NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's an idea:


International Emergency Number
International Security, mild

WHEREAS the world is more interconnected than ever before, and,

WHEREAS travel between nations is also at a high level, and,

WHEREAS while abroad, persons may require the services of the relevant emergency services, including but not limited to ambulance, police and fire services, and,

WHEREAS different nations have different methods for contacting these emergency services, and,

BELIEVING that lives and property can be saved and protected by introducing an international emergency number throughout the United Nations,

NOW THEREFORE, the United Nations enacts as follows:

1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the existing emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number.

2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services.

3. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not have such existing emergency services or communication devices to establish or introduce them.


I picked 112 because on GSM mobile phones, dialing it redirects you to the emergency services no matter where you are. The European Union also adopts it as an international number.

I'm not picky about the number, though. Other emergency numbers I know of that could be used if there's some reason 112 is problematic are 999 (UK and many former colonies), 911 (Canada/US), 000 (Australia), 111 (NZ).

I'm not picky about the number, though. Other emergency numbers I know of that could be used if there's some reason 112 is problematic are 999 (UK and many former colonies), 911 (Canada/US), 000 (Australia), 111 (NZ).We currently use 666 and see no reason to change our system as it would be very costly to do so..

Also since we only get a few thousand visitors from other nations a week here it's much easier for them simply to learn our emergancy number and use it as most of out public phones have a key for this on them that only requires pressing it then speaking into the device.

As why should near 2oooooooo people change for just 2oooo when these move in and out while the citizens live here all their lives..

Also our citizens use the system in place in nations they visit... or carry Zeldon Universal Communicators and call home when they need help as our communications system allows them to be anywhere and call anywhere.. ZUC to ZUC....

Are you sure about the category?

3. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not have such existing emergency services or communication devices to establish or introduce them.What is some nation has a high rate of visitors from other nations would it not be better to require them to have some kind of ES or CD? As if most of your citizens visit these nations then do something to bring them on line with the rest of the world regards to ES and CD.. As you must assume that will be easy to adapt all systems to work together.. That I don't see as even the existing system are so different that they would never funciton together.. Also some lower lever systems could not handle data from our systems.. nor would wire systems work with air wave systems or either of these with light wave systems.

We currently use 666 and see no reason to change our system as it would be very costly to do so..

As why should near 2oooooooo people change for just 2oooo when these move in and out while the citizens live here all their lives..


You wouldn't have to change/replace your system. The international code would operate in addition to your current number, e.g in the UK we can dial 999 for the British emergency services, or 112 for the international emergency services.

This is an excellent proposal and Ausserland will support it 100%. We only wish we'd thought of it ourselves. It will accomplish something very worthwhile, it makes excellent common sense, the subject is clearly of international scope, and the proposal is clear and concise.

One idea.... 123 is the most easily remembered 3-digit sequence. Would it be possible/advisable to use it?

By order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The problem with 123, I think, is kids playing with the phone are very likely to dial that.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez: There are some misunderstandings here:

Section 3 is mainly meant to avoid forcing modern tech, like phones, onto medevial tech nations. Furthermore, this isn't going to make emergency services interlinked over national boundaries, it's just so if you go somewhere in the UN which has both phones (or future tech equivalent) and an emergency service, dialling 112 gets you the emergency service. It's something added on top of what you have already, and you don't have to change your existing emergency number.

EDIT:
As regards the category, it's the only one which seems appropriate. There will be some cost involved in implementing this if your emergency number isn't already 112, but that's just tweaking your phone system to redirect a number. Police budgets may be increased slightly if the existing system has specialised numbers, such as 101 for police, 102 for ambulance, 103 for kidnapping response unit (I read Colombia has such a hotline) in hiring operators to route the 112 call to the specific service.

The small cost of implementation will most likely fall on the police budget and none of the other categories seem appropriate to me, so I chose this. If you've got a better idea I'm listening.

The problem with 123, I think, is kids playing with the phone are very likely to dial that.



Good point. We withdraw the suggestion.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Our minister of communication has passed on a suggestion to us made to her from her office.

She suggests that the number be composed of numbers on the opposite sides of a typical keypad, to reduce incidents of accidental calling.

191, 373 or the like.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The number code is not a very important point, except in regards to beginning the code with either 0 or 1, as I believe those two digits begin the dialing out or dialing in codes for individual nations. The idea about opposit ends of a standard 3x3+1 keypad is a good one, I think. 919, 373, 737 are good options. I just think that in most cases, dialing 0 or 1 first is too likely to interfere with international dialing and information codes.

In contrast to some of the suggestions here, I'll say that in Gruenberg, we believe a number like "123", "999", or our own personal "000", is advantageous, because it is easily dialled. Yes, it presents a possibility of accidental dialling, but at the same time, in panicked situations, or where someone is injured, they may be more able to dial the same number over and over than to cross the keypad.

I like the proposal idea. Doesn't stand a fucking chance at the GA, though: many will be the cries of "but we don't want to change our number!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I like the proposal idea. Doesn't stand a fucking chance at the GA, though: many will be the cries of "but we don't want to change our number!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I swear, I'm almost considering jokingly complaining that the GA should be sedated before a proposal reaches the floor...

But we DON'T want to change our number!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;)

The government of Telidia is in full support of this proposal and share the comments made by Mr Olembe. We are most gratified to the Kelssek delegation in suggesting this proposal, though would prefer if the number were 919? Regrettably I must admit that 919 is actually Telidia’s emergency number though by making the request I at least appear mindful of my government’s budget. If not possible we will be happy to accept the number 112 as specified.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

One question. Will it work for these (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10430550&postcount=31)?

One question. Will it work for these (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10430550&postcount=31)?

"Ring ring ring ring! Banana phooooone!"

Ideally, the number should be hard to dial accidentally, but easy to dial on purpose. Most of the are, unfortunately, one or the other.
e.g. 911 Hard to dial accidentally, but easy to misdial when you need it
211 Hard to misdial, but easy to dial accidentally
999 Hard to misdial, easy to dial accidentally.

Furthermore, it gets more complicated when you consider there are push button phones and proper dial phones, so 000 and 999 fulfill both requirement on a dial phone (as your finger has to move further distance, you don't get children dialling accidentally), but not a push button phone.

I'd say 888, four isn't the sort of number a child would dial on a push button phone, it is the same number repeated and on a dial phone 8 is near the end like nine or zero.

Ideally, the number should be hard to dial accidentally, but easy to dial on purpose. Most of the are, unfortunately, one or the other.
e.g. 911 Hard to dial accidentally, but easy to misdial when you need itI object to the former OMGTKK ambassador guy. "911" is very easy to to dial. I mean, you got "9" on one end of the dialing pad and "1" on the other end. Very simple. Let me demonstrate:

[Pulls out banana phone and dials number effortlessly.]

Too easy. At any rate, it's easier than Telidia's emergency number. Now, members of this awful -- *ahem* -- august assembly ... er ...

[Loud voice on the other end of the line: "911 Emergency. Would you please hold?"]

[OOC: That really happens.]

[Laughs nervously and hangs up phone.]

Now, members, I really gotta insist that the international number should be 911. I mean, it'll will be a hell of a lot easier if Kennyites didn't have to memorize three more numbers.

... Which reminds me, I recently acquired another number that's very easy to dial ...

[Pulls out phone again and dials Amb. Cornwall's cell, even though she's in the same room. He turns toward the Telidian delegation and smiles.]

Manuelo Fernanda
President of the Federal Republic

888 is a toll-free exchange in many places.

Firstly, let me start out by saying that Mountain and Vale supports this proposal completely and that we look forward to our chance to vote for this important proposal when it reaches the GA. However, as our Kingdom has adopted 919 as our emergency services, from the previous number of 911, we have found that the number of mis-dialed calls has dropped significantly. We believe that this is due to the positions of the numbers on a standard keypad and that 9-1-9 has a smaller chance of being pressed in that sequence accidently.

The problem with 123, I think, is kids playing with the phone are very likely to dial that.Agree with this as it is common for kids to starts counting on phones thus those would be first numbers hit..

Furthermore, this isn't going to make emergency services interlinked over national boundaries, it's just so if you go somewhere in the UN which has both phones (or future tech equivalent) and an emergency service, dialling 112 gets you the emergency service. It's something added on top of what you have already, and you don't have to change your existing emergency number.Still don't see it doing any good as it would be simple for me going to your nation to learn to dial the proper numbers for help should I need it. Since I would have to learn to do it in nations that don't have phones how is it so hard to know that in US you dial 911 for help.. then you go to some place else look on phone device and most have the number for help on them.... if not they need to and this should be addressed.. We here have notices in every public phone booth that gives details on how to get police, fire, medic, hookers, drinks, pizza, and about anything else you might want so it's not a problem.. as instead of words it's simply numbers and symbols that are commonly know in other nations as well as ours for such functions.

As regards the category, it's the only one which seems appropriate. There will be some cost involved in implementing this if your emergency number isn't already 112, but that's just tweaking your phone system to redirect a number. Police budgets may be increased slightly if the existing system has specialised numbers, such as 101 for police, 102 for ambulance, 103 for kidnapping response unit (I read Colombia has such a hotline) in hiring operators to route the 112 call to the specific service.Don't like the idea of it going into police budget as there duties are require a great deal of funding and to take a part of that and support this system makes no sense to me.

The small cost of implementation will most likely fall on the police budget and none of the other categories seem appropriate to me, so I chose this. If you've got a better idea I'm listening.Again police funding goes to the protection of citizens this to use falls outside that area. Don't know what area it would be under but feel police budget here is already spent and to add to it at this time to impliment this would not sit right with anyone here.

We think we saw the issue of staff to handle these calls and redirect them to proper numbers... we already have that as 411 or O... also 666 here is our emergeny number thus we have staff for that and those are paid out of our Narional Communications Funds which deals with public phones systems as well as other such issues (Radio TV Computers) in regards to communications between citizens. Funding for Police and Military and Government is under National Security or Defense.

Also number like 900 and 888 or 800 simply function as the first digits of a phone number and since these are commonly used they would not be proper for this.. as one trying to call 900 numbers don't won't the police and may need medic but only after they finish the call. Also I think 611 in some areas is a number that can be hit to get a trace on last call into a number but not sure it in all areas.. This was set up to stop those obseen phone callers as soon as you hang up hit it and it some how records your number and the caller number.. Then you can call police and give them your number and file complaint and they can on that get the info from phone company and use it.

Well, sometimes a person needing emergency services isn't in the best frame of mind to remember they're in a different country, or to attempt to figure out that country's emergency number. In a panic people can forget even their own country's emergency number.

In any case the expenditure to redirect anyone dialing 112 to 666 is extremely small compared to other things a government spends money on, or to the potential benefits of lives saved.

Well, sometimes a person needing emergency services isn't in the best frame of mind to remember they're in a different country, or to attempt to figure out that country's emergency number. In a panic people can forget even their own country's emergency number.Point taken then as can see them hitting wrong numbers or not being able to hit any.. Also on the issue of numbers to be used. I would hate to go to a nation and dial say 112 or 911 and end up getting the local pub.. or cab service... or worse.. as just thought about it... That some nations phone system may only have three numbers in them.. as they don't have that many phones to require them to have more numbers.. Thus can see trouble if somebody comes and dials 911 at 3AM and gets me while I'm doing my morning reading or playing with on of the wives. So how do you deal with this as it would not fit all low phone nations.

OOC: A few years ago had a numer was 1919 last for.. back before pushbuttons were common.. at the phone company the switches for the 1 hung and made ZERO trip as a 1... a local pub was at 0909.. After getting several calls from angry mother-in-laws trying to get son-in-law at pub to tell wife was at hospital having a baby.... I called phone company to complain and get it fixed. So there are always problems with any phone systems.. On the serious side of this three numbers... Local we use to only have to dial 7 numbers but now we have to dial 10 numbers in the local system and it will tell us if we dial the 7 that we need to dial 10.. so it's harder to change a system than you might think.. As they ran out of numbers and had to open a new area so now need to dial all 10 numbers.


IC: In any case the expenditure to redirect anyone dialing 112 to 666 is extremely small compared to other things a government spends money on, or to the potential benefits of lives saved.Still don't mean we should move funds from those others to do this when folks have for years been living with how we do it now.. and there is no assurance it will save more lives as it's not required in all nations as we see the larger nations already have a suitable phone sytem that includes these measures in them and most who travel into those nations know the procedures of where they travel.. You say England US and Canada use different numbers like 911 112 and most who travel there know this.. already and have no problem with using local systems to get help.. As you said if they are out of it then would do little to help as they couldn't dial it right to start with. As who knows why and what the phone companies do things.

"Ring ring ring ring! Banana phooooone!"We use to have a bunch of them around but after the Grand Chimp of Monkedumb visited last year they all seemed to have gotten lost.. Do you know where we can get them cheap as we thought they were no longer manufactured.

point taken then as can see them hitting wrong numbers or not being able to hit any.. Also on the issue of numbers to be used. I would hate to go to a nation and dial say 112 or 911 and end up getting the local pub.. or cab service... or worse..

All the more reason for the UN to establish a common number to be used by all members internationally. With respect to the Zeldon 6229 Nodlez representative we find it hard to understand what their continued objection to this proposal is. The proposal is simply a matter of good common sense in our humble opinion.

The impact on member’s budgets will be negligible and what the number should be is largely a secondary and definitely minor discussion. All that is required is some minor additional programming within the telecommunications infrastructure to route calls to your existing emergency services, when the international number is used. The number established for your own citizen’s remains the same and can still be used.

We sincerely hope the Zeldon 6229 Nodlez delegation is not just disagreeing for disagreement’s sake.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

All the more reason for the UN to establish a common number to be used by all members internationally. The proposal is simply a matter of good common sense in our humble opinion.True it may well be a matter of common sense to you but to us we see problems with it. Some we have tried to point out other we will get to.

WHEREAS the world is more interconnected than ever before, and,
WHEREAS travel between nations is also at a high level, and,
WHEREAS while abroad, persons may require the services of the relevant emergency services, including but not limited to ambulance, police and fire services, and,We agree with the basic content of these but they show us that travel between nations is up and that there is a need for this yet you tend to only make it happen in those nations that might have a system that can support it. While clearly there is a greater need to get something like this in all member nations or at least a basic emergancy service of some type this leaves them out of the loop.

WHEREAS different nations have different methods for contacting these emergency services, and,Again until systems are standardized this will not work. Thus nothing is gained here...

BELIEVING that lives and property can be saved and protected by introducing an international emergency number throughout the United Nations,So members get use to using one method for calling for help and get some place that it don't work what happens to them then.... Today they learn the system of the nations they go to and how to use it thus are prepared to take actions when they is no phone to dial 112 and get help.. or that phone only works if you dial 4444.. (go back to my early post where they now reguire us to dial 10 not 7 numbers.. as it would be same if nations employee four or five or more numbers be dialed for their services and you only dial three...) This would only set folks to a false sense of security in that they can dial whatever number and get help when it will not happen.

As you clearly don't require all members to come over to this thus some will not because you gave them a way out.. Our nation agrees in part with this but unless it effects all nations it will not work thus since it leaves nations with a way out we see it doing nothing so is useless. Those nation like mine who see it as good will convert to it anyway without the UN telling us to. As you clearly leave us that option in the proposal so why do we need it... it mandates nothing.. and gives a way out...

3. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not have such existing emergency services or communication devices to establish or introduce them.This clause kills this one making it not effective as any nation can state we don't have a 911 or 112 service so we don't need to get into this. Thus this makes it useless and have no effect.

The impact on member’s budgets will be negligible and what the number should be is largely a secondary and definitely minor discussion.Debatable issue here as you don't know how much this will cost in each nation nor how it will effect other budgets to provide for funding for this.

Hangup Phonjerk
Zeldon Minister of Communications
for:
Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon

No, I think we're having a major misunderstanding here. This will not establish an international emergency service, just a number. Countries will not need to standardise systems or anything like that, nor is there any need to. They will all use their existing systems. All they have to do is set up a redirect for telephone calls. It's nothing as complex as 10-digit dialling, which affects the entire system. This will only affect one telephone number.

The false sense of security thing is also kind of moot. People still would be checking if the country they're going to is a UN member or not, or if it has an emergency service in the first place. In any case emergency numbers don't require area codes or a certain number to be dialled first, otherwise they'd defeat their own purpose.

This clause kills this one making it not effective as any nation can state we don't have a 911 or 112 service so we don't need to get into this. Thus this makes it useless and have no effect.

