. The ultimate decision for your own nation would still be up to your own nation.

Actually, as a result of the way the law works in Kivisto, you would be forced to match our Law and Order spending (48% of budget) or you would be in non-compliance, which is against the law of the UN, which is punishable by death in Kivisto. It's not a threat. That's the way that this resolution would affect us. All of us.

Hm.. this was the first UN resolution I've read. Nice first impression, very vague. :)

Hm.. this was the first UN resolution I've read. Nice first impression, very vague. :)

Dear God, please don't hold this one against us, it's not very good. We normally do better.

I got through about 2 pages of this thread before I determined that I need not even discuss the Resolution at vote.

Norderia and the rest of the North Sea are voting against this without so much as a hesitant sigh.

And may whatever God F-Carthage chooses have mercy on its soul.

Tiredly,
Tommo the Stout;
Norderian Ambassador to the UN;
Delegate from the North Sea


Edit: Tryin' a new thing with the signature thing there. "Tiredly" won't always be there, this Resolution is just bad enough to deserve it. Whatcha think? Eh? Eh?

:headbang: After about a dozen PM's ingame from the dudes behind this bit of rubbish, I see they still havn't payed attention to the obvious stupidity, and fixed the damn wording. So I'm going to have to publically spell it out. SO this is directed at anyone voting for this proposed resolution.

DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal.

We can't allow this tripe to pass through the UN. We all realise that this definition of crime is the loosest, most manipulatabley badly worded..... (at a loss for words).

Anyway, my point. This definition of crime can be broken down into 2 sections.

DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. So by that section of the definition, any law in my nation also applies in all of your nations. And ofcourse vice-versa. So, what if my nation passes a law stating that "everyone must have sexual relations with their housepets, and kill all human babies". By this definition of crime, even nations who have not passed that as law, would be required to enforce it because it is a crime. Secondly.

Or something strictly against any UN proposal. OK, now by this part of the definition, any UN proposal is now a law. This says that going against a UN proposal is a crime. It's a freakin' proposal! It's not a resolution. How about I propose that everyone must wear a rotting chicken on their heads, and that no doing so is grounds for being shot. Hell, we can propose anything. However not just anything is good enough to become a resolution.

So to anyone supporting this resolution. You do realise what you are supporting. Because if this rubbish does get through, I will make it a crime to not shoot your first born child. I will make it a crime to drink not-cold beer. I will make it a crime to not grate your feet with a sharp cheese grater. The more absurd and humiliating the better.

[/rant]

The ongoing discussion is beginning to make New Arpad think that it would indeed be wise to reject the UN Security Act 1 but takes itself the right to follow the international discussion a bit more and to iniate a similar discussion in New Arpad itself. Be that as it may, right now New Arpad is tending to reject the security act.

We'd like to commend the representative of New Arpad for keeping an open mind on this issue. No matter what his final decision, his willingness to think carefully about it deserves respect. We'd like to offer the following for his consideration.

The resolution proposes to "INCREASE funding to police forces and education". It says nothing about who is going to provide the funds or how they are to be used. What if a nation already spends large amounts on both? Is every nation going to be required to increase funding even if funds are already plentiful? How about a nation which already has solved its crime problem or never had one? The resolution assumes -- for no logical reason -- that lack of funds for law enforcement and/or education is the cause of crime in every one of 30,000 UN member nations. Throwing money at a problem without a coherent strategy for spending the money is usually about as effective as tossing it down a nearby sewer.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

:headbang: After about a dozen PM's ingame from the dudes behind this bit of rubbish, I see they still havn't payed attention to the obvious stupidity, and fixed the damn wording. So I'm going to have to publically spell it out. SO this is directed at anyone voting for this proposed resolution.



We can't allow this tripe to pass through the UN. We all realise that this definition of crime is the loosest, most manipulatabley badly worded..... (at a loss for words).

Anyway, my point. This definition of crime can be broken down into 2 sections.

So by that section of the definition, any law in my nation also applies in all of your nations. And ofcourse vice-versa. So, what if my nation passes a law stating that "everyone must have sexual relations with their housepets, and kill all human babies". By this definition of crime, even nations who have not passed that as law, would be required to enforce it because it is a crime. Secondly.

OK, now by this part of the definition, any UN proposal is now a law. This says that going against a UN proposal is a crime. It's a freakin' proposal! It's not a resolution. How about I propose that everyone must wear a rotting chicken on their heads, and that no doing so is grounds for being shot. Hell, we can propose anything. However not just anything is good enough to become a resolution.

So to anyone supporting this resolution. You do realise what you are supporting. Because if this rubbish does get through, I will make it a crime to not shoot your first born child. I will make it a crime to drink not-cold beer. I will make it a crime to not grate your feet with a sharp cheese grater. The more absurd and humiliating the better.

[/rant]
:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:
Bullets will fly! Vote against UN proposal UN Security Act 1!

*snip*


Continuing a fine tradition of first post gun smileys. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, good vote.

Speaking as a resolution author, I am dismayed that F-Carthage III is unwilling to defend his proposal here in the forums. Of course if I had written this piece of shit proposal I wouldn't be defending it either.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Its true that crime is a fear in every government, but by increasing the funding of police and military budgets, we increase hostility not only in our individual nations but fighting amongst eachother also has the potential to increase. It is important to make sure that police and the military have enough money but a balance must be reached.

While I do believe many nations suffer an extreme crime rate, I do believe the establishment of a world wide police force is a cause for alarm. Therefore, due to the establishment, I must vote against.


Also, I do not blieve it is comprehensive enough to stop various forms of crime, as there is one punishment for criminals, and that is hard labor...

Continuing a fine tradition of first post gun smileys. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, good vote.
Oh really? Was my first post supposed to be gun smileys? Uh oh, hope that's not a law in some random nation which would make me a damn criminal. That is, if this proposal passes.

As for those of you who support this proposal. I ask you but 1 question:
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/why1iq.gif

While I do believe many nations suffer an extreme crime rate, I do believe the establishment of a world wide police force is a cause for alarm. Therefore, due to the establishment, I must vote against.
Actually it doesn't form a world wide police force. If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

1. Providing a teacher to help improve the skills of the police force Good weapons training to be sure they hit what the aim at is all we feel our police force needs. Also maybe how to pick a tall strong tree and tie a good hangman knot.
2. Suggesting many hints or tips as to how to prevent crime (these hints would be made by the UNSI)I have a hint for criminals who might want to come here and commit crimes.. 'take a hike or hang'
3. Help to create an advertising campaign against crimeWhat do we do use some fuzzy bear in the ad campaign?
4. Possibly suggesting punishments that would deter criminals from breaking the law Try them convict them lock them up or hang them.. Crime will in time come to an end. This crap of considering criminals have rights gets one noplace in this world but raped or murdered by some criminal. Heres a good punishment for crimes. Set time to do for each crime and require a person does that time. If they commit more than one crime then they do all the time for those crimes found guilty of. Murder is hanging and if the time you get sentenced to adds up to more than your average life epectancy then you hang to. No sense keeping criminals around making victums off honest citizens again and again while they sit in some prioson. Two strikes same crime your out and it's find a tall tree and good rope and let you swing from it.

Thus glad to see at this time most a voting against this as most nations don't need the UN to tell it how to deal with crime. Especialy when there are far more criminal nations outside the UN than members of it.

I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that the current UN resolution will not be passed. Any proposal to the UN can not in any way include the altering or interfering of how the NS game is played. For more information refer to the rules of the United Nations.

-The Chairperson of The Incorporated States of Feeling Awesome:
Pr. Hollywood Slim

Yes there was a time when we could count on the mods to delete the blatently stupid proposals, but this is another case where they have been sleeping on the job.Sigh.

defining crime simply as violation of laws we all risk paradoxal situations. According with this resolution no Nurnberg trial for Nazis as they had always declared they've never violated German laws and UN inspectors would have judged Nazi regime with low criminality rate; on the other hand, Nazi occupated France (or Italy, or Jugoslavia etc) would have rated high criminality rate because of maquis, rebels and other fighters for freedom.

Well, so this resolution brings freedom for fight against crime. And if you speak about Nurnberg trial, this trial was not done according to true law;) And it is good that after this resolution I will have "free hands" for fight against crime. And last thing: Some of you speak about increasing police budget but I see in this resolution also more money for education. And what's more, I am afraid that some opponets of this resolution are afraid of fight against black trade with weapons:sniper:

Not true, it is not a crime to refuse to obey the law, but to, either deliberately or accidental, do anything that is the opposite of what the law tells you to do, which is completely up to the legislature of the nation's government; NOT the U.N.

Going back a bit, but it is a crime to not do something. This is called an omission. The government says you have to give breath samples on request. usal to provide a sample is a crime.

The UN does not get to define the definition of criminal acts in my country.

Nor does the UN have decision making on Swetnesso7 Budget's on issues such as more police funding, crime prevention, and education. Our nation is already putting up large funds to support our Law Enforcement, and well refunded rehab programs.

Our citizen, they will stand on trial in front of their peers in front of a Judge and a group of Jurors. Which means the Citizen of Sweetnessoo7 nation would decide their faith with in the world of Justice.

why do people vote agienst an act that would greatly reduce crime and internation termoil?

This isn't about liberal or conservative. It's about fucktarded legislation. It'd be nice if there could be some bipartisan agreement that passing this kind of shit would not be a good idea.

Yahtzee! :D

I vote DEFCON take the proposal over and rewrite it and slip in a usable version that reserves UNSI.

Speaking on behalf of DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), we don't want to touch this steaming dog turd.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nottap bin Cluich
Cluichstani Minister of Defense

Implements tighter security laws? It implements any laws? All it does is make it so that the legal code for all member nations is the bloody set-union of the legal codes of the individual member nations. With the sheer complexity of the UN, it probably means you can't do shit and you'd still be breaking the law.

Lawyer 1: "You must perform this abortion because Nation C260s requires that all pregnancies must be terminated unless they were biologically engineered"

Lawyer 2: "You can't perform this abortion because Gruenberg has outlawed it"

Doctor: "But I'm a Forgottenlands UN doctor"

Lawyer 1, Lawyer 2: "So?"

Lawyer 1: "By UN Security Act I, violating the law of any nation is a crime"

Lawyer 2: "So therefore, if you kill that fetus, you're committing a crime"

Lawyer 1: "And if you don't kill that fetus, you're committing a crime"

Lawyer 2: "And in both cases, the punishment for commiting that crime is death"

Lawyer 1: "Which is, in itself a crime"

Lawyer 2: "That's right. Waterana outlawed the death penalty."

Lawyer 1: "So the person that gives you the lethal injection (who cannot refuse because of a law in Cluichstani UN Mission) will be charged with murder by Waterana's laws and since it's obviously premeditated, it would be first degree so by Adolf Barham's laws, he would have a mandatory minimum of a death penalty"

OOC: This is bloody brilliant! :D

If this passes, I plan on illegalising not putting the authors testicals in a vice and attaching the handle to the high pressure reciprocal motion steam engine manufactured for the abortive HES Crikey, a ship so large it may have had to have been moored in space...

EDIT: Yep, I went there. I used the future pluperfect passive subjunctive

OOC: +5,000,000,000 points for even knowing what the future pluperfect passive subjunctive is! You made the grammar Nazi in me get my shorts all sticky. :D

Sigh.

OOC: Thought you were on vacation, mate. Go enjoy it. ;)

What do we do use some fuzzy bear in the ad campaign?

OOC: Nope, a dog.

http://www.books-4u.com/images/mcgruff2.jpg

:p

why do people vote agienst an act that would greatly reduce crime and internation termoil?

This proposal wouldn't do either of those things, and it's a puddle of diarrhea to boot.

This has to be the worst written, most pointless proposal ever. it doesn't do what it says on the tin, intereferes with national legislation and has all the power of a leaf-blower.

Why do we oppose a proposal to reduce crime? Because it is a piece of bureaucratic poo. It costs money which could have been spent elsewhere.

If the author has spent a few minutes in thought he/she would have relised that it is actually pretty useless. Maybe the just wnated to create another UN agency to ensure more jobs for their citizens. An attempt to makeup for a poor home economy maybe?

why do people vote agienst an act that would greatly reduce crime and internation termoil?

We wouldn't. We'd be happy to vote for a resolution that would do that. The problem is that this resolution won't. All it will do is force nations to throw money at the problem whether they need to or not and establish a stupidly named committee to do practically useless things.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

And some impractically useless things.

Yay, let's create a police state everyone! Let's have so much police funding that we can have an extensive secret police too, how about we reward the civilians for telling the police what their neighbours are upto? they won't make things up will they? Let's scare the population into submission the democratic way...well you might get to vote on this?

Better make sure we have a clause to clear land for prison camps, lots of criminals to house. We could always put them to productive work, perhaps any anti secret police dissenters ought to go there too, just in case the populace decides that a little crime isn't so bad after all.......This rather tempts us to vote yes, actually.

The passage of this act will immediately illegalize (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10690683&postcount=27) in all member states cavorting with a CPESL agent on the Sabbath while she gives you a Wet Willy while playing "This Little Piggy" submerged in a bath of Pepto Bismol and playing "She'll Be Comin' 'round the Mountain" on a banjo with a broken string and philosophizing over the lyrics and watching "The West Wing" while your third cousin Zeke sits by taking Polaroids. It's perfectly legal on any other day, but not between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. (Any other variance of activities with a CPESL agent is perfectly legal on the Sabbath.)

This also tempts us to vote yes.

Finally Forgottenlord is against. This really tempts us to vote yes. ;)

Speaking as a resolution author, I am dismayed that F-Carthage III is unwilling to defend his proposal here in the forums. Of course if I had written this piece of shit proposal I wouldn't be defending it either.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
I telegrammed the author asking why he wasn't defending the proposal here in the forums and got this reply.
yes a lot of delegates are saying that, I had a deal worked out with my co-author, he is not responding : (

he was supposed to handle the forums, if you approve of my proposal feel free to argue with a few nations if not. ok

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I have voted FOR in this one . However I actually want to resign from the UN , because there's only corruption there . At least I think so ...

I have voted FOR in this one . However I actually want to resign from the UN , because there's only corruption there . At least I think so ...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

Oh, and thanks for voting for a piece of shit before you quit. :rolleyes:

Oh, and thanks for voting for a piece of shit before you quit. :rolleyes:
Well on the bright side, if they quit before the voting ends I believe that there vote will go away.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: +5,000,000,000 points for even knowing what the future pluperfect passive subjunctive is! You made the grammar Nazi in me get my shorts all sticky. :D
Grammar Nazi...the only good Nazi!