First, why on earth would they even want to find a way around it? Second, having an emergency service is a pretty obvious yes-or-no thing.

Final version, with a section added. Planned submission is this weekend.


International Emergency Number

WHEREAS the world is more interconnected than ever before, and,

WHEREAS travel between nations is also at a high level, and,

WHEREAS while abroad, persons may require the services of the relevant emergency services, including but not limited to ambulance, police and fire services, and,

WHEREAS different nations have different methods for contacting these emergency services, and,

BELIEVING that lives and property can be saved and protected by introducing an international emergency number throughout the United Nations,

NOW THEREFORE, the United Nations enacts as follows:

1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number.

2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services.

3. Member nations will ensure that no preferential treatment is accorded based on the number dialled to contact emergency response services.

4. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not have such existing emergency services or communication devices to establish or introduce them.

I see no problem with this. It would be a simple thing to put in place, and there is no compelling reason for me to vote against.

Lady Yssandra Faren,
Triumvir of Enn

The government of Telidia is most pleased with the draft as it stands and is in full support. We have an additional suggestion however; we feel the number should be free of charge to the user and feel it important to specify this in the document.

We apologise to the Kelssek delegation for not mentioning this earlier in the debate.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

The government of Telidia is most pleased with the draft as it stands and is in full support. We have an additional suggestion however; we feel the number should be free of charge to the user and feel it important to specify this in the document.

We apologise to the Kelssek delegation for not mentioning this earlier in the debate.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia


The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic is in general agreement with the government of Telidia about this proposal, but would suggest that the new number should only be required to be free of charge to the user in those nations (such as the St Edmundan Antarctic, and presumably Telidia) where any existing numbers with this role are already 'free'...

Saturn Corp suggests 666 as the emergency number. It's easy to dial in an emergency, probably slightly less likely to be dialed accidentally than 111, and the fact that it might annoy certain religions is an added bonus. *evil grin*

We agree with the suggestion of the distinguished representative of Telidia. However, we will support the proposal with or without the addition of this provision. It's one of the most sensible pieces of legislation we've seen proposed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Central-Dogma see's promise in this proposal, and is eager to implement an International Emergency Number for use throughout the world. The current emergency system is effective, but only within our nation. The introduction of a emergency number will give a sense of comfort and safety throughout the world, as well as deter crimes committed against foreigners (tourist thieves, etc).


Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

Much as I didn't want to get drawn into the debate on which number to use, I would recommend that the number contain more than one digit. Numbers such as 999 or 111 are much more likely to be dialled in error, for example, keys being pressed on mobile/cell phones while in someone's pocket.

Other than that, we support this proposal.

Central-Dogma see's promise in this proposal, and is eager to implement an International Emergency Number for use throughout the world. The current emergency system is effective, but only within our nation. The introduction of a emergency number will give a sense of comfort and safety throughout the world, as well as deter crimes committed against foreigners (tourist thieves, etc).


Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

We'd like to welcome the honorable Ambassador Peterson to this Assembly. It's always a pleasure to see a new member make a statement which is obviously based on careful thought about the issue at hand. The Ambassador would be most welcome to visit our delegation offices at lunch time for a kielbasa sandwich or two. (7th basement; look for the "Boiler Room" sign.)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

It's nothing as complex as 10-digit dialling, which affects the entire system. This will only affect one telephone number.

Not true! Depending on your phone system, it could affect up to 10000000 numbers! (1000 posssible 3 number area codes x 10000 possible numbers after first 3 numbers) Of course I'm sure nobody has that many numbers, but still. It won't just be one number.

It shouldn't start with 1, because that is the number used to begin out of area dialing in many places. I don't know about intl dialing, but I think it starts with 0. 9 could possibly be used as a start, because it is used to "get out" of many office buildings. An extra advantage to 9xx is that when calling from an office building, you can just press 99xx. two of each.

But the resolution its self is good.

Not true! If my math is correct, just designating one number would affect 9999 numbers PER AREA CODE. Changing it would affect 19998 numbers PER AREA CODE. Assuming that all of the numbers in that section are used.
Translation for those of us who don't know what "area codes" are?

In the USA and Kedalfax numbers are like this:
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
the first 3 are the area code, which designates the area of the call.

the next three are sometimes called the exchange, which narrows it down further.

the last four are just your number.


So let's take the number of the Albany FBI branch. (518) 465-7551 (I've never seen a real FBI agent before ;) )

The 518 means basically most of NE New York State.

The 465 means Albany, NY, usualy on the South side. (Where it is, BTW)

And the 7551 is just the number that they got. Those are usualy given out in order.

We'd like to welcome the honorable Ambassador Peterson to this Assembly. It's always a pleasure to see a new member make a statement which is obviously based on careful thought about the issue at hand. The Ambassador would be most welcome to visit our delegation offices at lunch time for a kielbasa sandwich or two. (7th basement; look for the "Boiler Room" sign.)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations


Ambassador Peterson would be glad to visit the delegation offices of Ausserland, provided the ingredients of the kielbasa sandwiches do not contain any dairy products.

Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

Translation for those of us who don't know what "area codes" are?
OOC: In Australia, each state gets its own area code. This means that the same number can be used in various states.
If you want to call a number in New South Wales from Victoria, you need to add 02 to the start of it. Vice versa, add 03. Not sure about the other states.

~~~

[edit] Australia has never had any problem with using 0* area codes, while also having 000 as the emergency number. Those concerns are unfounded.

The false sense of security thing is also kind of moot. People still would be checking if the country they're going to is a UN member or not, or if it has an emergency service in the first place. In any case emergency numbers don't require area codes or a certain number to be dialled first, otherwise they'd defeat their own purpose..Here you have summed it up as they would still need to 'be checking if the county they're going to is a UN member or not' so why do we need to have one number in some nations when others will not have it and many not even have an emergancy service? This doesn't mandate that we do this and gives nations a way out of it simply by saying they don't have an emergancy service or that their service can't be set up to work under these terms. As here you are stuck on 3 numbers but some systems just to start off may require 4 or 5 numbers to be dialed... already have seen some note this as you say need to dial a 1 or 9 or even 01 or 02 just to get out of your area or building thus making it 9911 or 01911 or whatever to get the system to work right.

So one thinking they can dial 911 anywhere and get help would not apply thus they would be in trouble and without help. Heck even in some parts of the US they don't have a 911 service in place... So unless you make it required that all areas have this then it's a worthless issue..

I can see those nations that want it doing it anyway thus don't see why the UN has to have a proposal that is doing nothing more than say if you want to do this then do it. Those that don't continue to march as you have been doing on it. As the debate on the number continues shows that it will not be as easy as assumed to be since we can't even come up with a working number that will fit all nations systems. Since you give them a way out then you have done nothing... If 112 (or wharever number) don't work for my nation then won't be coming in line with this as see it costing to much to make any changes that may need to be made to the system to meet this.

Also the false security works two ways as those in my nation will get use to this and not check when they travel.. as this is not something folks normaly ask their travel agents when they are planning a trip some place.

I think from reading this thread that a mountain is being made out of a molehill. It is an excellent idea, and I fully support it.

A common emergency number is a boon to tourism and could well save lives. I suspect when a person is planning a trip overseas their minds are full of sights, sounds, food, music, booze, tourist traps, fun, relaxation ect and doubt many even let the possibility of an emergency cross their minds. A common known everywhere number would make it much quicker and easier for someone who is a stranger to the nation to call for help.

In RL I know the emergency numbers for Australia and the US (thanks to television for the latter) but don't have a clue about the rest of the world. If I was planning a trip overseas, I'd be much to excited and looking forward to the fun ect to remember to memorise their emergency help phone number(s).

I agree with Witchcliff. Heck, I don't even know what the number is for Canada! And I live in Upstate New York! (For those who don't know, Canada is just to the North of NYS). I have been going on quite a few trips to the Carribean, but I don't know any of theirs. It's a good idea, but we need a good number for it.

3. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not have such existing emergency services or communication devices to establish or introduce them.This statement in the resolution makes it worthless even if it's passed.. As this means it does nothing to change anyone over to this system... As all a nation has to do is say I don't have this and they don't. I agree the idea is a good one and would impliment it on my own but since there is nothing to require this be done then what is the reason for it. WE have talked about other resolutions that do nothing and this one would do nothing to change anything. So where does this idea differ from any other idea that is just that... an idea doing nothing....

Most of us might travel to nations that have no such system in them and those that do we probably already know the system and how it works... So again what does this do to change things.. nothing....

Even those nations that already have a sytem of this nature in them do not have the fully across their nation so unless we do something to get this everywhere then it does nothing.. As it will only be implimented in the larger regions or nations and only in their larger cities.. Then only if they choose to do so... as the final clause is their way out of this...

Heck, I don't even know what the number is for Canada!

It's 911. Used to be 999, following the Brits, though. But I think it was changed long before I was born.

Zeldon:

What on earth are you talking about? Saying "We have an easy-to-remember hotline number allowing quick access to police, fire, and ambulance services... but it's not an emergency number, just a... number" isn't going to convince anybody. And that just begs the question why a country would go to so much trouble to get out of setting up a redirect for ONE number.

The purpose has never been to make everyone set up an emergency service and I don't see how not doing that makes this ineffective in any way.

Furthermore, if people are having to dial extra numbers for external calls anyway, then they have the same problem with their domestic emergency line anyway. However, I'm quite sure it is not required for emergency calls. You definitely wouldn't need an area code, of that I'm sure. Toronto requires area code dialling but if I need the police or something while I'm there, I don't dial (416) 911, I just diall 911.

Here you have summed it up as they would still need to 'be checking if the county they're going to is a UN member or not' so why do we need to have one number in some nations when others will not have it and many not even have an emergancy service?

At least you would have some idea of a number to try, rather than staring at the keypad in a panic while your hotel burns down around you.

You know, with all this debate over what the number should be, I'm thinking that you may just have to bite the bullet and have the resolution setup a committee specifically for the purpose of deciding what the number should be.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

At least you would have some idea of a number to try, rather than staring at the keypad in a panic while your hotel burns down around you.First off locals would already be dialing the required numbers to get help in this event and most visitors would be trying to get out of the burning building..

Again if there is no system in place then this would be useless the hotel would burn down before help got there. Thus there is a greater need to assure that some type of emergancy services is in place where there is not one today. As these will be where lives are lost not those nations where they have an emergancy system in place. Since this does nothing to assure that; it is useless as nations have an out and will do what they want in regards to it. Travelers will still have to learn how to get help when they are outside their own naiton, and many would need to know within their own homes.

Giving them the idea that there is a universal help number that works anywhere they may be is false security... thus they will still be sitting and looking at the keypad while the hotel burns down arond them wondering why 911 didn't get help. or whatever number it's set at.

Also the idea of a committee to set the number will do nothing since even if they do come up with one nobody has to use it.. that final clause lets them out of having to do that... So we have another committee set up that does nothing.. when it comes down to getting an effective emergancy service in place throughout all member nations. Which is what we need not just one number for those who might want to use it.

Zeldon, you seem to be missing the entire point of the proposal.

It is not meant to set up emergency services, and as such cannot be regarded as 'useless' if you are measuring by that criterion. It is simply setting up a phone number that can be used in all UN nations to contact emergency services.

If you want a proposal mandating emergency services, why don't you write one instead of trying to turn Kelssek's into that?

It is my understanding that a resolution effects all member nations not just a few of them and this one gives any nation a way out of it. Therefore it has no power to do anything..

The final clause is the main one as all any nation has to do is say we don't have it and it don't apply to them..

Then in clause one if this don't work with an existing system then they don't have to fix it to do so. Look at what it does as it has ways out of it big enough to drive a tank through.. Thus it does nothing...

So we gain nothing here and only those nations that want to in fact do something with this will and those that don't can opt out of it. Thus why even bring it up before the full UN if it don't reguire them all to do something.

I agree there should be such a system but this is not how to get one as it doesn't change a thing.. No nation is required to do this and if they were they could simply say it won't work under clause 1 or they don't have a system under clause 3 and be out..

It is my understanding that a resolution effects all member nations not just a few of them and this one gives any nation a way out of it. Therefore it has no power to do anything..

No, (OOC: except in terms of the gameplay stat change) a resolution simply affects all nations if they have the necessary requirements: One about the oceans doesn't affect completely landlocked nations, one about reducing armaments doesn't affect nations that were already completely unarmed, one granting 'Human Rights' to clones doesn't affect nations where there aren't any clones, one about cars doesn't affect most 'Past-tech' nations, and so on... In this case it would affect all nations if they already have their own emergency-response numbers: nations that don't have such numbers wouldn't be affected, but nations that do have them wouldn't be able to opt out... and that's legal.

One about the oceans doesn't affect completely landlocked nations,But if that nation deals with any nation that does have ocean ports then they are in turn effected by the resolution.. If I ship goods out of your ports them I'm effected by the resolution because I use an ocean port.

one about reducing armaments doesn't affect nations that were already completely unarmed,Yes it does effect all nations as if they decide at some point to have these weapons then the resolution is present and they must comply with it..

one granting 'Human Rights' to clones doesn't affect nations where there aren't any clones,No here this one applies to all nations as if a clone from my nation visits your nation then you have clones in your nation... and must treat them as equals to your humans in your nation.

one about cars doesn't affect most 'Past-tech' nations, and so on... In this case it would affect all nationsShould they later decide to have cars then again the resolution does stand to effect them. They are not exempt from the resolution..

they already have their own emergency-response numbers: nations that don't have such numbers wouldn't be affected, but nations that do have them wouldn't be able to opt out...Under Clause one we can opt out as if this would not work with our system we don't have to put it into effect.. Say we use the number decided already or we require a four digit number.

The question is how do you say what nations do or do not have a working system that can be adapted to this one.. That a nation is not already using the number to be assigned for this in some other area... Thus they don't have to change a thing.. and since that number is to the local pub and not emergancy services then where does this help.

Again this is a good idea but the way it's written will not do what it should do. As to many ways out of it for any nation.

OOC: In this effecting stats of individual nations how can it do that when they is nothing to say what nations do or do not have as far as a phone system that might use this. There is no way you are going to know if my nation has or doesn't have even a phone system.. let alone one that has such a service that functions as this one would.

IC: Heck a better solution would be to set up three buttons at every phone booth or corner or in buildings in an area that folks can go to.. Button one has red cross on it. Button two has flame on it. Button three has badge on it. Push it and it alerts local help that somebody needs one of these at a given location. You don't have the language problem one would have on a phone and then the problem of a person having no idea where they might be to tell responders how to get to them.

This is one of the problems with even the current systems is being able to locate the caller when they do get to you as not all in place systems have solved that problem.. As calling from certain phones just don't show where you are especialy if it a moble phone.. So I hit 911 from a moble phone and some dude is beating heck out of me or I'm having a heart attack.. and can't talk... just lucky enough to punch in 911 or whatever number..

Be honest now, are you just opposing it for the sake of opposing?

Under Clause one we can opt out as if this would not work with our system we don't have to put it into effect.. Say we use the number decided already or we require a four digit number.

No. If you use it already then there's no problem. If you use it already for something else, that something else has to find a new number. If you use a 4-digit number for emergencies (and you don't; you said you use 666) then that doesn't affect it at all. Dialling 112 will be the same as dialling the four-digit emergency number.

If it affects you, then it affects you. There really is no way around it as has been explained to you already. New emergency response services set up in the UN can still use any number they want, as long as you can still get them by dialling 112.

This is getting really tiresome. Perhaps English isn't your first language but you're arguing based on misunderstandings of the proposal, mixed with a large dose of obstinate.

Be honest now, are you just opposing it for the sake of opposing?I'm against it because see problems with it that will give a false security to people traveling between nations as not all nations systems are the same even if they could put this into effect..



No. If you use it already then there's no problem. If you use it already for something else, that something else has to find a new number.Not under clause two as it says don't have to change any numbers to do this..

If you use a 4-digit number for emergencies (and you don't; you said you use 666) then that doesn't affect it at all. Dialling 112 will be the same as dialling the four-digit emergency number.This only gets you an operator who will direct you to the right agency to handle the emergancy.. If you can't tell us what your problem is or where you are at then.. it does no good.. Thus you still must hit three more numbers to get a selected party under this number.. It's required in the system.. even if it's just 112-000 or 666-000. To say dial my office you would need to dial 555-129 or 555-000 and ask the operator to give you the number.

If it affects you, then it affects you. There really is no way around it as has been explained to you already. New emergency response services set up in the UN can still use any number they want, as long as you can still get them by dialling 112.Then it don't effect me because I don't have this type of emergancy responce system in place... where simply dialing three digits gets help to you. I have the three button system in place here.. noted in my prior post..

This is getting really tiresome. Perhaps English isn't your first language but you're arguing based on misunderstandings of the proposal, mixed with a large dose of obstinate.English is not my first language as I'm American and we haven't spoken proper English in many years.

English is not my first language as I'm American and we haven't spoken proper English in many years.

Whether or not you're being sarcastic, it's clear that you're deliberately misinterpreting, possibly to annoy everyone involved. And since in any case, all your points have already been answered, I think this is all I've got to say to you.

Whether or not you're being sarcastic, it's clear that you're deliberately misinterpreting, possibly to annoy everyone involved. And since in any case, all your points have already been answered, I think this is all I've got to say to you.The idea of three buttons comes into place from what Germany has on it's AutoBauns.. As they have emergancy phone boxes at given points where one can simply pick it up and ask for help.. Even if they can't speak the language and tell somebody where they are this system lets them know they at box #300 which is located at mile 103 on AutoBaun Whatever.. thus they send out police to check it out. As have used them twice during my time in Germany..

Here you deal with an operator on the service that might not always speak the given language or the caller.. add the fact the caller may not be able to speak clearly enough to say where they are.. and you have no help because it don't know where you are. I've seen this with current US 911 system and the use of moble phones as folks dial 911 then can't tell where they are and the operator has no idea where they are. By the time anyone finds them they are dead. Somebody on a phone telling you to calm down is no help.. when you're dead..

AS I've found a car with six people in it ran off road and they dialed 911 but didn't have an idea where they were... By time I got to them two where dead one more died before help arrived after I gave directions to where they were and one more died at hospital. The other two made it just by the grace of God. They were six blocks from a city fire station that was manned nine blocks from the hospital. Instead of getting out and looking for help they relied on 911 for it. This was late at night and I just happened to be coming home this way and saw the car off the road and thus knew where was and what was ahead.. So even with it in place it won't always work..

As long as any part of the system fails then nothing is gained. AS even here in US there are areas that don't have the 911 fully operational as many of the larger cities might.. Thus you dial from a phone they have no idea where the call is coming from thus unless the person can tell them there will be no help. So how do we know that when I dial this number they will know where I'm at and get help to me? As if I'm unable to speak that to them then nothing happens and since no major changes are made to any systems then all they do is set up this number to go to ES.. that will not know where they are unless they can tell them..

Here you deal with an operator on the service that might not always speak the given language or the caller.. add the fact the caller may not be able to speak clearly enough to say where they are..


Given the current technology, it is very possible to locate the origin of the emergency call, and emergency operators should be able to speak several languages or quickly redirect the call to someone who speaks the callers language.

But if that nation deals with any nation that does have ocean ports then they are in turn effected by the resolution.. If I ship goods out of your ports them I'm effected by the resolution because I use an ocean port.

Yes it does effect all nations as if they decide at some point to have these weapons then the resolution is present and they must comply with it..

No here this one applies to all nations as if a clone from my nation visits your nation then you have clones in your nation... and must treat them as equals to your humans in your nation.

Should they later decide to have cars then again the resolution does stand to effect them. They are not exempt from the resolution..

Oh, well, if we're playing "what-if"s like that: Wouldn't this proposal force any nation that didn't have an emergency response number when this passed, but that chose to introduce one later, to adopt the 'international' number (alongside any locally-preferred one) meaning that it does affect them after all?

H'mm,
I'd assume that it was meant to be binding in future like this, rather than just to affect those nations that already have such systems if & when it passes, but I suppose the wording could be clearer...

IC: Heck a better solution would be to set up three buttons at every phone booth or corner or in buildings in an area that folks can go to.. Button one has red cross on it. Button two has flame on it. Button three has badge on it. Push it and it alerts local help that somebody needs one of these at a given location. You don't have the language problem one would have on a phone and then the problem of a person having no idea where they might be to tell responders how to get to them.

This is one of the problems with even the current systems is being able to locate the caller when they do get to you as not all in place systems have solved that problem.. As calling from certain phones just don't show where you are especialy if it a moble phone.. So I hit 911 from a moble phone and some dude is beating heck out of me or I'm having a heart attack.. and can't talk... just lucky enough to punch in 911 or whatever number..

That might work in some areas, although the cost of installing those extra three-button systems would presumably be rather higher than the cost of just coding a single number's meaning into the exchanges, but would seem rather difficult to apply to mobile phones... and there are many areas where people live at such low densities that relying on fixed phones rather than mobile ones just wouldn't be practical.
Also, what about situations where there are more than three possible emergency services to choose between: Would you suggest having fixed internationally-recognised symbols for all of the others, too? Lifeboats, coastguards, mountain rescue, cliff rescue, cave rescue, tidal-mudflat rescue, exorcists, dragonslayers, or whatever... (Perhaps having just one extra button, for "Whatever other service is most relevant locally" -- or to put people through to an operator after all -- might suffice?)

I agree that having the phone automatically signal the caller's location would be useful, but (OOC: at least at our own level of technology, and at higher ones...) couldn't this be handled by software added to the emergency services' switchboards and the mobile-phone relaying systems (perhaps by linking the phone system's satellites to the GPS satellites somehow?) anyway without any need for the dedicated emergencies-only signals that you suggest?

Oh, well, if we're playing "what-if"s like that: Wouldn't this proposal force any nation that didn't have an emergency response number when this passed, but that chose to introduce one later, to adopt the 'international' number (alongside any locally-preferred one) meaning that it does affect them after all
H'mm,
I'd assume that it was meant to be binding in future like this, rather than just to affect those nations that already have such systems if & when it passes, but I suppose the wording could be clearer...?True as soon as they get in this system they would have to meet the requirements of this proposal but why should they do that? Trouble is now it's not going to do much as you can consider most nations status won't change as those who can make the change will and those who use the opts out will.

That might work in some areas, although the cost of installing those extra three-button systems would presumably be rather higher than the cost of just coding a single number's meaning into the exchanges, but would seem rather difficult to apply to mobile phones... and there are many areas where people live at such low densities that relying on fixed phones rather than mobile ones just wouldn't be practical.How easy would it be to designate certain phones in a buidling or along a road to do just this.. Figure there use to be what was called a phone booth before cell phones.. You could go to it and get help when and if you found one that worked. Also today phones have on some a simple key you may press to get help. Heck you can even program them to use three digit numbers to dial the full ten digits. Trouble is not all nations will have this nor be able use to it in the first place.