I had a deal worked out with my co-author

You mean the guy that tried to run as far away as possible from it?

You mean the guy that tried to run as far away as possible from it?

Well, I wouldn't go encouraging his return...

Grammar Nazi...the only good Nazi!

That's not true, there is another ...

The Pitch Nazi - He's the tennor in a barbershop chorus who is constantly yelling at the leads for going flat. :D

I have voted FOR in this one . However I actually want to resign from the UN , because there's only corruption there . At least I think so ...

and gnomes: don't forget the gnomes... :p

and gnomes: don't forget the gnomes... :p

Corrupt gnomes?

I telegrammed the author asking why he wasn't defending the proposal here in the forums

He's currently trying to defend it (against me) in the Conservative Paradise's regional noticeboard: his nation there is called 'Ted Kennedy Haters'...
Oh, and he thinks that everybody who's opposed to it must be "liberals", which I think isn't quite correct... :p

why do people vote agienst an act that would greatly reduce crime and internation termoil?


Clearly you have not been reading the previous posts.
The proposal is very poorly written and way too ambigious.
If this passed it will open the way for the UN to run your country as they see fit.

PS I didin't use any gun emoticons in my first or second post. :p

Speaking on behalf of DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), we don't want to touch this steaming dog turd.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nottap bin Cluich
Cluichstani Minister of Defense

I was thinking of something along the lines of the draft I just posted on UNOG.

Finally Forgottenlord is against. This really tempts us to vote yes. ;)


Awwwwwww

I love you too :fluffle:

I was thinking of something along the lines of the draft I just posted on UNOG.


I assume you mean this:

NOTING the various tactics used by different police forces throughout the world and their varied successes.

ACKNOWLEDGING that not all tactics will be effective in all societies due to differences in beliefs of the citizens

NOTING that many police forces struggle at bringing crime rates down to a level they would prefer

BELIEVING that a forum to share tactics will help give police forces the ability to adapt new ways of fighting crime

CREATES the UN Security Inspectors which will:

1) Look at the tactics employed by police officers within member nations and analyze their effectiveness

2) Give recommendations, to any police force that requests it, about possible tactics to employ

3) Host a UN Security Convention each year which will welcome representatives from the police forces of all member nations to exchange theories and tactics in combatting crime within nations.

As Ausser said on the UNOG forum, I'd drop the Inspectors bit, as it's not about inspections but rather assistance. Also, how would this organisation "look" at the police tactics within nations. Would that be where inspections come in? If so, sorry, neither need nor want gnomes running about Cluichstan's local police forces. How they operate is their business and not the UN's, unless we were to request assistance, which we, of course, won't.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Awwwwwww

I love you too :fluffle:

OOC:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~foo/wtf.jpg

What's with all the fluffling lately? :eek:

You're the one who started it, you evil fluffle instigator, you.

Cardacia opposes. This is forcing pacifistic nations into action which they cannot idealogically support.

Clearly you have not been reading the previous posts.
The proposal is very poorly written and way too ambigious.
If this passed it will open the way for the UN to run your country as they see fit.

PS I didin't use any gun emoticons in my first or second post. :p
Hah hah victory is mine! I have yet to use a single gun smiley ever! And this is my 145th post.

I think this will go down as a miserable failure with votes looking around:

2000 For

5000 Against

Rethink this request and try again.:headbang:

It's still got till Sunday unfortunately.

PS I didin't use any gun emoticons in my first or second post. :p

I'm proud of you for it. Keep it up!

I don't think I've used any smiley but the eyeroll. That's how hardcore apathetic I am.

Rethink this request and try again.:headbang:Or let it rot. I know which I think it deserves.

EDIT: Yep, I went there. I used the future pluperfect passive subjunctive
ooc: Good grief! That tense should stay firmly inside the type-written blue book 'Course materials for Teaching English in the Home', that's probably sitting underneath a huge pile of 'Once Upon a Time' magazines complete with tape-recordings and large chemistry textbooks in a dusty corner.

IC: I think a new card or two needs to be designed for the occassion.

http://hodgelett.com/rot.png http://hodgelett.com/hate.png

BAH HA! Dejected doggie! I love it. Heh.

"DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal."

Is that really mean if a UN proposal is adopt and laws in my country are against, I'm a criminal?

i thot the programers disided if crime was hi or not :confused:

"DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal."

Is that really mean if a UN proposal is adopt and laws in my country are against, I'm a criminal?
No, because a thing that is adopted by the UN is called a resolution. Since it says 'proposal' the UN doesn't need to approve it for it to become law. Every one of those proposals that people make, most of which are far too stupid to ever be voted upon, would instantly become law in your nation as soon as Joe Schmo clicked the submit proposal button. No chance to debate. No chance to vote and reject.

For example I could propose that vowels are evil letters and therefore all people in UN countries whose names contain a vowel should immediately be executed. It would never get through, but I proposed it, and therefore it is now law in all UN nations. If you don't execute all people with vowels in their name you are a criminal and subject to any punishment that I may have stated in my proposal.

Scary huh? That is why only a few people in here actually support this. And they are the people who are looking at the intent of the proposal and not the letter of the law which is what is what happens.

Great cards, Randomea :D

YEs indeedy, proposal is BAAADDD wording.

BTW I think it is absurd to require spending more on both police forces AND Education at once... so one is supposed to give their government more guns, and educate the people so that the people, who are the ones often doing the crime, know how to make their own guns... it's like miniature nuclear proliferation :P. Just require one or the other maybe?

for that matter my nation is kind of founded on what the UN considers crimes... It says that crime works against the interests of "dictatorships and democracies," whichis probably true for the latter and some but not all of the former.... but in a country where the law of the jungle is first and foremost, what many consider crime is simply standard economic aand political activity...

This resolution is ridiculous. The UN respects the autonomy of all nations and as such we should decide for ourselves what causes to fund and to what extent. My Empire funds a police force, education and social welfare which has made crime essentially disappear. But, it is not the right of this organization to make this demand of all nations. I urge my fellow members to vote AGAINST this resolution. Keep this decision to be made by your own individual governments.

-Emperor Brandon I

YEs indeedy, proposal is BAAADDD wording.

BTW I think it is absurd to require spending more on both police forces AND Education at once... so one is supposed to give their government more guns, and educate the people so that the people, who are the ones often doing the crime, know how to make their own guns... it's like miniature nuclear proliferation :P. Just require one or the other maybe?

for that matter my nation is kind of founded on what the UN considers crimes... It says that crime works against the interests of "dictatorships and democracies," whichis probably true for the latter and some but not all of the former.... but in a country where the law of the jungle is first and foremost, what many consider crime is simply standard economic aand political activity...
He probably got the idea for both police and education from a nation description.
Crime is totally unknown, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare.

and relatively unknown recent addition to this august body, The Principality of Tharkent would respectfully like to thank the author of this proposal and the resultant deluge of responses for their excellent comedy value.