Also, what about situations where there are more than three possible emergency services to choose between: Would you suggest having fixed internationally-recognised symbols for all of the others, too? Lifeboats, coastguards, mountain rescue, cliff rescue, cave rescue, tidal-mudflat rescue, exorcists, dragonslayers, or whatever... (Perhaps having just one extra button, for "Whatever other service is most relevant locally" -- or to put people through to an operator after all -- might suffice?)Who is on the other end of 911 or 112 only one person to deal with them all so what is the problem if you push the cross and it goes to a local hospital.. push the flame and it goes to local fire department... push the badge and you get police.. This inceases your chances of getting help when you can't get one.

I agree that having the phone automatically signal the caller's location would be useful, but (OOC: at least at our own level of technology, and at higher ones...) couldn't this be handled by software added to the emergency services' switchboards and the mobile-phone relaying systems (perhaps by linking the phone system's satellites to the GPS satellites somehow?) anyway without any need for the dedicated emergencies-only signals that you suggest?Now you are talking adding to the cost of this change over and it clearly says if the system don't work with it you don't have to do a thing about it.

Now something noted earlier one of those what-ifs... Somebody mentioned sitting in a hotel looking at a phone pad wondering what numbers to dial.. If the hotel has no fire alarm system installed in the buidling then why do you assume they have a so called 911 system in place. All you would have to do is go to hall find the little box on wall and pull then get out of building. Also you should be able to call the hotel operator and they get emergancy services for you.. This avoids the lauguage problems and trying to say where you might be, most hotels and such places have plans in place for such events that might happen.. thus one should use them as they are better perpared to deal with it than one might think. Otherwise they run into a problem of lawsuits... Do you ever read the things posted on the doors to motel and hotel rooms?

Here you deal with an operator on the service that might not always speak the given language or the caller.. add the fact the caller may not be able to speak clearly enough to say where they are.. and you have no help because it don't know where you are. I've seen this with current US 911 system and the use of moble phones as folks dial 911 then can't tell where they are and the operator has no idea where they are. By the time anyone finds them they are dead. Somebody on a phone telling you to calm down is no help.. when you're dead..


OOC: It's my understanding that all cell phones that are currently being sold within the US now have GPS technology in them that alerts 911 to their location. I was told this by a cell phone company, when I tried to get service switched over to an old phone someone had given me because mine had died. They said that US law prevents them from doing that, because the old phone was to old to have the GPS system in it.

Just FYI

OOC: It's my understanding that all cell phones that are currently being sold within the US now have GPS technology in them that alerts 911 to their location. I was told this by a cell phone company, when I tried to get service switched over to an old phone someone had given me because mine had died. They said that US law prevents them from doing that, because the old phone was to old to have the GPS system in it.

Just FYITrue but how many people are still using those old cell phones that don't do this? Unless yours had not died you'd be out someplace and tried to dial 911 and they would have no idea where you were calling from unless you could tell them. Then add that a GPS don't always work in bad weather when you may need it the most.

Here we are depending on system that has flaws in it thus doesn't do all it said to do. Also you've already indicated to me that you are going to have nations do more than this says they have to.. Like add to their existing system and change numbers in that system.

If the honourable member from Zeldon 6229 Nodlez have concerns whether this will be able to help foreign nationals in their nation, surely it makes more sense to redirect the considerable energies directed against this debate to finding solutions in Zeldon 6229 Nodlez. While we respect and understand in some cases this system might not work for yourselves, it will work for many other UN members. Many nations have already pledged their support in favour and I doubt this support would have been offered without the serious consideration you have obviously given the proposal.

We regret the Zeldon 6229 Nodlez delegation feel so negative about this proposal, but do respect their right to voice their concerns. However the concerns have been voiced, replies have been provided. The replies may well in your view not cover all the issues, but since the general consensus is to proceed shall we in the interest of fraternity dispense with covering the same topics and move the proposal forward? In our humble opinion and with complete respect perhaps the time to agree to disagree has arrived?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I have said my points against this proposal and can not stop it from going forward.. As I will come to comply with it should it be passed even if I don't feel it does what it says it will do.

So we will see where it goes from here.

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

Who is on the other end of 911 or 112 only one person to deal with them all so what is the problem if you push the cross and it goes to a local hospital.. push the flame and it goes to local fire department... push the badge and you get police.. This inceases your chances of getting help when you can't get one.
You seem to be under the impression that there is only one person standing by waiting for someone to call in with an emergency, I can't speak for other nations but I know that the Emergency Call Centers in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites never has fewer that five people on duty at any given time.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

True but how many people are still using those old cell phones that don't do this? Unless yours had not died you'd be out someplace and tried to dial 911 and they would have no idea where you were calling from unless you could tell them. Then add that a GPS don't always work in bad weather when you may need it the most.

I was under the (possibly erroneous) impression that when one rang emergency services reporting an emergency, one gave one's location as a precursor to obtaining help.

Here we are depending on system that has flaws in it thus doesn't do all it said to do. Also you've already indicated to me that you are going to have nations do more than this says they have to.. Like add to their existing system and change numbers in that system.

Look, the main point of this resolution is that you would have a U.N.-wide number that you could use to contact emergency services whatever nation you may be in, thus avoiding the "oh, I'm in Compadria, my hotel is burning down, but I don't know the local emergency services number (363 in case you're all wondering)". Your 3 button system is a good idea, but impractical when compared with the number one, therefore it's better to support this particular resolution, in the interests of personal safety.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Look, the main point of this resolution is that you would have a U.N.-wide number that you could use to contact emergency services whatever nation you may be in, thus avoidingNot as long as any nation that is a member can opt out under the clauses of this as written

"oh, I'm in Compadria, my hotel is burning down, but I don't know the local emergency services number (363 in case you're all wondering)".My first concern here is to get out of the hotel and hope the native staff have sense enough call emergancy services... Thus if they haven't then chances are it was because this was not in place there so what can I do but get out of the burning hotel?

I have said I have an emergancy services system in place but it don't work like this one. As for the 666 it's simply an exchange number you would need to dial 666-000 to 009 to get an operator or if you know which number you need from 010-999 then could dial 666 and it. The first three digits are only exchange numbers with 000-009 being exchange operators for that exchange.
So even if you dial 112 or 911 or 363 here without the next three numbers it would hang up on you. Also operators at exchanges are not expected to handle calls not related to their exchange so these would not speak more than one language nor have the abilty to patch you over to another exchange.. Nor would they have the ability to trace back a call to point of origin to find where you are calling from. Only 666 operators have that funciton in the system. They could tell you dial 666-000 to 009 and that would be all. Our military and government exchanges are secure so you would have to have clearences to get past the operators they again would refer you to 666 operators..

I have said I have an emergancy services system in place but it don't work like this one. As for the 666 it's simply an exchange number you would need to dial 666-000 to 009 to get an operator or if you know which number you need from 010-999 then could dial 666 and it. The first three digits are only exchange numbers with 000-009 being exchange operators for that exchange.
So even if you dial 112 or 911 or 363 here without the next three numbers it would hang up on you. Also operators at exchanges are not expected to handle calls not related to their exchange so these would not speak more than one language nor have the abilty to patch you over to another exchange.. Nor would they have the ability to trace back a call to point of origin to find where you are calling from. Only 666 operators have that funciton in the system. They could tell you dial 666-000 to 009 and that would be all. Our military and government exchanges are secure so you would have to have clearences to get past the operators they again would refer you to 666 operators..

It appears to us that Zeldon 6229 Nodlez has set in place a purposefully inefficient system of reaching help in the case of an emergency and that it's obstacles as an individual nation should not be taken into account when considering the well-being of the worlds peoples as a whole. An emergency number system would be an effective solution to even your nations complex phone number system. A 3-digit number that redirects the caller to the appropriate authorities will enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement and provide security and safety to travelers.


Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

I will yield and say no more on this as when it comes into effect will see how it effects me.. so good luck with it..


As far as the comment on the emergancy system goes.. I have a very effective system that works around the phone system which is not suited for this function. As we have alarm boxes installed along major roads and in building that anyone can use. Three buttons on it.. Cross Flame Badge.. press one you are connected to help.. this is separate from our main phone system and is only for this purpose and the staff who man the station can handle any emergancy and dispatch help.. When you pick up a press one of the buttons the system knows where you are as the phone registers with the system to tell where you are. No problem of language or whatever.. However it is also a phone and you can if possible give more information to the operator. It is totaly independent of our main phone system..

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

OOC:This is based on a system that is or was in use on the autobauns in Germany... As they had emergancy call boxes every so many KM.. all you had to do was pick it up and help was on other end. The idea of three buttons one for each major service came in to help get calls to the right place for help.. Install something like this in a building on each floor at key points and you take care of your hotel fires. So don't assume we have a poor service here as it works and is simple enough to use.

Well, that's just too bad. You will have to make it so dialling 112, without requring extra nonsense numbers to deal with your nonsensical phone system, get to your 666 operators or whoever it takes to get help in your nation. Everyone will have to make it so dialling 112 is the same as doing whatever you need to do to get the emergency service, if they have the technology for at least both phones and emergency services. This resolution does nothing else and isn't meant to do anything else like you seem to think it does.

In the final version I'm also removing the word "existing" from section 1, which should close any possible loophole for nations starting emergency services after the resolution is passed. And just because you keep banging on about a loophole for nations claiming not to have emergency services when they obviously do doesn't mean that loophole actually exists.

)1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the existing emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number.My phone service which is not the same as my emergency services system does use the number 112 in it as an exchange number... this system in which the number is used is not the one that is emergency services... All the 666 exchange is a first three digits to get a fire department, hospital, or police but not for emergancy... all the operators at this exchange can do is tell you what number on their exchange you might want provided you can give them the right informaiton and they can speak your language. These are the working numbers of that so called emergancy services.. thus I have a separate phone system that requires no numbers be dialed. To get this regular phone system to work you must dial at least six digits to reach anyone including an operator at that exchange.. All you do on the emergancy system is go to a little box on the side of a road or on a main wall in a buidling and pick the phone up then push one of three buttons. Thus you will be connected to an operator who will assist you to get help.. one who is trained to help and may actually speak your language or be able to get somebody working with them that does.. Should you not be able to speak clear enough to tell them where you are the phone when picked up will do that. The other regular public phone system has no ablity for operators on it to locate you when you are calling them.. nor do we intend to put that into our regular phone system.

2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services.We do not use a number we simply pick up a designated phone and it connects us to where we need to be connected. So there is no number in my service that this will change.

3. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not have such existing emergency services or communication devices to establish or introduce them.My existing system does not fit this I have a public phone system that is not connected to the emergancy system that is completly different and funtions in a different mannner. So you here require me to do a thing. So you take out existing that will still do nothing.. As now you will force naitons who don't have it to get it in. As if you change this wrong thats exactly what you will do.

As I feel I have an existing service in place that exceeds this as you intend it.. all this would do would be to undermine my existing service...

One of your debatable points was what the number would be.. Here there is no number also we require this along all our national highways as well as in major buildings. This is hotels, schools, arenas, churches, you name it we have set the policy for these phones to be in place and clearly identified as such.. and easy to get to from anywhere in the building. It's like putting in a pull box in a building that goes to a fire department only this one is a phone and you can push for Cross Flame Badge.. which helps get you to right place faster.. because they will already be alerting nearest Cross Flame Badge they have a call at your location.. If other help is needed then that will be delt with.

My so called nonsense phone system is just that a nonsense phone system my emergancy system is totaly separate from it and works only on the fact you pick it up and touch a button.. then if you can't talk.. to the person on the other end you will still get help of some kind.... Where if you dial 112 on the regular phone system I see you getting hung up on because after so long and no next three digits it will do that. Then if you do dial six numbers you may piss somebody off and they hang up on you when you can them at a bad time..

Don't change your proposal as nations like mine that have a working system in place you will just have to learn to use it.. As to require me to make changes goes beyong the idea this is something simple that all can do... As you clearly by exempting nations say it ain't that simple or you'd go on an require all nations get in a phone system that works with this right now not wait until they decide to.

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

New, and I hope, final revison:


International Emergency Number

WHEREAS the world is more interconnected than ever before, and,

WHEREAS travel between nations is also at a high level, and,

WHEREAS while abroad, persons may require the services of the relevant emergency services, including but not limited to ambulance, police and fire services, and,

WHEREAS different nations have different methods for contacting these emergency services, and,

BELIEVING that lives and property can be saved and protected by introducing an international emergency number throughout the United Nations,

NOW THEREFORE, the United Nations enacts as follows:

1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number.

2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services.

3. Member nations will ensure that no preferential treatment is accorded based on the number dialled to contact emergency response services.

4. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not already have emergency services or such communication devices to establish or introduce them.

4. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not already have emergency services or such communication devices to establish or introduce them.

Clause 4 sounds a bit confusing as written, so I added the word in itallics. It does make it sound better.

The rest is good. No further complaints and I do support this idea.

My existing system does not fit this I have a public phone system that is not connected to the emergancy system that is completly different and funtions in a different mannner.

Sounds like an "emergency response service" to me.

Also, you started off saying 666 was an emergency number.

We currently use 666 and see no reason to change our system as it would be very costly to do so..

None of this "it's just an exchange for contacting a hospital, fire station, police station" nonsense. It seems to me you're changing what you claim your domestic system just so you have something to scream about. And it doesn't matter anyway. You will have to make it so dialling 112 into a phone, without doing anything else like dialling an area code, dialling an extension number, sacrificing a newborn goat at midnight of the new moon, etc. will get you to the emergency services. In any case, that's accomplishing the purpose of this resolution - getting around all the complexities in the different systems and having a number throughout the UN you can dial for help. Unless the country has no phones or emergency service, in which case you aren't going to get any help anyway.

Clause 4 sounds a bit confusing as written, so I added the word in itallics. It does make it sound better.

The rest is good. No further complaints and I do support this idea.

That was a typo. Good catch.

Sounds like an "emergency response service" to me.
Also, you started off saying 666 was an emergency number. True I said this was the exchange number that is designated for my emergancy services... As an exchange you must dial 666- then three more digits on the regular phone system before you get anyone. Failiure to dial the other three in a set time and the system hangs up on you. If you dial 666-000 to 009 you will get a regular exchange operator who is not trained in emergancy services.. Thus she will only direct you to find the designated phone that is for this purpose and pick it up. Also she does not have the ability to track the location of a caller and we have no plans to install this in our regular phone sytem.. so unless you could tell her where you are she could not help you... Add language factor and no medical training and an exchange operator is not the one you need. As for the number 112 it's an open exchange so if you dial it and then three more number all you might do is piss somebody off calling them at a bad time and they hang up on you. However on all exchanges 000-009 are reserved for that exchange operator.

Also 666 doesn't mean that a hospital in your are will be under that exchange.. As it depends on if it military or civilian hospital.. Civillian are on exchange 777.. Major exchanges like 111 222 333 to 999 are priority exchanges and carry government offices.. thus in between irregular exchanges could be anything from restruants to sports arenas.. most are designated family houses.

Anyway once that red phone is picked up it alerts the emergancy services operators of it's location all you have to do is push one of three button... CROSS FLAME BADGE.. and somebody will pick up to help you that can do so. By selecting a button they will be alerting the nearest CROSS FLAME BADGE to your location. Should you require more and can tell the operator exactly what is the problem then they can either guide you to apply proper first aid or dispatch additional help as required. The exchange operators at 666 or any other exchange are not trained as well as those on this separate emergancy system are.. As that system uses no numbers we feel it better using the buttons and symbols. As for where these designated phones are located... All major building have a code by which they install these... We are currently working to install these along all major highways at every five miles one side of road thus you will be near one every two.five miles.

To connect this sytem to our existing regular phone system will not work as that system is in poor condition as is.. This is why we moved to a separate on just for emergancy services. As it also helps police, fire, military, during manuevors when their communications fail or they are out and don't have any.


4. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not already have emergency services or such communication devices to establish or introduce them.Tell me if I read this right or I'm not.. Since I already have a working emergancy service and communications devices I have to screw up my existing system to meet this one.. What happened to the rest of this that nobody woud have to change numbers.? I will have to because going from no number to one is changing that non existant number to become this one.. Also my emergancy services phone system will not work with this and the cost to put it into our regular phone system is to much... as it would also not support this as it works at this time and would need massive upgrades to convert it to this.

Why do you think we set up a separate emergancy services system from our regular phone system? It was easier to do than overhaul the old one and cost a lot less.. Also this emergancy service falls under nation security budget rather than civilian interstructure.

To the ambassador of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez:

Are you seriously saying that it is impossible to contact your emergency services through your public telephone system? That is how your comments read to me.

If so, I personally regard your 'loophole' as a despicable piece of bastardry. Even if it is not so, your phrasing leads me to believe you would even consider doing such a thing.

I have instructed my department to cease all discussions with your nation, and to not reply to any of your future communications until I change my mind.

Lady Yssandra Faren
Triumvir of Enn
Head of Foreign Affairs, Security and the Armed Forces

To the ambassador of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez:

As I stated earlier, your exchange system seems deliberately inefficient and overly confusing. If and when this resolution is passed, I suggest you completely rework your phone system.

Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-Dogma

This is one of the most sensible proposals we have seen in some time. We applaud the government of Kelssek and wish them success in passing this legislation.

I have to agree with the proposal, but I would suggest to incorporate a line into the proposal that would explicitly allow nations to keep their old emergency number too if that is what they deem to be necessary. This is why I would suggest to edit the 2nd point into something like this:

2. Member nations will be encouraged to either change the current telephone number for their emergency response service to the new international telephone number or to introduce the new international telephone number as an alternative telephone number that would exist parallel to a possibly already existing national telephone number.

I have to agree with the proposal, but I would suggest to incorporate a line into the proposal that would explicitly allow nations to keep their old emergency number too if that is what they deem to be necessary. This is why I would suggest to edit the 2nd point into something like this:

2. Member nations will be encouraged to either change the current telephone number for their emergency response service to the new international telephone number or to introduce the new international telephone number as an alternative telephone number that would exist parallel to a possibly already existing national telephone number.

Laudable, but not really required.

2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I have to agree with the proposal, but I would suggest to incorporate a line into the proposal that would explicitly allow nations to keep their old emergency number too if that is what they deem to be necessary. This is why I would suggest to edit the 2nd point into something like this:

2. Member nations will be encouraged to either change the current telephone number for their emergency response service to the new international telephone number or to introduce the new international telephone number as an alternative telephone number that would exist parallel to a possibly already existing national telephone number.

We agree with the representative of New Arpad that existing numbers should not be changed. But we're puzzled that he raises the issue, since clause 2 states:

2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services.

Perhaps there's something we're not understanding, but that seems quite explicit to us.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It is probably not necessary, but manages to sum everything up in one point while still leaving room for national decisions.

To the ambassador of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez:
As I stated earlier, your exchange system seems deliberately inefficient and overly confusing. If and when this resolution is passed, I suggest you completely rework your phone system.
Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Dominion of Central-DogmaWe fully agree that the sytem is inefficient in that it could not handle an emergancy services system. Thus we built a fully separate system for this function.. This system requires nobody to dial any numbers nor a GPS or other device in the callers phone.

You find a red phone pick it up push one of three buttons.. If you push the wrong button the person on the other end is trained to handle the call... however by pushing CROSS FLAME or BADGE it helps to start the assistance process as we already know where you are and by what you push can check to see what is the nearest assistance to you based on your indicated need. As in any system one fire department may be at this hotel when yours burns down.. thus some body has to know where others are and divert them to your fire.. It is a phone system but there are no numbers to dial just push one of three buttons as simple as on could get when in yours you have to push three buttons mine they only need to push one. Even if it wrong one they get help. Where with yours they burning up trying to figure if it 1 then 13 or 19 or 66. or was it 9 then 11 or 99...

So how do we change a number that is just push CROSS FLAME or BADGE.. where are there any numbers to change.? As we have clearly said our system uses no numbers..

:2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services.

To the ambassador of Zeldon 6229 Nodlez:
Are you seriously saying that it is impossible to contact your emergency services through your public telephone system? That is how your comments read to me.
If so, I personally regard your 'loophole' as a despicable piece of bastardry. Even if it is not so, your phrasing leads me to believe you would even consider doing such a thing.
I have instructed my department to cease all discussions with your nation, and to not reply to any of your future communications until I change my mind.
Lady Yssandra Faren
Triumvir of Enn
Head of Foreign Affairs, Security and the Armed Forces

We are sorry that you feel this way.. AS for the issue of contacting our emergancy systems through a regular phone system .. That system was found not to be suitable to handle emergancy calls thus we built a fully separate system and put that one in place a our emergancy system... This system is a phone system in that you only have to pick the device up and select one button of three.. not figure out the order you have to push them all in... As any one will do but CROSS FLAME BADGE... should be as clear idea of what to push. However operators are trained to responde and find out what is needed. While they are doing this others based on the initial button pushed alerting CROSS FLAME BADGE nearest location they are to stand by. If the nearest is not able then they work out to the next.. as sometimes more than one emergancy comes up and some responders do have to go to work. The operators at our emerancy centers are nurses or medics with the skills if needed to talk somebody through CPR or other procedures like delivering a baby should that happen... Many speak at least two languages some more. These may not be medical trained but have worked with medics enough to relay information in a given language. Thus we have in place outside our regular phone system which we found would not support the system we needed on it. This system uses no numbers the phones are clearly marked red.. (okay so somebody uses this to call their head honcho here it will only get you help if you need it an time in jail and fines to abuse it).

Thus we feel that putting a 911 number on our regular phone system would cause more trouble than help the issue... As we have emergancy centers that a properly trained and staffed to handle an emergancy all connected to our emergancy services system. To use the regular phone sytem you would be required to dail at least six numbers to get somebody. Also I may add it's against our laws to have a red regular phone in color. or any color that may be taken for an emergancy device... only on that system..

Our fire, police, and military constantly test and report these red phones that fail while they are making rounds of given areas.. So it ain't like you step into a phone booth expect to be able to use phone and find it ripped of and not working. They are required at every five miles on major highways one side thus you can find one at 2.5 mile spacings on those roads we have this installed on and we are working to upgrade and add more roads to be covered.. As for buildings and such they are required just like fire alarms and smoke detectors might be even those CO2 detors or other gas detectors. Age or size of the building don't matter as they all have to meet set requirements to have these phones in place.

I think I see your concern here as if somebody was to get lucky and dial a fire department or police or medic with an emergany on the regular phone sysrem then those answering would do all they could to help them.. However our regular phone system has no means to track and trace locations of callers over it.. This was one of the main reasons we felt we needed better for our emergancy services system and also to keep it simple. At present there are 200 ESS centers in place fully staffed and we expect to have another hunder in place over the next two years. Our weak point is in installing the system along some of our roads as many of them travel through areas not to favorable for outsiders into them and thus we don't see many visitors going into these areas without skilled guides who are well trained. in all issues. and have to be before they become guides into these areas.

We agree if any nation wants to impliment this then do so but don't make us add this to our system and screw it up.. as this will clearly happen as we set the system up because the regular phone system could not handle what we wanted and we wanted one that was simple to use. Pushing any one of three buttons is heck lot eashier than trying to figure out if you should push CROSS FLAME BADGE or FLAME CROSS BADGE or BADGE CROSS FLAME,,,, which is all 911 or 112 or whatever is. Punch one get help on the red phone.

So we hope we have not bored the good lady from Enn.. However with five wives we are glad one female is not speaking to us about some of the things we might say and do. Thus will simply wish you a good day and shut up before put foot deeper in mouth than may have already...

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

Thus we feel that putting a 911 number on our regular phone system would cause more trouble than help the issue... As we have emergancy centers that a properly trained and staffed to handle an emergancy all connected to our emergancy services system. To use the regular phone sytem you would be required to dail at least six numbers to get somebody. Also I may add it's against our laws to have a red regular phone in color. or any color that may be taken for an emergancy device... only on that system..

As I stated earlier, I suggest you completely rework your phone system.

As well as that, while it is true that you are not required to change your current emergency system, you will be mandated to implement a separate one. Either that, or I suggest you formulate a way to instruct every traveler within your country on the complexities of your highly inefficient (and yes, it is inefficient) emergency alert system.

Alex Peterson, UN Ambassador
Assistance by Naomi Hunter, Minister of Safety
Dominion of Central-Dogma

No offence, Zel, but you're running afoul of the 'Reasonable Nation' theory. I hate to say it, but your nation's phone system isn't reasonable, and doesn't appear to be anything that could possibly evolve naturally. In all honesty, it looks like an ad hoc construct to use against this Proposal.

You can continue to argue against this Proposal of course, but I wouldn't expect the Proposal author to adjust things to fit your nation.

Sorry, mate. Your phone system has been DLE'd.

No offence, Zel, but you're running afoul of the 'Reasonable Nation' theory. I hate to say it, but your nation's phone system isn't reasonable, and doesn't appear to be anything that could possibly evolve naturally. In all honesty, it looks like an ad hoc construct to use against this Proposal.

You can continue to argue against this Proposal of course, but I wouldn't expect the Proposal author to adjust things to fit your nation.

Sorry, mate. Your phone system has been DLE'd.With respect this is well thought out and based on the system in place in Germany along their autobauns. That was installed with the idea that not everyone carried a cell phone and at a time when not all have a home phone even.. Thus consider individuals are moving in another nation... They have to rely on the system in that nation... Many citizens of said nation don't carry cell phones some older ones don't have a phone even in there home... this happens today as I don't carry a cell phone and would have to find a phone or place to get help. We assume that everyone who travels my carry a working cell phone that is wrong... We assume that all homes in nations have a workig phone that works....

Some nations may still be in the Mayberry Era as far as phones and choose to be there.. Crank the ringer get Sally or Mable and ask her to connect you to the Doctor or Mayor or Sherriff.. So why not two separate phone systems one for calling for a pizza but if you don't like pizza then you don't have to connect to that system at all. The other a required emergancy services system separate from that with rules on how many phones must be in place; where they are and how they are used as well as operate.

This resolution clearly says there are differences in emergancy phone systems that are exempt because of such things. Also that some nation by choice may simply not have a working phone system of even an emergancy system. We have one that is in place for the reason we have tried to explain and feel that trying to push us to go back to this one will not improve things here as it will only degrade the system... We (and I know role play) feel serious about this issue as we have seen it work or the one in Germany.. Also due to real world experiences with the 911 system shown on news as well as our own experiences with it... We want something that works better and may have flaws but is better than what we have seen on the 911 system.

To get nations to go to this means many will not think of this until they find it a problem then how many lives will be lost so they learn there is one. All systems are flawed even this one but if we must divert funds to go back to a system we moved away from (no we didn't have the 911 system we choose not to use it) because we found one that we feel is better in that it simple to use.... no three numbers to figure out what they are... no hunting for a phone and hoping that farmer Brown over the hill has one.. no having to face Badass Dudemama at 4AM in a pub on the pay phone talking to his mama about how good a boy he's been. That sort of thing.

This was yes constructed to show that we need to stop and see if there ain't a better way before we move to one that in a few years will not be any good. Here you lock in this system as the only one that works and no effort was taken to consider their may be one that works better.. (and I'm not saying it mine as I see even it needs fixes) .. Here you get folks to the mind set that this issue is solved when it will not be... as long as there are nations (people) who don't have this system and advances are made in the communications fields that improve how we talk to one another. Heck now days most folks use computers to make calls does that system have an emergancy services system in it or can that system connect to one...? What flaws exist with these systems using the existing system? This puts nations at a stalemate on this as they will simply install it and say they have done all they need to do or don't need to do to have an emergancy services system.

There are no considerations in this for upgrades or to move to a better system should it be found.. This simply says this system is it you take it or leave it. Then gives those coming up a chance to ignore it and not even have a phone system... Then nations that have a system will all be on this one or moving back to it because it is creating another drain of there existing system to maintain this one.

AS see this requiring exchange operators to be trained in emergancy services just as those working at our emergency centers where out current system routes them to. Also many of these exchanges having to train Mable or Sally to speak several languages.

OOC: So my nation has no phone system as you wiped it out... thus you have wiped out our emergancy services system... Thus the proposal if passed will not effect us as we under it have none... (you deleted it) so we don't have to build one. Thank You..


IC:Zeldon will neither oppose this proposal or approve it and hope that all nations will move to find a means to provide an emergancy services system in their nation be it this one or one of their own choice... but at least think about one and how it will work and continue to think about how to fix flaws in it should you find them.

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

With respect this is well thought out and based on the system in place in Germany along their autobauns.An emergency box on a stretch of road is hardly the same thing as that being the only method of easily summoning emergency services. When I went to college, the campus had call-boxes, but I could call emergency services from my room too without having to have a seperate phone-line installed. Which was a good thing, too; the closest emergency box was about 2 blocks away.

And, seriously, what kind of nation would honestly generate a system that only exists in external boxes? You either have people dying because the phone is too far away, or you have sent your infrastructure costs through the roof by having these things everywhere.

I'm sorry, and I don't usually say this sort of thing, but your set-up is mind-bendingly stupid.

Some nations may still be in the Mayberry Era as far as phones and choose to be there...Reasonable Nation Concept. UN Proposals do not have to fit every possible permutation, otherwise no Proposal could ever be passed.

Authors need to take reasonable quirks in mind, but they don't need to waste their time and character space trying to fit every bizarre-ass system somebody comes up with. Read some of DemonLordEnigma's "arguements" against various Proposals. They pretty much all boiled down to "I'm super advanced/unique which makes this proposal irrelevent/impossible to be applied to my ridiculous nation. Therefore, everybody should vote against it."

We want something that works better and may have flaws but is better than what we have seen on the 911 system.Then argue from the standpoint that you don't like a 911-like system as opposed to this inane "it won't work with my whacked-out telecommunications system" line.

OOC: So my nation has no phone system as you wiped it out... thus you have wiped out our emergancy services system... Thus the proposal if passed will not effect us as we under it have none... (you deleted it) so we don't have it build one. Thank You.Don't even try this nonsense.

Don't even try this nonsense.Sorry about that tired and got out of line...

I understand what your saying. AS far as funding this system and the cost of it. As I see this it would come under national defense funding or security in that these would be the agencies that would use it in a disaster.. This is set up with the idea that in a disaster all agencies need command and control and that needs communications. Thus emergancy service centers that survive a disaster would be used for such during a disaster. Crews would know the sytem and how to get it back up and operational fast.. These would be the first phone system to be repaired. Like the power companies in restoring power. Secondary centers would exist and have a better chance or surviving that ones in direct path of a disaster.

Testing of these systems would be a simple matter of ordering a military exercise in a given area.... Two things military training and testing are done.. so they know it works and how to do it. Again know that flaws will exist but you learn as you experience things. or at least would hope one does..

The US spends funds to have military units play war games all the time... Police, Fire, EMT departments also play disaster games. So it would be easy to have them play disaster and use existing systems to help them learn. They always take into the game real life situations as that the best way to learn.. through real life experiences. Then they add other possibly play to the game.. Also in real life the military often deployed a tactical communications system to step in for a fixed military communications system when that system was down to be repaired or upgraded. Thus here as this is standard with the military communications to a lower level basic level it can be upgraded if that is needed but not on a regular bases. As we don't see the basic system needing to be complicated yet. One of the biggest problems is funding these services and not ever small town can afford one so they don't have it here we have set it under national defense and security.. so it is no left to that one stop sign one horse town to pay for it.

And I know game may be a bad choice of words for this issue but... I look for simply solutions to problems in real life they don't always to others seem simple. Because they are mind set on what is done around them stuck in a rut doing it because it been done that way and we can do little to change it or fix it.

I could have in game just ignored this issue and said I don't need to worry about it.. Trouble is many folks do ignore the issue of what they will do in an emergancy so by my talking about it maybe I have them thinking about it. Maybe they are learning what they would do in one. Then again... maybe they are ignoring it completely..

I fully agree that the 911 or 112 system is a good system with flaws... and see that unless folks are made aware that the system even exists that they will not know the flaws exist until they need it and it fails them. With all my soap boxing I will probably vote for this one.. but we need to wake some up to the idea that they need such a service or heck for some that they have one... also that not all nations have the same one.

So I'm done.... lets get this one up for vote.. and see what happens..

The main problem I see with any emergency system is dealing with existing systems, some of which may be quite old. That seems to be a problem with this proposed system. However, the emergency systems we currently have have the same flaw. Our current phones have built-in GPS, but some rural hicks & cheapskates are still using 20 year-old phones that didn't have it. The only way I know to fix it would be to subsidize the new phones (probably impossible for many poor countries), and even that wouldn't get 100% coverage, since 90 year-old Aunt Mabel likes her old phone and wouldn't get a new-fangled one if you paid her.

Personally, I think it's a waste, since Saturn Corp already has a decent system (based on the US 911), but being able to claim to be UN-standardized might bring in more tourist money, since they'd have one less thing to worry about (whether it's really better or not). I'll probably vote for it for that reason.

The main problem I see with any emergency system is dealing with existing systems, some of which may be quite old. That seems to be a problem with this proposed system. However, the emergency systems we currently have have the same flaw. Our current phones have built-in GPS, but some rural hicks & cheapskates are still using 20 year-old phones that didn't have it. The only way I know to fix it would be to subsidize the new phones (probably impossible for many poor countries), and even that wouldn't get 100% coverage, since 90 year-old Aunt Mabel likes her old phone and wouldn't get a new-fangled one if you paid her.

Personally, I think it's a waste, since Saturn Corp already has a decent system (based on the US 911), but being able to claim to be UN-standardized might bring in more tourist money, since they'd have one less thing to worry about (whether it's really better or not). I'll probably vote for it for that reason.But it will not be standardized.. all over... even in your own nation Aunt Mable will not change here old mind so what do you do cut here service off period. Then those cheapskates using 20 year old phones will only come on board if somebody else pays for it. Who should that be?

Government takes funds from citizens and uses them all the time some even go back to those citizens. Having a national emergancy service system as we do means government is giving back to citizens while not taking more funds for for a separate system for say police, fire, military, or medic to use in an emergancy.. Here we have established a system that is funded by government and when there is no emergancy is used only for emergancy services... Thus when a disaster is called and ES needs a communications system they have this one without dealing with civilian independent phone companies for lines and even places to set up their operations centers. Thus in the planning for this one can impliment items across the system without asking can you pay for it from some small town or is Joe Hick willing to.

I will note that Saturn Corp uses a 911 system and insure that our travel agencies and others know this. If there is any special concerns for using the system have your Minister of Emergancy Services contact mine with that information. So can also include this in travel warnings for our citizens who may at some point visit your nation. We will also have them send like information to your Department of Travel so that your citizens have a safe and pleasent visit to our nation should they choose to visit.

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

Our current phones have built-in GPS, but some rural hicks & cheapskates are still using 20 year-old phones that didn't have it.

GPS or whatever isn't really a problem. As long as the phone works on the system you have it'll be good enough, they can always tell the operator where they are, and people should be educated to do that anyway. Old or new, it really shouldn't make a difference.

Again, all that is required is redirecting a number to another number. Whether your phone is old or new doesn't matter. If it can dial your existing emergency number, it can dial the international one.

Submission will be done in the next 24 hours.

So how do we change a number that is just push CROSS FLAME or BADGE.. where are there any numbers to change.? As we have clearly said our system uses no numbers..