As a definite newcomer to the world-stage we would be the first to acknowledge our junior status and be likewise most hesitant to pass comment unfavourably upon our more senior colleagues. However, we would like to make (we feel in our favour) the following points:

1. We have never used gun smileys in our posts.
2. Sorry, but the future pluperfect passive subjunctive (or whatever you called it) does not exist as a tense in English and anybody impressed with its usage ought to consult an advanced grammar reference text.
3. The author of this proposal ought to consult an elementary grammar reference text.
4. We all ought to have something better to do than even discuss this.

With best wishes from the all-but insignificantly small Principality of Tharkent,

Archnimbob Poopwheedle III
Top Nob.

Actually, he got the idea because, "no one would approve it" if he didn't include it.....

and relatively unknown recent addition to this august body, The Principality of Tharkent would respectfully like to thank the author of this proposal and the resultant deluge of responses for their excellent comedy value.

As a definite newcomer to the world-stage we would be the first to acknowledge our junior status and be likewise most hesitant to pass comment unfavourably upon our more senior colleagues. However, we would like to make (we feel in our favour) the following points:

1. We have never used gun smileys in our posts.
2. Sorry, but the future pluperfect passive subjunctive (or whatever you called it) does not exist as a tense in English and anybody impressed with its usage ought to consult an advanced grammar reference text.
3. The author of this proposal ought to consult an elementary grammar reference text.
4. We all ought to have something better to do than even discuss this.

With best wishes from the all-but insignificantly small Principality of Tharkent,

Archnimbob Poopwheedle III
Top Nob.
1. Good man. Keep it up
2. One thing you'll need to learn is that half the stuff like that said here is complete bs that is there for us to have fun and get a quick laugh.
3. Agreed.
4. Probably, but we're all still here.

And as long as you don't resort to flaming, no one will get mad if you make an unfavorable comment against people here. Most of us have a better sense of humor than to get mad.

Actually, he got the idea because, "no one would approve it" if he didn't include it.....
Really? Wow. Well if that's the case then it's official. Absolutely no thought went into this proposal other than "What should I put in to make 6% of delegates approve this?"

We can be vindictive to morons, however.

We would like to welcome the honorable Top Nob of Tharkent to this Assembly. We have the distinct feeling he's going to fit right in. To respond to the gentleman's comments....

and relatively unknown recent addition to this august body, The Principality of Tharkent would respectfully like to thank the author of this proposal and the resultant deluge of responses for their excellent comedy value.

As a definite newcomer to the world-stage we would be the first to acknowledge our junior status and be likewise most hesitant to pass comment unfavourably upon our more senior colleagues. However, we would like to make (we feel in our favour) the following points:

1. We have never used gun smileys in our posts.

We have never used gun smileys in our posts, either. And we've not used them a lot longer than you have. It's not that we haven't wanted to. We just keep forgetting to click on the darn things.

2. Sorry, but the future pluperfect passive subjunctive (or whatever you called it) does not exist as a tense in English and anybody impressed with its usage ought to consult an advanced grammar reference text.

Anybody who even cares whether the future whatever exists in English should take a long nap and then buy a nice Latin grammar for leisure reading.

3. The author of this proposal ought to consult an elementary grammar reference text.


We're not sure. We'd suggest an elementary common sense text instead -- if such things exist.

4. We all ought to have something better to do than even discuss this.


We do. We're avoiding it.

With best wishes from the all-but insignificantly small Principality of Tharkent,

Archnimbob Poopwheedle III
Top Nob.

And best wishes in return from the monarch and people of the Principality of Ausserland.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives to the United Nations,

As the Minister of Hospitality for the Tire-Burning Torque Empire of HotRodia, I would like to note our nation's vote AGAINST the UN Security Act 1 for the reasons that have already been thoroughly addressed in this resolution debate.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

As a youthful and relatively unknown recent addition to this august body, The Principality of Tharkent would respectfully like to thank the author of this proposal and the resultant deluge of responses for their excellent comedy value.

As a definite newcomer to the world-stage we would be the first to acknowledge our junior status and be likewise most hesitant to pass comment unfavourably upon our more senior colleagues. However, we would like to make (we feel in our favour) the following points:

1. We have never used gun smileys in our posts.
2. Sorry, but the future pluperfect passive subjunctive (or whatever you called it) does not exist as a tense in English and anybody impressed with its usage ought to consult an advanced grammar reference text.
3. The author of this proposal ought to consult an elementary grammar reference text.
4. We all ought to have something better to do than even discuss this.

With best wishes from the all-but insignificantly small Principality of Tharkent,

Archnimbob Poopwheedle III
Top Nob.


The portly Representative, Tommo the Stout of the North Sea Regional Delegate Norderia, stands from his seat and approaches Archnimbob Poopwheedle III and offers a handshake, which turns into a hug with a hearty laugh. Welcome to the UN forum, friend.

1. Gun smiley's are most certainly juvenile. The only time I have employed them was in General, and that was when I was mocking someone. It was the alien goop one.
2. You have no idea how disappointed I am to hear that future pluperfect passive subjunctive is not a real term. It is nonetheless remaining in my vocabulary as an inside joke, of the most obscure kind, to be used around people who have never seen an NSUN debate.
3. We are in agreement. I might also suggest such classic texts as One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish, and Patrick's Dinosaurs.
4. I am busying myself with Cybernations, Urban Dead, and Kingdom of Loathing from the comfort of my UN Delegate Standard Issue Pocket PC. It's a lifesaver during filibuster-type debates.

Again, welcome. You've got Norderia's seal of approval.

Tommo the Stout;
UN Ambassador, Norderia;
Delegate of the North Sea

I would simply like to suggest to anyone that has participated in a line-by-line decimation of any post to stick their thumb up their butt. I cannot express any more than that how annoyed I am with the egotistical display of authoring a post in such a manner. I absolutely enjoy reading most of the post I come across, especially the ones that are simply expressed as a collection of original thoughts expressed in a prose or essay style.

We need this bill to pass as some of the nations still have problems developing our education system and funding our police and armed forces. Give those who do not have the luxury of a sound police to implement this system of security and education....for our future

-Holy Prime Minister of Drunkship of Cassandra

is our national sport and should not be regarded as a form of punishment.

I shall certainly make a UN proposal to make the practise obligatory should the current legislation pass.

Yours

Archnimbob Gulliwag Jaxpot
Minister of Sport,
Principality of Tharkent

I agree with (from) it, it good idea very it

[Buttthumbing] is our national sport and should not be regarded as a form of punishment.

I shall certainly make a UN proposal to make the practise obligatory should the current legislation pass.

Yours

Archnimbob Gulliwag Jaxpot
Minister of Sport,
Principality of Tharkent

OOC: Oh yeah, you're gonna fit in very well here. :D

We need this bill to pass as some of the nations still have problems developing our education system and funding our police and armed forces. Give those who do not have the luxury of a sound police to implement this system of security and education....for our future

-Holy Prime Minister of Drunkship of Cassandra

We feel that if you do not know how to handle your crime problems locally, a UN dictate where to spend your national funds will only increase your problems because this money has to come from somewhere and your rulers are stripped from where they choose to spend their funds.

If you need more funding spent on Education and Police, then do so, but everyone does not and this would force us to increase funds for something that isn't or has never been a problem in our fair nation.

I would simply like to suggest to anyone that has participated in a line-by-line decimation of any post to stick their thumb up their butt.