Well presumably the icons in question are linked to a telephone number in a directory, otherwise why would they be on the phone. Surely they'd be a way of speed-dialling an emergency number, no replacing it entirely, otherwise they'd be useless.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Well presumably the icons in question are linked to a telephone number in a directory, otherwise why would they be on the phone. Surely they'd be a way of speed-dialling an emergency number, no replacing it entirely, otherwise they'd be useless.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
I wouldn't say that Mr. Holt. As I'm understanding it, it sounds like they've got two separate phone systems, one for emergencies and another for everything else. Which I must say, if I'm understanding it correctly, that is, to be blunt, the most bat shit insane thing I've ever heard of.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I wouldn't say that Mr. Holt. As I'm understanding it, it sounds like they've got two separate phone systems, one for emergencies and another for everything else. Which I must say, if I'm understanding it correctly, that is, to be blunt, the most bat shit insane thing I've ever heard of.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, in my defence I plead that the honourable delegate of Zeldon's phrasing made it well nigh impossible to understand fully what he was saying. And yes, the system does sound...exceedingly odd.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Proposal has been submitted.

Good luck. I see no reason to vote against it, and if I don't see a reason to vote against something then that's a good sign.

We see we have not made our point clearly but will not change out system.. WE will find a suitable solution to meet what is required under this proposal should it be passed. We could have simply ignored this issue and said nothing and also ignored the proposal.. but we felt a need to try and bring some points out. At least get some to thinking about this emergancy services issue. As we know that many nations have not thought about it but now maybe they will start to.. As the 911 or 112 system is a good one with flaws still it saves lives and in time it will save more... Trouble is it has to be installed to work.. then people have to know it's there and how to use it. Even if it not in place they need to know how to get help when they need it anywhere they may be.

So I urge all to vote for this proposal and those nations who have no emergancy services system in place to think about having one and how it will work.

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

While I'nm not 100 percent convinced of the merits or need for the UN to be involved in this endeavor, I have endorsed the proposal. I believe that at least it has enough merit to be discussed, and debated here. Perhaps the debate will change my mind.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

My government does not appreciate why this proposal, which appears to be forcing us to change our emergency number is something of an international consideration.

My government does not appreciate why this proposal, which appears to be forcing us to change our emergency number is something of an international consideration.That's because it is not forcing you to change your emergency number, it's making you add a number which automatically forwards to your emergency number. Idea is that everyone who comes to your country can contact your emergency services if needed.

That's because it is not forcing you to change your emergency number, it's making you add a number which automatically forwards to your emergency number. Idea is that everyone who comes to your country can contact your emergency services if needed.Thank you for clearing that up for me, sorry for being an idiot. :headbang:

Thank you for clearing that up for me, sorry for being an idiot. :headbang:Take two aspirin or a cold beer and relax.. The more go back an look at some of the comments think it is a good idea because it will mean that nations that don't have a system at present won't come up with some of the wall system and install it only to find they should have done it this way to start with to meet the requirements of the UN on this issue.. As before had nations building systems based on no standard now they have some guide as to how to work their system as can use any existing UN emergancy system... and bases theirs in it... since it already used a UN standard number. So can see in the long run where this will benifit all..

If you already have the phones and system in place this only takes out one number in that system to go to your emrgancy systems centers from any phone.

Heck might even get in on the market to sale those upcoming members that have no system but won't one like it something.. Chin$ Chin$...

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Zeldon

I'm down with this.

I'm down with this.
Word up.

I fully support this measure.

OOC: I'm actually looking forward to some interesting roleplay from this.

As Minister for Emergency Services, i think this is a great idea to promote International Unity but also, because we have many territories abroad they use the areas number code: for example, in our Carribean Isles territorry, they use the 911 number code, when citizens dial the nuber they get Florida operators, which of course is silly and very annoying when you have an emrgency.

The Free Land of Party Mode will vote for this proposal without explaining why. :(

Ausserland's vote has been cast FOR this exceptionally sensible resolution.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

tourists, or other people who go abroad, such as ambassadors and international businessmen, shouldconsider finding out the emergency code of the nation they visit. It is up to a person in distress to be prepared to such an eventuality and it is not up to governments to change allocation of budget to accomodate people who venture abroad unprepared. You might as well suggest that everyone in the world should speak the same language, so communication will never be a problem.

If you don't speak the local language, and the locals don't speak yours, that is not the fault of the local population. If the local emergency dial is different from your national number, it is your own responsibility to know that, if you don't, it is not the fault of the local government.

If sovereign nations are worried about their people abroad, let them pass legislation that they should be properly informed, but do not pass this responsibility to the host nation, where the term host should not imply in any way that a nation is responsible for any visitor. This is only in case of emergency numbers. Public safety and public health, issues for any visitor, should be adressed sepperately

In short, this is simply a way to increase costs and strain already strained budgets to the limit. It is not possible to support this proposal and still claim to have the best interest of all the member nations in mind.

The idea is sound but i would think that in some emergency situation someone will know what the correct emergency service number is. If you are on a plane the personnel should know what any emergency numbers are. If you are in a crowded area and something happens someone will know. Hotels usually have some sort of posting as to what the emergency number is for tourists from other nations.

I do have some concerns with this proposal. Because the number directly reroutes you to whatever nation you are in at the time this will be an immensely costly system to put into place. As We will need satellites to monitor and track where these signals are coming from to redirect them because most of these calls will probably be made by tourists on cell phones.

Second, what happens when you are on a border. Say my car breaks down between the US and canada and I'm a few miles down the road from the checkpoint but not quite in canada or the US yet. Where would i be redirected to?

Third concern this would have to be a massive under taking the switch board for this line would have to be tremendous. considering all the potential calls this line could possibly recieve the switchboard would need to be massive to adequately handle all the calls. It would be terrible to dial such a number and not be able to connect because too many people are calling at the same time.

Fourth concern this would be immensely easy to abuse. It would make a phone harder to track for police should they be talking to someone they are attempting to trace.

My last concern would be that a phone has a transfer time depending on how long the signal has to travel. Either every nation would have to install one of these switchboards or the international community would need to decide where it is going to be located.

Victor Krovankovich
Voice of the Emperor

Third concern this would have to be a massive under taking the switch board for this line would have to be tremendous. considering all the potential calls this line could possibly recieve the switchboard would need to be massive to adequately handle all the calls. It would be terrible to dial such a number and not be able to connect because too many people are calling at the same time.

The calls would be directed to the same switchboards that already deal with the relevant nations' old emergency numbers...

I do have some concerns with this proposal.
You're confusing technical issues with political issues. Any remotely competent telephone company can route calls on its system to an appropriate local response center automatically. The fact that a political decision is being made to make that number universal doesn't mean that a technical decision has been made to route all the calls to a single help center.

Second, what happens when you are on a border. Say my car breaks down between the US and canada and I'm a few miles down the road from the checkpoint but not quite in canada or the US yet. Where would i be redirected to?
OOC: I've been to the US/Canada border, and the only way a situtation like you describe could happen is if you're standing with one foot on either side of the border, if which case it most likely doesn't matter which countries' emergency services you reach.

That's because it is not forcing you to change your emergency number, it's making you add a number which automatically forwards to your emergency number. Idea is that everyone who comes to your country can contact your emergency services if needed.

*nodding*
Which is exactly why I've cast Mikitivity's vote in FAVOUR immediately. My compliaments to the delegation from Kesslek and all others involved in seeing to it that this proposal reached the UN floor as a resolution.

while this proposal does what it's supposed to by re-directing people to the relevant national emergency number point 4 makes me wonder. why change to a universal emergency phone number if you're not going to mandate that all member nations have an emergency number in the first place?

4. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not already have emergency services or such communication devices to establish or introduce them.

If you're in nation where theres no national emergency number or where you've no access to a telephone its not going to do much good.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Kirisuban Deputy Ambassador

while this proposal does what it's supposed to by re-directing people to the relevant national emergency number point 4 makes me wonder. why change to a universal emergency phone number if you're not going to mandate that all member nations have an emergency number in the first place?
And if they did that, you'd vote against for violation of national sovereignty.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Sounds like a good idea and will recieve a vote from The Confederacy of Bloody Maple Syrup. The value of this service is very great in a time when terrorists are continously plotting to blow the hell out of our cities and our police force struggles. :sniper: :mp5: :headbang: We feel that this will give us an extra level of protection.

Against for practical reasons. While every nation should have an emergency number, the UN really shouldn't force them. Plus where do we get the money to enforce it? Plus, what if 112 is an area code? You won't be able to call people in that area. The government therefore has to change it, costing lots of money and inconvenience for the people who's numbers change. I agree with the idea in principle, but it just won't work in practice.

As far as this goes, I see no problem in changing the number. If anything were to go wrong, any person from any member nation that is abroad will know exactly what to dial. Instead of having to figure out what the number is for every nation, it would be so much easier to just have a universal number.

I agree with this full-heartedly and urge the other members of the UN to vote YES. It could save the lives of other nations' citizens, and our own who are abroad.


Signed Sincerely,
Dictatory Mephistophilis
Dictatorship of Mephopolis

There are thousands of people in our country who have the aforementioned "emergency number" either as an area code or as part of their phone number. Rather than spending the money and going through the trouble to restructure our phone system, we'd like to assume that anyone who has 1) Traveled to our country, 2) Speaks our language, and 3) Realizes that we are a UN member nation and therefore might respond to the international emergency number, could instead simply look up our local emergency number (666) prior to their trip.

--Nehru Harlifax, Minister of the Interior

There are thousands of people in our country who have the aforementioned "emergency number" either as an area code or as part of their phone number. Rather than spending the money and going through the trouble to restructure our phone system, we'd like to assume that anyone who has 1) Traveled to our country, 2) Speaks our language, and 3) Realizes that we are a UN member nation and therefore might respond to the international emergency number, could instead simply look up our local emergency number (666) prior to their trip.

--Nehru Harlifax, Minister of the Interior

the easiest way is to give every traveller to your nation a leaflet printed in the most common world languages when they arrive at an airport, seaport or at a border post.

there will be practical difficulties such as have already been mentioned but our main opposition is that its a pointless exercise and totally unnecessary red tape that a nation will have to deal with if this passes.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador from Kirisubo

This is the worste resolution I have ever seen. You think we should replace local emergency numbers with a huge network? Who's answering the phones? I seriously doubt they can speak every language. Someone in Germany who calls better hope someone who speaks German. Response times will suffer greatly.

This is a horrible idea. What issues would require an international emergency number? Are the local systems not good enough?

This is the worste resolution I have ever seen. You think we should replace local emergency numbers with a huge network? Who's answering the phones? I seriously doubt they can speak every language. Someone in Germany who calls better hope someone who speaks German. Response times will suffer greatly.
:eek:
For your first question, no: 2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services. There is no replacement of anything.

For your second question, the people at the line will be the existing emergency operators.

I also doubt operators can speak every language, but what has that got to do with the resolution? If the resolution fails to pass, foreign people who can't speak the native language will still be dialling the emergency number.

This is a horrible idea. What issues would require an international emergency number? Are the local systems not good enough?
The idea is to have 112 redirect to the emergency services, if it doesn't already do so. The local (telephone) system will still be used.

I honestly thought this resolution would have a pretty easy time when being voted on...

This is a horrible idea. What issues would require an international emergency number? Are the local systems not good enough?

Did you read the resolution? This has nothing to do with the systems, just the number to dial to get to them.

I think this is a well written proposal. I'm for it.

This would force the area codes 120-129 to be removed, yes?

The Disputed Territories of Agita will vote AGAINST this resolution on the grounds that it is an unnecessary intrusion upon what is more appropriately a domestic issue. In particular, we note that:

1. Agitatians are accustomed to dialing 999 for Emergency Medical Services, and 111 for Emergency Euthanasia Services. This arrangement is perfectly logical. But you can imagine how easily tragedy could occur if someone in great pain were to accidentally dial 111 instead of 112 and beg for immediate relief.

2. Agita is in the process of converting from a numeric phone system to a 26 letter alphabet system due to running out of numeric combinations of reasonable length. Our corporations have also requested this change so as to remove overlap in the popular alphanumeric combinations that are typical in nations with primitive, 0-9 phone systems, and so that more of their advertisement budget can be used to market their products instead of repeating numbers. Our mobile phone consumers have also requested this change so that standard mobile phone keypads can be more easily used for text messaging and internet access. In addition, phone designations are commonly traded on our national exchanges just like stocks and other securities. Handcuffing us to the tired old 0-9 system would thus have a negative effect on our economy and would be devastating to hundreds of exchange brokers. If we had no other objections to the Resolution, we could designate IIZ instead of 112 as the UN "number", but we suspect the Resolution would not permit that accomodation to our more highly evolved system, into which we have already invested some of our national capital as we prepare for its implementation.

3. Agita is in the process of privatizing all of its emergency response services. Thus, private Agitatian businesses have already invested millions of [our currency] into creating public awareness about the superiority of their services versus their competitors' services. We suspect that the Resolution as drafted would not permit us to avoid compliance by ceasing to offer publicly-funded emergency response services. If we must offer 112 service, compliance with the terms of the Resolution would be deeply problematic. If we sell 112 to the highest private bidder, that would give a de facto monopoly to one company over the international traveller market, such that no other company would bother competing with them. The quality of service for foreigners would thus slide below the quality that could be found by locals on our open markets, putting us in violation of the "equal quality service" clause. If we programmed 112 to dial an emergency service provider at random, we would need to include even the worst and most non-competitive service providers among the potential call recipients, again causing 112 to be on average an inferior service. If we had to screen 112 service providers and periodically inspect whether they meet minimum quality requirements, this would create precisely the sort of bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy that we were trying to avoid by privatizing in the first place, and increase the tax burden on our citizens. This Resolution is therefore an egregious intrusion upon our government and free market economy.

4. We resist as a matter of principle the idea that international travellers need not be responsible for understanding the realities within the foreign nations they visit. Most nations expect travellers to do their own due dilligence with respect to what sort of vaccinations they need to receive before departing, and most nations do not allow ignorance of local law to excuse any crimes commited by travellers. So why make an exception with respect to emergency medical response numbers? Our private emergency response providers would be delighted to plaster our air and sea ports with advertisements for their services, as well as any terminals around the world where Agita Airlines lands, and our ports and (I suspect) your airports would be delighted to receive the extra advertising revenue.

5. Emergency medical services are inherently an exclusively local matter, not a matter which would naturally cross national boundries, and discussion of this matter is thus inconsistent with the purpose for which the United Nations was originally founded.

Agita is therefore AGAINST the Resolution for the aforementioned reasons.

I'm for.

a nation will have to deal with if this passes.
Why? It doesn't force you to do anything.

The Federated States of Atraxes find implimenting this resolution would be a waste of national resources and a waste of this August Body's time. Visitors to our nation are given abundant information regarding out national emergency services and how to contact them.

It seems that a lot of people do not see the following:


IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING NUMBER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE IT!!!!!

ergo,

IF YOUR CITIZENS ARE USED TO DIALING ONE NUMBER, IT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!


For those of you who have 911, that's what this 112 or whatever number it is is. You dial the number, an operator asks you what's wrong, and sends appropriate services.

If your nation does not have a service like that, you are not forced to make one.

This is a good idea, very easy to implement, Love and esterel vote FOR.

Midori smiles in her seat thinking about how she's opposing her husband again but that was nothing new.

She struggled to her feet to answer the question from the ambassador from Gruenberg, her bump really showing now.

"the honourable member form Gruenburg must like having UN red tape wrapped round his nation" she replies.

"all resolutions do something and what this will do apart from wiping out the area code for one off our cities is add more needless UN regulation to the nations assembled here.

This is totally unnecessary and although we will comply if it is passed I doubt it will benefit the UN nations very much"

she sits down again having made her point.

"the honourable member form Gruenburg must like having UN red tape wrapped round his nation" she replies.

"all resolutions do something and what this will do apart from wiping out the area code for one off our cities is add more needless UN regulation to the nations assembled here.

This is totally unnecessary and although we will comply if it is passed I doubt it will benefit the UN nations very much"
And the honourable member from Kirisubo must like deliberately entangling her nation in red tape, as this resolution contains NO obligations, whatsoever. As such, any compliance with it is purely voluntary - and thus complaining it will add regulation seems odd, given one would be choosing to add it oneself.

If it would wipe out the area code for one of your cities, it would seem a little silly to adopt the number in the first place. You're saying you would choose to implement a system you knew to be unsuitable for your nation?

If so, then the problem's not with the UN.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Midori smiled slightly and replied "Ambassador Pyandran may i draw your attention to point one of the proposal at vote.

1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number.

we will lose an area code whatever you seem to think and your nation probally will as well.

even with 5 figure area codes the phone will start ringing after entering 112.

so its still a UN problem. the proposal may be mild but it will mean that you have to do something"

1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number.

we will lose an area code whatever you seem to think and your nation probally will as well.

even with 5 figure area codes the phone will start ringing after entering 112.

so its still a UN problem. the proposal may be mild but it will mean that you have to do something"
I'm not the Ambassador.

And I'm sure it is possible to arrange a system whereby if a further number is dialled after one or two seconds, the call is not forwarded. I concur with the earlier opinion of the observer from Frisbeeteria: at present, it seems as though technical, rather than political, problems are being brought in opposition. These are issues any competent telecommunications administration could resolve.

Worst case scenario? You change your city's dialling code. It can be a gradual implementation - there's no timeline set. I just don't see it as a major problem.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

*snip*Umm ... it's really only a problem if your country code is 1, 11, or 112, and if you're a UN member. The odds are slim.

Or have you forgotten? You have to enter the country code before you enter the area code? In the United States you have to dial "1" before entering the area code.