I would like to counter that suggestion with saying anyone who can't stand the seperation of statements so that our responses are easy to associate with the equivelent line from the original post should bang their heads against the wall until they pass out. Something like this: :headbang:

Coincidentally, we see a lot of people from that category do that already

I cannot express any more than that how annoyed I am with the egotistical display of authoring a post in such a manner.

I find it humorous that you would claim it is egotistical to try and make it so that it is easier for fellow ambassadors to know what we are referring to when we speak

I absolutely enjoy reading most of the post I come across, especially the ones that are simply expressed as a collection of original thoughts expressed in a prose or essay style.

It is great that you have a preference. I tend to use many styles based upon what I feel is most appropriate to get my point across. However, one must pick the appropriate tool for the job for there is never any true silver bullet solution. People who claim otherwise have never actually tried picking a different tool.

After reviewing this topic, we were stunned not to encounter at any point this card:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/tpcard1kr.jpg

URGES NATIONS TO

put a stop to this lawlessness by increasing funding to police forces and education.

spend more then amount required in this proposal.

i know it may be slightly late, but shouldn't that be 'than'?

It actually should be "null" since really.....there is no required amount so that line is USELESS

In fact it also needs an article. 'The amount.'
By the way, we exactky should we Instant Message you?

Cassandra, if you need help, I'm sure many nations would be more than happy to assist yours, for a price.

An official message to HotRodia

For the attention of Mr. Sam I Am, Minister of Hospitality.

Dear sir,
Having expressed your disapproval of the current proposal, we were wondering if your ministry would be interested in a proposal of my own. Would it be possible to print off several copies of the USA-I and attach them to a racing circuit, as you are famed for such sporting events. Then of course run an honourary race over the papered course.
If you are interested in such an event do not hesitate to contact,

Cogsworth Green,
Ministry of Innovation, Randomea

i know it may be slightly late, but shouldn't that be 'than'?

Oh, if we went through correcting all the grammatical errors in this Resolution, we'd be here all week.

Mostly because it's difficult to determine what the author's intent was in some cases. There would be endless debate.

I suggest doing as Jey's card does. (Oh, how I love UN Cards)

is our national sport and should not be regarded as a form of punishment.

I shall certainly make a UN proposal to make the practise obligatory should the current legislation pass.

Yours

Archnimbob Gulliwag Jaxpot
Minister of Sport,
Principality of Tharkent
I like him more and more with every passing second.

Welcome friend!

After reviewing this topic, we were stunned not to encounter at any point this card:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/tpcard1kr.jpg
Yes, well I did use the bowel surgery in the woods one, but you're right. I actually made a card that I wanted to post for this proposal, but alas I have no where to upload it. :(

it may have had to had been moored in space

Subjunctive, e.g I could eat

Passive, e.g. I have been eaten

Future: I shall eat

Future Subjunctive: I may/might eat

Future perfect: I shall have ate

Pluperfect: I had eaten

Thus, the future pluperfect passive subjunctive in this instance would be:

I may have had to had been eaten

Thus, using my logic, "it may have had to had been moored in space" would be future pluperfect passive subjunctive.

OoC: :p

Subjunctive, e.g I could eat

Passive, e.g. I have been eaten

Future: I shall eat

Future Subjunctive: I may/might eat

Future perfect: I shall have ate

Pluperfect: I had eaten

Thus, the future pluperfect passive subjunctive in this instance would be:

I may have had to had been eaten

Thus, using my logic, "it may have had to had been moored in space" would be future pluperfect passive subjunctive.

OoC: :p

English is a truely wonderful language. Let's all bask in its byzantine conduit-like structure. -basks-

This doesn't actually mandate anything, fortunately. Still, it's badly written and badly thought out. Providing a single "teacher" as assistance and making all United Nations proposals automatic law, for example.

A great many reasons to vote no.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Yes, well I did use the bowel surgery in the woods one, but you're right. I actually made a card that I wanted to post for this proposal, but alas I have no where to upload it. :(

http://imageshack.us

Otterby rises to the stand looking slightly surly and begins to speak in distinctly slurred tones.

Now I know that my contribution to this debate will be needless for the most part, owing to the fact that this resolution is sinking faster than the Titanic on speed and the complete refutation of all its main points earlier in the debate. But you know what? I feel like breaking up the unseemly Grammar Nazi orgy taking place here and plus if everyone else is helping to bury this resolution, then I want to do some shovelling to.

Grabs shovel and holds it above his head.

PROPOSES TO

INCREASE funding to police forces and education

Oh good, we're off to a decent start. What a pity for the lack of specifics.

DEFINE crime as any act against the law in any individual UN member nation. Or something strictly against any UN proposal.

Any U.N. nation? So the crackpot laws of whatever right-wing lunatic dictatorship can influence those of Compadria? That's not the way round the process is supposed to work damnit! Equally, how are we supposed to accomodate all these laws on our statute books and without them all contradicting one another.

And as for the any U.N. proposal, your failure to specify whether it would be restricted to those that pass, means that theoretically anything proposed would have to be put on the books. Which would be ridiculous, un-democratic and confusing.

CREATE the UNSI (United Nations Security Inspectors) to aid the nations who can not control their crime levels but wish to.

Yay! Inspectors! My heart rises aloft with anticipation.

EMPHASIZES that the UNSI will determine whether crime rates in all UN member nations are nonexistent, low, moderate, high or alarmingly high and will only help any nation who requests help and has a moderate to large crime rate

So what about nations with low crime, but with persistant mono-sectoral crime or where the crime rate is rising. Are pro-active applications impossible? Doesn't this make the agency proposed purely reactive and thus most likely less effective?

STATES that the UNSI will help the nation who has requested help regarding their crime rates by doing one or more of the following things:

1. Providing a teacher to help improve the skills of the police force
2. Suggesting many hints or tips as to how to prevent crime (these hints would be made by the UNSI)
3. Help to create an advertising campaign against crime
4. Possibly suggesting punishments that would deter criminals from breaking the law

1). 1 teacher. 1 teacher for a whole country. Need I say more.

2). What, like a citizens advice bureau. You're proposing creating a U.N. citizens advice bureau. How inefficient is this exactly? I'm guessing very.

3). Because advertising will always work. Though this isn't a bad idea in itself.

4). I'll grudgingly agree, buy only because I don't want to resort to the micro-managing argument, though I'm very tempted.

BELIEVES that this proposal will make the world a safer place

Well I'm sure the honourable delegate is quite incor....Oh look, a flying pig.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

http://imageshack.us
Woot! You sir, are my hero. You will be bestowed with the Cochrane medal of honor, the highest and most prestigious award we can give.
My three new cards (First attempts, so they're not the best but...):
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7845/brainded3ge.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3408/selfdest2lf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And since this proposal is now sure to fail:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3714/sexy5ee.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Overlooking the horrendous grammatical/spelling/punctuation errors, and regardless of how vague/nonexistent the amount of funding is specified in this resolution, the UN should not be determing member nations' budgets, plain and simple. Period.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7845/brainded3ge.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I advise shorter picture. If you don't have an application for cropping, I suggest Infanview.

Or using my old one:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/braincells.png

I guess I've lost so many I'd forgotten I'd made that card.

Back to the grammar...

'had had' is good grammar, but 'had to had'? 'Had to have' my dear sir would be a far better formation.

I advise shorter picture. If you don't have an application for cropping, I suggest Infanview.
Thanks for the advice. Redone.
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3205/brainded0uv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Terrible. A big juicy nay to this rubbish.

Well, shall we all in compliance with any recycling-encouraging resolutions there may be decide to recycle the paper on which this proposal is written?:p

Well, shall we all in compliance with any recycling-encouraging resolutions there may be decide to recycle the paper on which this proposal is written?:p

Aw man! I wanted to do "bon-fire purge"

And since this proposal is now sure to fail:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3714/sexy5ee.jpg (http://imageshack.us)Awesome! :cool:

VICTORY IS MINE!!

Especially whilst in such esteemed company. However, with regard to (and responding on a point-by point basis that has been noted may cause apoplexy in some readers) this:

Subjunctive, e.g I could eat

Sorry. No. The (past) subjunctive (which is very rarely used in modern English, though more so in American than British English) is the use of the plural form "were" in the first and second person forms. Thus "If I was a cat" becomes "If I were a cat." It is used to express doubt or improbability (or sometimes longing.) 'Could' is a straightforward modal auxiliary verb, used to express a situation in which a roughly 50/50 chance is expected.

Passive, e.g. I have been eaten

Yes. This is indeed a passive voice. It is the present perfect tense using a passive voice, to be precise.

Future: I shall eat

Doubtless such a learned scholar as yourself is affecting a jocular stance as he is well aware that the English language has no future tense. There are seven different forms that can be employed, the first of which is will/shall. Whilst shall is somewhat anachronistic, it is nevertheless totally acceptable. Let's agree that this is, to all intents and purposes, the future tense.


Future Subjunctive: I may/might eat

As discussed above, there is no such thing as the future subjunctive. 'May' and 'might', like 'could' are model auxiliary verbs. Where could can be said to express a roughly 50/50 situation, 'may' and 'might' express situations where the chance of an occurrence is considered by the speaker to be much lower.

Future perfect: I shall have ate

Oh dear. "I shall have ate"? Where did that come from? Perfect tenses take the third form of the verb, and 'shall' is not normally used in this form. Thus you mean "I will have eaten."

Pluperfect: I had eaten

Ah. Pluperfect is a largely obsolete term. Usually this is now called the 'past perfect.' It is usually used to describe situations where several events took place in the past and we need to establish a temporal relationship between them. Thus "I had eaten when the Vogons struck" or "He had formed the nazi party before the riots took place."

Thus, the future pluperfect passive subjunctive in this instance would be:

I may have had to had been eaten.

Thus, using my logic, "it may have had to had been moored in space" would be future pluperfect passive subjunctive.

OoC: :p

So we can see that, not only is this not the future pluperfect passive subjunctive, but such a tense cannot be said to exist. I believe the expression you are looking for in this case would be:

"It may have needed to be moored in space."

This is the present perfect tense, using the auxiliary modal verb 'may' to express a degree of possibility.

QED

With deepest apologies from the Tharkent Grammar Initiative.

Sincerely

Archpedant Khelbent

We are waiting with bated breath for our learned colleagues from Cobdenia and Tharkent to begin debating that other topic so vital to the welfare of all mankind: "How many commas can fit on the head of a pin?" :p

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Especially whilst in such esteemed company. However, with regard to (and responding on a point-by point basis that has been noted may cause apoplexy in some readers) this:

*snip*

QED

With deepest apologies from the Tharkent Grammar Initiative.

Sincerely

Archpedant Khelbent


Such BASKING! Ahh! It's so sexy!

I'm still using future pluperfect passive subjunctive as an inside joke. The fact that it does not, and cannot exist only makes it a more attractive choice in humorous situations. -giggles and continues to sway idly back and forth in the hammock behind the desk in the GA-

Tommo the Stout;
Ambassador to the UN for Norderia
UN Regional Delegate of the North Sea

Well, shall we all in compliance with any recycling-encouraging resolutions there may be decide to recycle the paper on which this proposal is written?:p
No give them to us, burning illegal proposals and failed resolutions is how we heat the building during winter.

Ken Scott
Vice President, Building Maintence Department
UN Building Management

We are waiting with bated breath for our learned colleagues from Cobdenia and Tharkent to begin debating that other topic so vital to the welfare of all mankind: "How many commas can fit on the head of a pin?" :p

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Do they have to be touching the pin, or can they be stacked (or hooked) on one another

An official message to HotRodia

For the attention of Mr. Sam I Am, Minister of Hospitality.

Dear sir,
Having expressed your disapproval of the current proposal, we were wondering if your ministry would be interested in a proposal of my own. Would it be possible to print off several copies of the USA-I and attach them to a racing circuit, as you are famed for such sporting events. Then of course run an honourary race over the papered course.
If you are interested in such an event do not hesitate to contact,

Cogsworth Green,
Ministry of Innovation, Randomea

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Dear Minister Green,

I appreciate your compliment and interest in our nation, but I regret to inform you that the people of HotRodia will not allow any of our hallowed circuits to be defiled by such a horrific resolution text as the one at vote. However, it might be arranged that the solar-powered laser cannon meant to destroy Starcra II could be used to create a similar effect. If this is satisfactory please let me know.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

An Official Message from
The OMGTKK Department of UN Puppetwanking
"Because Tex and Gruen can't have all the fun."Greetings to all and sundry of the United Nations,Having succumbed to a rash of silliness of late, we have elected to surrender to temptation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11070306#post11070306) and vote FOR the article presently at vote. However, in the interest of preventing untoward harassment or assault on our UN Mission abroad, we have switched our UN vote to another of our many client states scattered across the NS multiverse. Heh. We wonder if any of you can find our puppet among the thousands of member states (http://www.nationstates.net/page=list_nations/un=UN) represented in these halls? ... Could it beeeee ... here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=genuine_jackasses)? Or here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=jengaslovakia)? Or possibly here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=liberated_sex_slaves)? Or maybe even here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=libertine_fools)? Here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=repressed_tools)? Hey, look over here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=bahamamamma)! I know! He's hiding here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=oppresive_pedants)! Or here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=grawrrrrr)? Where can that blasted puppet be?! We'll never tell.Unlimited love to y'all,Secretary of State
Alex Tehrani

Have you tried here (www.nationstates.net/kivisto) ... or here (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=czardas) , ... or ... ?

OOC: Shit. I may have started another trend. :p

A Bunch of F-ing P-ssy. That's what New Hamilton thinks.

Seeing as the proposal, we all agree, is a pile of shite, I think debating the future pluperfect passive subjunctive is a far more constructive use of the UN time.

I think I may have realised what I have been doing; which is using Latin rules for English grammar, which used to be the common way of doing things and is the way we do things in Cobdenia (OoC: Past tech nation :p), despite the fact that it is the equivalent of trying to play cricket using badminton rules. Thus, while no future pluperfect passive subjunctive exists in Latin (although I beleive the future perfect passive subjunctive does exist, IIRC), if it were to exist, would translate as such. In Latin, I beleive the use of words that signify a sense of doubt of the occurence of an event (e.g. may, might, could) are called the subjunctive, as there are no auxiliary verbs in this sense. You are quite correct, "I shall/will have eaten", is correct; not sure where "I shall have ate" came from!