1. Agitatians are accustomed to dialing 999 for Emergency Medical Services, and 111 for Emergency Euthanasia Services. This arrangement is perfectly logical. But you can imagine how easily tragedy could occur if someone in great pain were to accidentally dial 111 instead of 112 and beg for immediate relief.

Then you need more safeguards for the 111 system to confirm people really want to be euthanised. It's ridiculous that you wouldn't have such safeguards anyway.

...Handcuffing us to the tired old 0-9 system would thus have a negative effect on our economy and would be devastating to hundreds of exchange brokers. If we had no other objections to the Resolution, we could designate IIZ instead of 112 as the UN "number", but we suspect the Resolution would not permit that accomodation to our more highly evolved system, into which we have already invested some of our national capital as we prepare for its implementation.

That's ridiculous. If you're trading phone numbers all the time, either it makes up a tiny portion of the economy or it's hell on earth trying to call anyone in Agita, not to mention that your unusual system essentially cuts off telephone contact with a large portion of the world, fundamental infrastructural faults which are much worse for your economy than implementing 112 ever would be. Here's a suggestion. Make it AAB, and print the numbers 1 and 2 on the A and B buttons respectively.

...This Resolution is therefore an egregious intrusion upon our government and free market economy.

Please refer to Zeldon's arguments in the first few pages. You're only being slightly more reasonable than him. It's not my problem you've created a screwed up system.

Furthermore, I question your assertions as to privatised services being of higher quality, and of the practicality of a privatised emergency response service with competing companies, primarily because there's no possible way for them to have enough revenue to cover costs and still serve the needs of the people as well as a public service would. But it really isn't worth going on and on about it since I doubt you'll listen.

4. We resist as a matter of principle the idea that international travellers need not be responsible for understanding the realities within the foreign nations they visit... So why make an exception with respect to emergency medical response numbers?

Simply because it makes it easier, and precisely because of complex systems like yours. The state of mind you are likely to be in if you need the emergency number isn't exactly the best one. Having something easy to remember and applicable in a large portion of the world can help to save lives - including those of your own citizens, say if a tourist calls to report a crime in progress - so why not?

This is also one resolution that has an extra-UN effect. Countries seeing the UN adopting 112 may decide to implement it too, especially if they have a lot of exchange with UN countries.

5. Emergency medical services are inherently an exclusively local matter, not a matter which would naturally cross national boundries, and discussion of this matter is thus inconsistent with the purpose for which the United Nations was originally founded.

Oh geez, all the proposal wants to do is have you redirect one number to another, and you scream national sovereignity.

This is the worste resolution I have ever seen. You think we should replace local emergency numbers with a huge network? Who's answering the phones? I seriously doubt they can speak every language. Someone in Germany who calls better hope someone who speaks German. Response times will suffer greatly.

This isn't a replacement. You can keep your local number. Right?

This is a horrible idea. What issues would require an international emergency number? Are the local systems not good enough?

Travelers may be unfamiliar with the local systems. This would help make international travel seem safer.

Not to mention the many places where there is no "nation." Many areas fall under the jurisdiction of multiple competing UN nations.

The Federated States of Atraxes find implimenting this resolution would be a waste of national resources and a waste of this August Body's time. Visitors to our nation are given abundant information regarding out national emergency services and how to contact them.

When you travel through 7 different countries on a business trip, do you read all the crap they give you at the air port?

This would force the area codes 120-129 to be removed, yes?

No.


we will lose an area code whatever you seem to think and your nation probally will as well.


Why?

P.S. Hi Kelsek good to see you :) I really feel superfluous here, I figure you've already made all the right points, but I'm bored.

Just for information: no nations in the world (NS world of course) had ever claimed "112" as its International Phone Codes:

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nation_Codes#International_phone_codes_.28by_codes.29

OOC: I've been to the US/Canada border, and the only way a situtation like you describe could happen is if you're standing with one foot on either side of the border, if which case it most likely doesn't matter which countries' emergency services you reach.

I have also been to the border. But in most countries especially those less forunate and war torn countries where this number is more likely to be used there is usually a no-man's land zone that is a neutral and unoccpiable zone.

You're confusing technical issues with political issues. Any remotely competent telephone company can route calls on its system to an appropriate local response center automatically. The fact that a political decision is being made to make that number universal doesn't mean that a technical decision has been made to route all the calls to a single help center.

Technical issue frequently lead political debate. The feasability of an idea and how the implementation of an idea would effect a nation or its constituents is something i try not to overlook. I was asking for clarification on how the matter would be dealt with and explaining my view of the cons of those methods.

Midori smiled slightly and replied "Ambassador Pyandran may i draw your attention to point one of the proposal at vote.

1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number.

we will lose an area code whatever you seem to think and your nation probally will as well.

even with 5 figure area codes the phone will start ringing after entering 112.

so its still a UN problem. the proposal may be mild but it will mean that you have to do something"

So change the area code. I can't even count how often my area code has changed without actually moving to a new building. It's not hard.

:eek:
I also doubt operators can speak every language, but what has that got to do with the resolution? If the resolution fails to pass, foreign people who can't speak the native language will still be dialling the emergency number.

The problem isn't with foreign people who can't speak the language. The problem is that if this creates an international emergency system someone in Sweden who dials 112 (or whatever number is decided upon) could end up speaking with an operator in India who doesn't share any languages.

The problem isn't with foreign people who can't speak the language. The problem is that if this creates an international emergency system someone in Sweden who dials 112 (or whatever number is decided upon) could end up speaking with an operator in India who doesn't share any languages.
Calls are routed through the LOCAL NETWORK. Dialing 122 would give you the closest emergency service operator in the region you are dialing, you won't be contacting customer assistance in Calcutta. It's not an international emergency system, just an international emergency number. This number will contact the very same people in your nation that you have already been using. Furthermore, your people will not have to learn a new number because this number won't replace any existing system. Two numbers - One service.

Witchcliff supports this proposal and has voted for.

It is an excellent idea and will give our people travelling to other nations peace of mind that they can contact the relevent authorities in any emergency, no matter where they are, without panicking about finding out the right number.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN

The problem isn't with foreign people who can't speak the language. The problem is that if this creates an international emergency system someone in Sweden who dials 112 (or whatever number is decided upon) could end up speaking with an operator in India who doesn't share any languages.

If your country chooses to route it's emergency calls to India for some reason, why are you complaining? It's a UN law, each nation has to implement it themself, of course.

This resolution is self contradictory and poorly written, and because of this the Republic of Mariners Fans opposes it. In fact I do not even see what several of the clauses within the resolution mean when taken within the larger context of the entire document, nothing in here appears to have any meaning.

1) The title of this draft resolution states that it is "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets," yet not a word is included throughout the rest of the document to suggest that anybody should be increasing their police or military budgets. In fact, active clauses 2 and 4 even state the exact opposite "2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services," and "4. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not already have emergency services or such communication devices to establish or introduce them." So there is nothing in this resolution about increasing police and military budgets, and yet there are clauses which state that no one will have to do anything to their police and military budgets

2) Clauses themselves contradict with one another in totally incompatable ways. Active clause 1 and active clause 2 seem to say the exact opposite of one another. Active clause 1 states "1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number," while active clause 2 seems to suggest that if you don't want to do that its ok, "2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services."

Finally, to nitpick the hell out of this there are no active clause phrases in the resolution, there are preamblatory words and phrases at the beginning, and yet nothing to suggest what exactly we're doing, are we "recomending" that member states have emergency numbers? or are we "demanding" it? The difference between these kinds of phrases which are completely lacking in the resolution are so great that the lack of any kind of phrase like that here leaves me wondering what this draft resolution would do. Please vote against this, not because it is bad policy, but because it is poorly written and poorly thought out.

1) The title of this draft resolution states that it is "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets," yet not a word is included throughout the rest of the document to suggest that anybody should be increasing their police or military budgets.

Um, that got inserted automically because of the category right? I'm kind of new here, I don't know the mechanics.

Finally, to nitpick the hell out of this there are no active clause phrases in the resolution, there are preamblatory words and phrases at the beginning, and yet nothing to suggest what exactly we're doing, are we "recomending" that member states have emergency numbers? or are we "demanding" it? The difference between these kinds of phrases which are completely lacking in the resolution are so great that the lack of any kind of phrase like that here leaves me wondering what this draft resolution would do. Please vote against this, not because it is bad policy, but because it is poorly written and poorly thought out.

Lol, I opposed a resolution recently, that was very well worded and lost. I think that's because people care more about how well worded legislation then, well, it's impact. If one day someone proposes legislation blocked by this, then we can repeal it. Meanwhile it does what the UN is supposed to do. Make international travel safer by encouraging standardization in an easy way.

The title of this draft resolution states that it is "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets," yet not a word is included throughout the rest of the document to suggest that anybody should be increasing their police or military budgets.
This is the result of being in the International Security category. There was some discussion during the draft about which category it should fall into, and this was the the best available.

Everything following this is a mandate, "NOW THEREFORE, the United Nations enacts as follows:"

Clause two does not allow nations to opt out of the entire resolution, it makes it easier for them to implement by not forcing their population to learn a new number, i.e. the international emergency number 112 could simply redirect to their existing number's service, not replace it.


Please vote against this, not because it is bad policy, but because it is poorly written and poorly thought out.I opposed opposition <({[you mean "a resolution"?]})> recently, that was very well worded and lost. I think that's because people care more about how well worded legislation then, well, it's impact.
Ditto. I could rant on nations' illogical voting methods, but I'll save it.


If one day someone proposes legislation blocked by this, then we can repeal it.
What could this possibly block?

And Discoraversalism, you're not new after 6 months and 250+ posts. I'm no veteran of the UN, but I know the basics (so do you).

Hey, kids!

Hi Klowny!

It's time for the INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER MADE VERY, VERY EASY! Gather round and let me tell you all about this United Nations resolution, being voted on this very minute!

You see kids, countries around the world have different numbers for their emergency services! Some use 911, some use 999, some use 112, 000, and so on! Some even have strange phones and very difficult systems! But what happens if you go to another country, and something happens? Like you witness a robbery, or a fire, or have a heart attack? Well, now you'll only have to remember one number, one which you can use all over the world! (Well, actually, just the UN has to have it) And that number is the one already used on GSM mobile phone networks for this very purpose - 112! Isn't that cool?

But Klowny, how does it work?

Well kids, the countries get to decide, but in the end they have to make it so if you pick up the phone and dial 112, you get someone who can send the help you need! They might simply make the number redirect to whatever the number they already use is, or they might set up a new call centre just to handle those calls! It's completely up to them how they want to make it happen!

But then we have to learn a new number! Learning sucks!

Oh, Timmy, learning is good! But even if you don't think so, they don't have to change the number they're already using! People can still dial whatever the old number is, and still get help! And everyone has to be treated equally, so no nasty discriminating against people who dial one number!

But what if they don't have phones because of their technology level? Won't we be forcing technology on them, like with the Global Library?

Wow, Cassie, you really know a lot! But that won't happen. It doesn't force nations to have something their tech level might not allow, and it doesn't make them spend a lot of money if they haven't already got their own infrastructure or service! But all the other kids are giving me blank looks now, so we'll have to leave it there. Until next week, children! Bye!

Micro manageing at its finest!

What could this possibly block?


It blocks a better worder version :)



And Discoraversalism, you're not new after 6 months and 250+ posts. I'm no veteran of the UN, but I know the basics (so do you).

Woohoo! I am officially no longer a newb! I may still be hated, but that's a much harder problem to solve :) Did someone say copyright?


Look, a bunch of numbers you won't pay attention to, and that don't mean anything!

Socialist/Capitalist = +3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Liberal/Conservative -.001 (margin of error +/- 10 points)
Left-wing/Right-wing ~1337
Authoritarian/Libertarian equals plus five-hundred


I like the sig... except for the formatting. Do positive numbers indicate you lean towards the 2nd number? What's the scale? I'd love a link to a good website for those tests. The version I took was good... but it didn't give me good html to post elsewhere, so it wasn't a good enough web test in my book.

To me, an international number seems to :fluffle: united world hippy bull. I'm the kind of guy who likes kill kill kill :mp5:.

To me, an international number seems to :fluffle: united world hippy bull. I'm the kind of guy who likes kill kill kill :mp5:.And you win the non sequitor award for the thread. Congratulations!

Furthermore, I question your assertions as to privatised services being of higher quality, and of the practicality of a privatised emergency response service with competing companies, primarily because there's no possible way for them to have enough revenue to cover costs and still serve the needs of the people as well as a public service would.
That is a matter of significant debate, and should have been irrelevant to this Resolution except that the Resolution indirectly makes privatizing a formerly public system extremely difficult if not impossible. If the members of the UN would like to vote upon outlawing the privatization of certain health services, they should do so in a Resolution that clearly states what is being voted upon, particularly given the chronic levels of inattentiveness among many UN members. If the thinking here is that privatization is somehow too unreasonable to even be worth considering, I would be happy to tell the [100% true] story of what happened to me when I was involved in a serious automobile accident while travelling in the United States, and 911 was dialed. Unfortunately my story is a bit too long for this time and place. Regardless, THAT debate should not have been settled by THIS vote. Put privatization to a vote, and then I can tell the story.

Oh geez, all the proposal wants to do is have you redirect one number to another, and you scream national sovereignity.
Intentionally or not, the Resolution indirectly places significant limitations upon our ability to regulate (or de-regulate) our telecommunications and healthcare industries. This ultimately is not as small a thing as changing a phone number. I believe the 112 protocol would be better manifested in an agreement voluntarily entered into by the nations it would most benefit, not an UN Resolution that would bind all members to one culture's preferred system of providing emergency medical services. "112" is in fact probably a good policy for most nations, almost as good an idea as our alphabet-keypad telephones, which will someday replace numeric-keypads just as the metric system replaced inferior systems in most nations. But just because it's a good idea for most doesn't mean either idea belongs in a binding UN Resolution.

112?! What happened to 999?

I propose the number in the resolution is amended to 999.

Then and only then will we and our friends vote for this resolution. We've seen enough of our national identity being removed by Jonny Foreigner already!

Honestly, do people know how to vote no here? Its a number for emergency response... the utmost of local responsibilities. I find it amazing that the UN is wasting its time with this, and that someone actually took the time to write this useless resolution. The fact that it is going to pass is even more mind blowing. Stop it. People want to travel... they can learn a three digit code for emergency. This is exactly what the UN shouldn't be wasting its time on.

Honestly, do people know how to vote no here?Are these enough no votes for you?:

Votes Against: 1782: Bartonomoose [2], Poitter [6], Compulsoria [17], Ickleford [2], Altastonia [2], James_xenoland [5], Killer Ninja Monkeys [3], Athens and Midlands [4], Anathelas [2], Danimalville [2], Phoeniks [7], Former English Colony [423], Arkaria [7], TheFSM [2], Draconias23 [6], Gnome Chompers [9], Conchland [4], The Red Smarties [3], Hekatontarchos [4], Dominoptra [4], BBQ Revenge [2], Casetoria [7], Ryrwn [3], UltimaWeapon [2], Corporate Hegemony [18], Eloquince [2], Galvanocentric [4], Sipharium [3], Nightfox [14], Green Hats [2], Delet the Happy [4], Medved [5], Pro-Sovereignty Babes [58], Lunatic Retard Robots [4], Nicktenstien [14], Frogmite [2], Equalopp [2], USSR alumni [3], Meskalitan [3], Eritones [2], Porro Ago dominatus [2], Nevadar [282], Eh-oh [6], Madavar [6], Lots of Camels [3], Eyceland [4], Using microsoft word [2], Tinis [8], The Souless Damned [3], Republican Hope [4], CentralizedAmerica [2], Doooomhammer [2], Dekkacity [5], DeeJaymaica [9], Asragoth [2], Vihren-Sandanski [2], Tomatoe-munchers [2], Baribeau [3], The Father-Land [5], Bezwoldian [2], Wondonia [5], EvanMania [2], Empiri Astra [4], Estroban [2], Bens Humans [4], KlickKlickPancake [3], Zerkovistan [5], Whuzzeheckistan [3], Aspercreme [2], Hammervasser [4], Twistland [4], NickBlasta [7], Polamalu2 [2], Nuditopia [3], Mephestophilis [2], The real DragonFyre [2], The Great Commonwealth[33], Righteous Rock[5], The Polarian Dictator[2], FOR SCIENCE[68], Belgian socio-liberals[5], Dez2[15], , Daedra1a[9], Purple Android[2], Marcaevia[7], Chiposlovakia[4], Cav[4].How about these (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Failed_Resolutions)?

And you win the non sequitor award for the thread. Congratulations!

*do do dee*
I'm sorry, but the number or individual you are trying to reach is disconnected or unavailable. Please try again later using pictures. ;)

we use 911:confused:

This resolution is self contradictory and poorly written, and because of this the Republic of Mariners Fans opposes it. In fact I do not even see what several of the clauses within the resolution mean when taken within the larger context of the entire document, nothing in here appears to have any meaning.

1) The title of this draft resolution states that it is "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets," yet not a word is included throughout the rest of the document to suggest that anybody should be increasing their police or military budgets. In fact, active clauses 2 and 4 even state the exact opposite "2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services," and "4. This resolution shall not require member nations which do not already have emergency services or such communication devices to establish or introduce them." So there is nothing in this resolution about increasing police and military budgets, and yet there are clauses which state that no one will have to do anything to their police and military budgets

2) Clauses themselves contradict with one another in totally incompatable ways. Active clause 1 and active clause 2 seem to say the exact opposite of one another. Active clause 1 states "1. Member nations shall cause the dialing of "112" on any telephone or similar communication device to redirect to the emergency response service, if such service does not already use that number," while active clause 2 seems to suggest that if you don't want to do that its ok, "2. Member nations will not be required to change the telephone number of their existing emergency response services."

Finally, to nitpick the hell out of this there are no active clause phrases in the resolution, there are preamblatory words and phrases at the beginning, and yet nothing to suggest what exactly we're doing, are we "recomending" that member states have emergency numbers? or are we "demanding" it? The difference between these kinds of phrases which are completely lacking in the resolution are so great that the lack of any kind of phrase like that here leaves me wondering what this draft resolution would do. Please vote against this, not because it is bad policy, but because it is poorly written and poorly thought out.

The resolution is not poorly written; it was poorly read by the representative of Mariners Fans. Clauses 1 and 2 are not contradictory. You put 112 in service. If you're already using some other number, you just keep it too if you want. And no active clause phrases? How about "1. Member nations shall cause..." and "3. Member nations will ensure..." Directive. Period.

The resolution is well written, makes complete sense, and will accomplish something worthwhile.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

we use 911:confused:

And you still can. However, the resolution is calling upon nations to *also* use the new number, that way tourists whom might not know your nation's customs will also be able to call for help.

Which of course raises the question: How is it any more convenient for tourists to learn the international number for emergency services than it is for them simply to look up the emergency number in the nation they're visiting in the first place?

Hang on...we have a different number for different services. Ambulance is 991, cave rescue 992, coast guard 993, fire brigade 994, militia 995 mountain rescue 996, police 997, rescue 998, and zebra removal 999.

What do we do?