With regards shall and will, I was always taught that shall is used for first person, will for second and third person; unless you are being emphatic. For example:

"I shall drown and nobody will save me!" = I am drowning, nobody is around, I'm buggered.

whereas

"I will drown and nobody shall save me!" = I am determined to drown, God damn you, and if anyone tries to save, I won't be happy.

OoC: This also appears in "Rule Britannia", which has (technically) a different version for the British and foreigners: British say "Britons never will be slaves", whereas foreigners say "Britons never shall be slaves". Although most people think it is always "shall"

As it seems that debate on this issue has cooled down, Datavia just want to state its disagreement with resolutions as blatantly interventionist as this. I don't like the flavour of these issues which deal into home policies and then force you to more public spending without any assured improvement of public welfare.

Our Cobdenian colleague's comments regarding the uses of will and shall.

How does my learned friend feel about the modern tendency to bastardise the language with respect to the use of "which" and "that"?

With compliments

Tharkent Grammar Initiative

Don't get me started. "Which" is used after comma's, "that" without.

Thus: "The car that is green is driven by a leper."

versus

"My car, which is green, is underneath the big tree."

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/memome91/tonyblair.png

Cobdenia's green car, which was parked under a tree, was towed away and will be crushed by that annoying traffic warden. However, it may be rescued; an impounded car can be released once a penalty fee has been paid.

Could have a lot of fun identifying tenses and time clauses...or not.

OOC: Shit. I may have started another trend. :p
OOC: I wouldn't kid yourself.

There is no proof in that educating people actually works. Criminals dont think before committing a crime, they see an opportunity and take it. Deterrence punishments dont work. Not even in reality

"The latest figures (2003), show that 61 per cent of offenders were reconvicted within two years; and 73 per cent of young offenders aged 18-21 The reoffending rate for male adolescents (aged 15-18) was 82 per cent."

This idea was a bad idea and so I vote against it.


Do you beleive that capitol punishment would work if applied to more trivial crimes?( not the least trivial, just be reasonable) or perhaps Hanarabis' code "and eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" then 61 percent would not be alive to become repeat offenders.

post script...this is not necessiarly my opinion just a topic for further debate.

Since when was there a debate here about measures that could actually fight crime?

Since when was there a debate here about measures that could actually fight crime?

Nahhh, he said further debate. Debate that has departed from the core of the topic. Debate, I might add, which going nowhere.

Now, question of the day, my friends in possession of a superior command of the English language, is the word "which" used properly in the above sentence? Eh? Eh?

(Might just be able to trip someone up there.)

Are you missing an "is"?

There Tharkent grammar Initiative, is, on Vacashuun 2dai as its there buffdee.

Me has been asked 2, stand in, 4 thim. Its a honer two finally right two ther UN which Ive bin wuntin two do for a relly long time.

Ive rid the currant propsal, and I rekkon its well gud riting an we shud all make the ritter numbr 1 round here cos hes rilly got fings werked owt well and we shud have a uN plicemun to teech owr plicemun to werk bettr and stuff. Wy not? My mam sez thrs two many librals makin two meny problms an thers not nuff love 2 go round. Or wus taht Genesis sed that?

As fur witch and that, only rilly bighed knowsitoll bstruds Even kare bout that. uN shud tokk bout football cos thats wot reel peple kare bout.

I prpose more munney for Wayne Rooney. An is famly like.

luv from Kev

The Principality of Tharkent would like to formally apologise for the recent post, which in no way should be seen as reflecting the views of our government. It seems that we have experienced something of a security lapse and the offender, in accordance with our criminal code, will be punished lightly and educated harshly.

We feel that our status in this august body has been irrevocably damaged, and our grammar initiative's authority has been compromised to such a degree that its UN-privileges have been revoked whilst an investigation takes place.

Once again, please accept our apologies for this lapse.

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob.

OOC: I wouldn't kid yourself.

OOC: Why would I kid myself when kidding others is so much more fun? :p

Are you missing an "is"?


The usage of the word "is" isn't the question, Forgottenlands. You know, why you always gotta be putting a monkey wrench in the gears? Always tryin' to start crap. "Ooh, look at me, I'm such a SMARTY-PANTS! My name is Forgottenlands, and I'm sooooo cool! NYURRRR!"

Seriously, DAYUM.

I don't understand why everyone is so against the latest proposal. It has been the only good thing to be presented in the UN for such a long time. Vote for, not against!

I don't understand why everyone is so against the latest proposal. It has been the only good thing to be presented in the UN for such a long time. Vote for, not against!

Would the good member please elaborate on why the good member fails to understand the reasons a majority of this General Assembly have for opposing this proposal?

Would the good member also care to explain how this proposal is not only good, but the only good proposal to be presented in the UN in such a long time?

Would the good member also also care to explain what the good member considers to be such a long time? I would not presume to know of any prior readings of the UN's legislation that the good member has read, in the remarkable space between May 2006 and June 2006.

Would the good member also also also care to provide reasons for the majority of the General Assembly to change their eagerly cast "Against" votes to "For"?

If the good member refuses to do any of the above, could the good member instead inform Starbucks that the good member Tommo the Stout, from Norderia needs another Doubleshot Espresso?

The good member thanks the good member.

Tommo the Stout;
Ambassador to the UN from Norderia
UN Regional Delegate to the North Sea

But we have been perusing the archives of UN statutes and, with respect to UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #157, we would like to formally announce that we are a rouge nation that also occasionally uses mascara.

This is a bizarre place.

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob
Tharkent

Great scot!!! I take a break from NS and this proposal MAKES QUAROM! Icarumba, it doesn't do anything! It's a bunch of urges and suggestions with a commitee thrown in to enforce this proposal's total lack of laws. Look at it! Just look at it! I had to read it twice, and I still couldn't find any real strong operative clauses. Opposed Opposed Opposed.




Sorry for the rant, just surprised me to see such a proposal make it to vote...

Sorry for the rant, just surprised me to see such a proposal make it to vote...

You might notice, we've been discussing a myriad other topics for the last 4 or 5 pages now...

It makes us feel as though we haven't completely failed by letting this get through...

Daemonyxia votes against.

Our local crime rate is virtually zero and our taxation is fairly low. Why burden ourselves with oversight from yet another U.N toothless crocodile?

You know I've been thinking about this proposal and I think it's a shame that it is going to fail. It will make my desire to conquer the NS world that much harder. I'll never get this proposal into law now and I'll have to go to all the trouble of dealing with all members of the UN :( :

Vowels are evil!
A proposal to rid the world of all the evil inherent to vowels

RECOGNIZES that vowels are the most fowl, evil things ever to have been invented.

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution vowels as the letters 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', 'u', and sometimes 'y'.

CALLS for the immediate execution of all citizens in all UN nations whose name contains a vowel.

FORMS a commitee operated by the gnomes by the name of Kill The Vowels (KTV) to carry out these executions.

ALSO CALLS for this commitee to exterminate itself upon completion of the executions.


Think of it. In one fell swoop, not only do the gnomes wipe out all the people of the UN, they then kill themselves. I would be unstoppable! *maniacal laughter*

The United Socialist States of Delinquent Faith vote against this proposal. Our nation has relatively little, to no crime at all period and we feel forcing us to spend money through this proposal is not a wise decision and route for our nation to take. We believe that this is something that can be handled by individual nations who need to do such things.

We also feel fear is not an impediment to dictatorships or dictatorships in the making, for fear is a valuable tool to force submission of one's people to their will, so it is in this generalization that fear is not good for any political system we also disagree.

Thank you.

-USSDF

Great scot!!! I take a break from NS and this proposal MAKES QUAROM! Icarumba, it doesn't do anything! It's a bunch of urges and suggestions with a commitee thrown in to enforce this proposal's total lack of laws. Look at it! Just look at it! I had to read it twice, and I still couldn't find any real strong operative clauses. Opposed Opposed Opposed.

Sorry for the rant, just surprised me to see such a proposal make it to vote...

Not only did it make quorum, but over 3,000 members of the CDC* actually voted for it!

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
----------
Official:
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Principality of Ausserland

*Clueless Dweebs Club

Hooray! We're Clueless Dweebs! Imagine what additional misfortunes would befall us were we also members of the Scummy Dwarves Club?

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Isn't this about the longest AT VOTE debate thread we've had in a while? :p

You might notice, we've been discussing a myriad other topics for the last 4 or 5 pages now...Yeah, about that ... wasn't excessive threadjacking illegal the last time I perused the rules?

The resolution "UN Security Act 1" was defeated 9,639 votes to 3,691.

27.68%

The lowest percentage in NSUN history. Great job, guys! :D

Isn't this about the longest AT VOTE debate thread we've had in a while? :p

No. In the first place it wasn't a debate. Don't you need someone from the opposite side to have a debate? In the second place this wasn't about the vote at all. It was quickly hijacked into something much more interesting to discuss.

I see there is currently nothing on the queue. I might be able to get back to printing small lead figurines. I have a diorama on the blessed church of Saint Celestine to finish.

I would like to thank common sense, reason, and of course wisdom and understanding for helping defeat the worst proposal to reach a qorum this year. I would like to suggest that this proves that people who want to make resolutions should at least come to the forum to defend them, but I don't think we can prove that on the basis of this unpassed pile of manure.

It wasn't a debate, but it was still a debate thread.

Oh no, now I'm starting an actual debate in here.

You know I've been thinking about this proposal and I think it's a shame that it is going to fail. It will make my desire to conquer the NS world that much harder. I'll never get this proposal into law now and I'll have to go to all the trouble of dealing with all members of the UN :( :

Vowels are evil!
A proposal to rid the world of all the evil inherent to vowels

RECOGNIZES that vowels are the most fowl, evil things ever to have been invented.

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution vowels as the letters 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', 'u', and sometimes 'y'.

CALLS for the immediate execution of all citizens in all UN nations whose name contains a vowel.

FORMS a commitee operated by the gnomes by the name of Kill The Vowels (KTV) to carry out these executions.

ALSO CALLS for this commitee to exterminate itself upon completion of the executions.


Think of it. In one fell swoop, not only do the gnomes wipe out all the people of the UN, they then kill themselves. I would be unstoppable! *maniacal laughter*
Nope, because should such a proposal even show the slightest chance of passing I would have my name legally changed to Bb Flbbl.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Nope, because should such a proposal even show the slightest chance of passing I would have my name legally changed to Bb Flbbl.

The Mddlng Mnk seconds the motion and will also do the same should this proposal even look like it's going to make the queue.

f th Mds dn't dlt sch prpsl, Crn wll chng ts nm t th Cngrssnl Rpblc f Crn, nd w wll qt th ntd Ntns.

Wll, th Trmvrt f Nn s stll rcognsbl. Bt nt th Hl Stts f Drsmr.

Yeah, about that ... wasn't excessive threadjacking illegal the last time I perused the rules?

Yeah, about that... I think the fact that this proposal got through is clear enough evidence that the mods have stopped paying attention to us.

We've been Forsaken.

Tmm th Stt
N mbssdr frm Nrdr
Rgnl Dlgt f th Nrth S

M Md, M Md, wh hst th frskn m??

lx Thrn
Scrtr f Stt

P.S. Dmn, s 'y' a vwl?

In "my", it is

In "Reiley", it isn't.

EDIT: In English, you need a vowel for each syllable. Y is a vowel if there are no other candidates.

In "my", it is

In "Reiley", it isn't.

EDIT: In English, you need a vowel for each syllable. Y is a vowel if there are no other candidates.

It's the bi-sexual letter. Swings both ways.

Edit: Now, question for ya. Is the y in "syllable" a vowel? And what about silent e's?

I think vowelhood isn't related so much to sound as it is to the construction of a word. Otherwise y would always be a vowel.

f th Mds dn't dlt sch prpsl, Crn wll chng ts nm t th Cngrssnl Rpblc f Crn, nd w wll qt th ntd Ntns.
Wll, th Trmvrt f Nn s stll rcognsbl. Bt nt th Hl Stts f Drsmr.
M Md, M Md, wh hst th frskn m??

Jck Rly
mbssdr t th ntd Ntns

P.S. Dmn, s 'y' a vwl?
Tht ws sy. ddn't vn hv t mk th prpsl nd ppl hv gvn p vwls. strtd nw r.

Translation for those who can't read without vowels: That was easy. I didn't even have to make the proposal and people have given up vowels. I started a new era.

My th blssg f r ttrs b pn y

Lnrd Ttrby
Mbssdr r th Rpblc f Cmpdr t th .N.

It's the bi-sexual letter. Swings both ways.

Edit: Now, question for ya. Is the y in "syllable" a vowel? And what about silent e's?

I think vowelhood isn't related so much to sound as it is to the construction of a word. Otherwise y would always be a vowel.

I think "w" is also a bi-er whatever letter. And I've been thinking about so called silent e's since I was a kid. Are they really silent? Or are they just exceptionally quiet? Do people make phusical changes to their mouths when saying silent e's that can impact the preceeding consonant.

Speaking of bi, as a singer there is a gneral rule that vowels are singable while consonants are not. (Go on, try to "sing" a "th" in Bb below middle C.) But there are actually a few expeptions, the so called singable consonants. They are generally the humming consonants. Webster defines a consonants as "one of a class of speech sounds (as\p\, \g\, \n\, \l\, \s\, \r\) characterized by constriction or closure at one or more points in the breath channel" and certain consonants that only have a constriction and no closure (or glottal stop) can be maintained with a pitch.

And to make things even more interesting, since you really should end on a note when singing, words that end with consonants have their consonant moved to the beginning of the next note, so that you don't have too much silence inbetwen the words you are singing. so "This is a lovely day" is more sung as "Thi sis a lovely day."

By the way "ay" in "day" is actually a diphthong, "a gliding monosyllabic speech sound (as the vowel combination at the end of toy) that starts at or near the articulatory position for one vowel and moves to or toward the position of another."

(And you thought singing was just a matter of notes?)

Celebrate, The stupidity has been defeated.

Huzzah!

And dipthongs annoy me. For the longest time I thought "girl" was a di-syllabic.

Next Proposal!

Well, this proposal has shown me that I am really not too good at writing original proposals. However, the fun continues - in the next proposal, I am actually the author. However, it is a repeal and there seems to be a lot more support for that one.

Well, this proposal has shown me that I am really not too good at writing original proposals. However, the fun continues - in the next proposal, I am actually the author. However, it is a repeal and there seems to be a lot more support for that one.

Yeah, there is, because we all hate sodding trees. :p