Hang on...we have a different number for different services. Ambulance is 991, cave rescue 992, coast guard 993, fire brigade 994, militia 995 mountain rescue 996, police 997, rescue 998, and zebra removal 999.

What do we do?

Well if suppose we did have different numbers. And your house was burning. Wouldn't it be just horrifying to get to your phone and have to try to remember which of the 9 numbers was for the fire brigade while smoke fills your lungs suffocating you by the seconds. Just saying....

It's in alphabetical order to make life easier. It helps having more then one number for budgetting reasons...

It's in alphabetical order to make life easier. It helps having more then one number for budgetting reasons...

I have to say it works in the sense that more numbers would result in faster response to emergencies since each source has its own number. But try teaching all those numbers to a kid... of age 5. And alphabetical order doesn't really help all that much...

Yes, we used to have a single number, but we changed that when a large fire broke out and due to mishearing 400 vans from the zebra removal force turned up...

Yes, we used to have a single number, but we changed that when a large fire broke out and due to mishearing 400 vans from the zebra removal force turned up...

Hah... that's a knee slapper. Although that stinks to be caught up in that kind of accident. eh? Well why do you need another number if the fault lies in where the reciever misheard?

In the USA and Kedalfax numbers are like this:
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
the first 3 are the area code, which designates the area of the call.

the next three are sometimes called the exchange, which narrows it down further.

the last four are just your number.


So let's take the number of the Albany FBI branch. (518) 465-7551 (I've never seen a real FBI agent before ;) )

The 518 means basically most of NE New York State.

The 465 means Albany, NY, usualy on the South side. (Where it is, BTW)

And the 7551 is just the number that they got. Those are usualy given out in order.
That is not the case in population dense areas or areas with a high level of fax, mobile or DSL lines. Western Washington has an area code overlay. 360 for most of the non-metro parts of that half of the state, 253 for the Tacoma region, 206 for Seattle, 425 for Everett & Bellevue, and 564 is coming which will overlay both 425 and 206. And cell phones REALLY screw up the situation.

I'm trying to figure out why the UN is wasting time and effort on something so insignificant and unnecessary. If you're traveling abroad, here's a notion: learn the emergency number of the destination country! There. I just saved a lot of time and no small amount of money.

Next issue, please!

EDIT: Isn't there a RL vs NS component problem to this proposal as well? It seems a lot of the justifications/examples are RL justifications/examples.

EDIT: Isn't there a RL vs NS component problem to this proposal as well? It seems a lot of the justifications/examples are RL justifications/examples.
Although in this case, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In NS, there'd be 30,000 nations' emergency numbers to learn, so some standardisation might be more needed.

I'm trying to figure out why the UN is wasting time and effort on something so insignificant and unnecessary. If you're traveling abroad, here's a notion: learn the emergency number of the destination country! There. I just saved a lot of time and no small amount of money.

Next issue, please!

EDIT: Isn't there a RL vs NS component problem to this proposal as well? It seems a lot of the justifications/examples are RL justifications/examples.

Scenario: You're driving in your country and get hit by a car ... the only witness is a foreigner who runs to call for help.

Does a standard number make a bit more sense now that YOUR life is on the line?


Scenario 2: Foreigner who just spent tons of money purchasing t-shirts and good food just got hit by a car ... the only witness is her boyfriend who runs to call for help ... she, being blonde and all, doesn't know the Intolerancandia number for emergency services, so help doesn't arrive in time. She goes home and tells people about what a backasswards country Intolerancandia is, and tourists stop going there ... and the Intolerancandia economy goes down.

Does a standard number make a bit more sense now that YOUR economy is connected?

Scenario 3: One of your own citizens travels to Farawayplace and manages to pull off a finger while trying to hop a fence (don't ask why ... he doesn't even remember). Farawayplace managed to stop the bleeding, but since he couldn't get aid fast enough he now has a carrot for a thumb and is bad mouthing your nation for not teaching him about what the emergency phone numbers are in the rest of the world.

Put the international number in your pledge of allegance ... it really isn't that hard, and it really can save your nation's lawyers some annoying headaches in the future (remembering that lawyers usually earn a premium for their services, it is always best to have them focusing on improtant things -- not carrot thumbs). ;)

Which of course raises the question: How is it any more convenient for tourists to learn the international number for emergency services than it is for them simply to look up the emergency number in the nation they're visiting in the first place?

OOC: When I travel in Europe I like to visit multiple countries, which means a ton of planning ... but let's pretend that the Dutch and the Germans decide to use some similar signs and numbers for emergency situtations ... obviously it will allow me to focus on avoiding trouble instead of memorizing different ways to deal with it once it happens.

IC:
Mikitivity actually isn't that attached to our emergency response numbers that we aren't willing to simply adopt the international standard. It simply seems that if we can respond to emergencies faster, that it will reduce the costs associated with emergency response. It isn't as if somebody is really trying to take away our national indentity, but instead is trying to remove a barrier to tourism.

Mikitivity actually isn't that attached to our emergency response numbers that we aren't willing to simply adopt the international standard. It simply seems that if we can respond to emergencies faster, that it will reduce the costs associated with emergency response. It isn't as if somebody is really trying to take away our national indentity, but instead is trying to remove a barrier to tourism.Well, er, you aren't required to change your emergency number; you're only required to make "112" a relay to whatever emergency hotline your nation already uses. We find this provision acceptable.

In addition, this bill does not affect area code dialing in nations, as in most zones you have to dial the country code first -- so unless your country code is "1," "11," or "112," and you're in the United Nations, this does not affect you. Again, we find this reasonable.

We are also satisfied by the explanation that a uniform dialing code would make emergencies while traveling across multiple nations easier to handle. Just be sure all the nations you travel in are UN nations.

What we haven't yet been satisfied by is any sort of explanation as to why this is even necessary, and not a curious or trivial matter for an international organization as this one.

What we haven't yet been satisfied by is any sort of explanation as to why this is even necessary, and not a curious or trivial matter for an international organization as this one.

Trivial is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. We strongly support this resolution because it will have positive benefits for people of all NSUN nations who travel internationally. It's not going to save the world, but it will make the world a bit safer for our people who travel around it. It will place help at their fingertips rather than being hidden in a 400-page phone book, perhaps written in a language strange to them.

It's a matter for an international organization because it's clearly and fundamentally international in scope. That's one of the criteria my nation uses in deciding our position on NSUN resolutions, and this resolution passes that test with flying colors.

I can't see dismissing a resolution just because it doesn't do grand things. Doing good things is worthwhile, too. The time for objecting that a resolution is too trivial to deserve the attention of the Assembly is before it reaches the queue. Once it comes to a vote, it has the attention of the Assembly, like it or not.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

The Free Land of Saintlyland commends the creators of this UN legislation for actually creating a piece of legislation that should be UN jurisdiction. Why? Because if my nation doesn't enact this plan, it does negatively affect your nation, so I feel that the majority of UN nations has a right to decide whether or not we should enact this plan in all UN nations.

However, it overlooks one critical point - those nations who have area codes or other phone numbers that start with the numbers "112". Implimenting this plan in those nations would require that millions of phone numbers be changed, causing chaos and a humungous financial burden on that nation. Additionaly, what about the nation(s) whose code (for international calls) is "112" or some derivative thereof? Enacting this resolution would totally change all that and present far too many problems. Everyone would have to be notified of the changes (everyone in every nation - not just UN nations either) or else we are left with even greater problems. So while I like the spirit behind this plan, I must vote AGAINST it until a solution for said problem can be created.

Another interesting point to bring up is the fact that traveling tourists will have to be aware of what nations are UN nations and what ones aren't UN nations in order for this to work. I personally don't know half of the nations that are members of the UN in real life, and the average person in NationStates isn't going to know if he can rely on "112" working or if he is going to have to find the approrpiate number. To be safe, he'll want to find the appropriate number, and this resolution would accomplish absolutely nothing since it would be the same as it is now if we don't (and we can't) enact this plan in all nations.

I acknowledge that a solution might not be forthcoming in this case, but in order to protect the many nations (all of them, actually) that would be harmed by enacting this plan, I must vote against it and adamantly request that we block the passage of this resolution.

Sincerely,

Saintlyland
UN Delegate for the region of Republicans

First, I'd like to thank Ambassador Thwerdock for answering the question as to the need. We aren't talking about saving the world with a single resolution, but many of our governments that support this resolution do honestly believe we'll be possibly saving lives.

Second, I'd like to specifically address a point that several ambassadors have brought up, including the honorable Ambassador from Saintlyland -- the idea that an initiative to standardize international emergency response numbers is exclusive to UN members. The short answer is it isn't. Non-UN members are free to use the same number.

UN resolutions, by the very nature of this organization which has voluntary memership, are in fact recommendations. Oh, there are some ambassadors that probably can be best described as having very "active" imaginations and will tell you on and on about little Den Jays ... I mean gnomes will come in and run their governments for them. I'm still convinced most of these honored members are simply teasing us with these children's fantasies. But what is real is the fact that we've always had the ability to determine what a UN resolution means ... thus suggesting that they are recommendations or statements of international will.

And as such, the point of this body is to serve as an organ for international cooperation ... which this resolution is. By passing a standard for an international emergency number, all we are doing is taking the lead ... but there is no reason why other non-UN member states can't benefit from this particular resolution. In fact, I'd like to strongly encourage that they consider the benefits of switching over as well.

Howie T. Katzman

As a showing of good faith, the Hack will voluntarily adopt the '112' emergency number regardless the result of this vote. We have no real love for the UN, but we do rather enjoy your tourist chits. Dollars. Yen. Pounds. Whatever crazy system you use.

As our telecommunications infrastructure is entirely digital, it's a simple matter to flag '112' as an emergency number to be automatically routed to our existing emergency services. In fact, Anesca has just updated our system, bringing us into "compliance" with this piece of legislation.

Should this pass, we would be more than willing to help nations make the transition, should they have old or antiquated systems. Even with analog systems, it's not too complicated a process. We would be willing to do this for a reasonable fee. And I actually mean reasonable. Note the lack of quotation marks.

- Dr. Josef Specter
Nominal Head of the Oligarchy
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

However, it overlooks one critical point - those nations who have area codes or other phone numbers that start with the numbers "112". Implimenting this plan in those nations would require that millions of phone numbers be changed, causing chaos and a humungous financial burden on that nation. Additionaly, what about the nation(s) whose code (for international calls) is "112" or some derivative thereof? Enacting this resolution would totally change all that and present far too many problems. Everyone would have to be notified of the changes (everyone in every nation - not just UN nations either) or else we are left with even greater problems. So while I like the spirit behind this plan, I must vote AGAINST it until a solution for said problem can be created.

I'm not ready to accept that this resolution would require changing "millions" of phone numbers. I have no idea how many area codes would need to be changed (if any), and I can't see how the representative of SaintlyLand could know that, either. Also, when an area code is changed, the numbers for individual phones within the area remain the same. In the mythical land of RL, area codes and the borders of served areas have been changed many times, and we're unaware of any "humungous financial burden" or "chaos" that resulted.


Another interesting point to bring up is the fact that traveling tourists will have to be aware of what nations are UN nations and what ones aren't UN nations in order for this to work. I personally don't know half of the nations that are members of the UN in real life, and the average person in NationStates isn't going to know if he can rely on "112" working or if he is going to have to find the approrpiate number. To be safe, he'll want to find the appropriate number, and this resolution would accomplish absolutely nothing since it would be the same as it is now if we don't (and we can't) enact this plan in all nations.

Now, stop and think about this.... I'm going on a business trip that will take me to five countries in three weeks. [OOC: I've done this twice in RL.] Is it easier for me to know or find out if they're all NSUN members or to memorize five different emergency numbers? And you're also assuming that non-member states will ignore this program, which the representative of Mikitivity has pointed out is a flawed assumption.

Is the resolution perfect? Probably not. Is it a good, solid, worthwhile one that deserves support? I say it is.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Micro manageing at its finest!
Is redirecting ONE number really that hard?


It blocks a better worder version
Obviously it blocks a duplicate version, but that's always what repeals are for.


Woohoo! I am officially no longer a newb!
...
Did someone say copyright?
Like my word is law, oh wait...
I'm going to pretend I didn't see that.


I like the sig... except for the formatting. Do positive numbers indicate you lean towards the 2nd number? What's the scale? I'd love a link to a good website for those tests.
I didn't, I got rid of it. You realize it was satirical?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
http://www.moral-politics.com/
http://www.okcupid.com/politics


That is a matter of significant debate, and should have been irrelevant to this Resolution except that the Resolution indirectly makes privatizing a formerly public system extremely difficult if not impossible.
You could wiggle out of the resolution via clause four, "This resolution shall not require member nations which do not already have emergency services or such communication devices to establish or introduce them."
If you don't have a public emergency reposnse service, you may not have to introduce anything.

Razat is for this. It probably won't benefit Razat, since we get very few tourists, and our phone system isn't very reliable. But it will benefit Razatian citizens who travel to other nations.

In the mythical land of RL, area codes and the borders of served areas have been changed many times, and we're unaware of any "humungous financial burden" or "chaos" that resulted.

Now, stop and think about this.... I'm going on a business trip that will take me to five countries in three weeks. [OOC: I've done this twice in RL.]

OOC:
Concord California (my folks' home) has had *3* area codes since 1990:

415
510
925

Davis California (my home) has had *2* since 1995:

916
530

I suspect that at least a fifth of the US adult population has similar stories. No big deal. :)


5 countries in 3 weeks! Have fun! :) Take pictures, steal all the cool sites and incorporate them into your country via NSWiki! I'm slowly mixing Germany, Switzerland, California, Pennsylvania, and Oregon into Mikitivity. It is extremely fun, as it makes me think back about my trips and wonder what experiences I really loved the most.

OOC:

5 countries in 3 weeks! Have fun! :) Take pictures, steal all the cool sites and incorporate them into your country via NSWiki! I'm slowly mixing Germany, Switzerland, California, Pennsylvania, and Oregon into Mikitivity. It is extremely fun, as it makes me think back about my trips and wonder what experiences I really loved the most.

OOC:

Heh. The five countries in three weeks trips were a couple of decades ago. Now, you're lucky if you can get me to go across town. Your comment about incorporating experiences in foreign lands in your NS nations is interesting. I've been amused to find how tiny bits of Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Oman, India, the Bahamas, Vietnam and Singapore have shown up in my thinking about Ausserland and my puppets. Never took pictures, though. Bought postcards instead. ;)

As always I have taken an exorbitant amount of time reviewing all sides of the debate, have thought long and hard on the pros and cons, as well as read and reread this proposal. We see an initiative that will establish a standard emergency number in most UN nations allowing someone to get help regardless of the country they are in at their time of crisis. While it is true that many UN nations will not or can not implement this, for various reasons, we strongly disagree with all assertions that this renders it useless.

Even if it does not effect some nations, I do believe most will fall under its jurisdiction. A person in the modern age has the ability to travel farther in one day than most people in the distant past would travel in thier whole lives, this proposal ensures that they will have the chance to get help wherever thier feet may take them.

This proposal has the potential to help alot of people, and we in the Free Land of Nagapura feel it would be wrong to condemn those people to injury or death simply because this proposal can't save everyone. I know of nothing that can.

FOR

I have cast Dashanzi's vote in favour.

It seems that a lot of people do not see the following:


IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING NUMBER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE IT!!!!!

ergo,

IF YOUR CITIZENS ARE USED TO DIALING ONE NUMBER, IT DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!


For those of you who have 911, that's what this 112 or whatever number it is is. You dial the number, an operator asks you what's wrong, and sends appropriate services.

If your nation does not have a service like that, you are not forced to make one.

but if you do have an emergency number, you ARE forced to implement it

As well as the fact that in other similar organisations, participating nations may ignore resolutions, in this particular reality, that is not an option

I have to say it works in the sense that more numbers would result in faster response to emergencies since each source has its own number. But try teaching all those numbers to a kid... of age 5. And alphabetical order doesn't really help all that much...

try teaching a kid of 5 to call an emergency service *and* give relevant info on what happened before you worry about that

Yes, we used to have a single number, but we changed that when a large fire broke out and due to mishearing 400 vans from the zebra removal force turned up...

Perhaps you could try making '990' a general-purpose emergency-response number, too, for people who can't (or don't want to) memorise all of the different ones and for the international number to redirect to?

I personally don't know half of the nations that are members of the UN in real life,

OOC: in RL? Just about every nation on Earth, apart from the two Koreas (because they're technically still two parts of a single nation, divided by civil war?), Taiwan (because Red China would veto an application for their reinstatement as a separate nation), and some of the tiny ones such as Monaco (whose foreign policy is handled by France) and the Vatican...

I am opposed to this resolution because it assumes WAY too much.

1. It assumes "communication device" == "telephone"
2. It assumes numbers are used in the first place
3. On top it assumes these numbers are base 10

2. It assumes numbers are used in the first place
3. On top it assumes these numbers are base 10Both of these are perfectly reasonable assumptions.

Both of these are perfectly reasonable assumptions.

I dunno, the Kennyite representative wrote this down when I asked for a number at which I could reach him:

#%&@ $*%!

Both of these are perfectly reasonable assumptions.
I think he might just have been taking the piss.

Tekania... you were taking the piss, right?

I am opposed to this resolution because it assumes WAY too much.

1. It assumes "communication device" == "telephone"
2. It assumes numbers are used in the first place
3. On top it assumes these numbers are base 10Oh, goodie. Wanking. I just held my nose:

Boricuastan's vote FOR International Emergency Number has been noted.

I am opposed to this resolution because it assumes WAY too much.

1. It assumes "communication device" == "telephone"
2. It assumes numbers are used in the first place
3. On top it assumes these numbers are base 10

Actually, you may have a point on #2. In certain unnamed countries *cough*USA*cough* some businesses use letters in their numbers, though you can also dial them with numbers only. It's not unreasonable to think that some nation might use letters exclusively.

Umm, why did you need to cough the USA's name just now?

I am opposed to this resolution because it assumes WAY too much.

1. It assumes "communication device" == "telephone"
2. It assumes numbers are used in the first place
3. On top it assumes these numbers are base 10

1. Maybe so.
2. Maybe so.
3. Surely the designated number, '112', would work for any base higher than base 2?

Umm, why did you need to cough the USA's name just now?
'Cos it's an OOC reference?

'Cos it's an OOC reference?

Yup!

Fairly interesting that you can count on over twenty-four hundred UN members to oppose a phone number. Ahh, direct democracy.

I dunno, the Kennyite representative wrote this down when I asked for a number at which I could reach him:

#%&@ $*%!

The Kennyite's are an interesting and entertaining lot.

OOC: In my mom's lifetime your phone number was your street address. I think she and my dad also predate zip codes!!!

Fairly interesting that you can count on over twenty-four hundred UN members to oppose a phone number.

so true!

There is a technical catch in mobile phones. If you need to dial an emergency call and happens to be close to another nation's border that nation's mobile net might be the first choice unless the dialer has adjusted the mobile phone from automatic to manual choice of operator.

Clarification: A scenario which will be true when (/if) the resolution has taken effect.

There is a technical catch in mobile phones. If you need to dial an emergency call and happens to be close to another nation's border that nation's mobile net might be the first choice unless the dialer has adjusted the mobile phone from automatic to manual choice of operator....and if there's a universal emergency number, that won't matter in the slightest.

In my homelands, our national animals are fierce and savage beasts that roam the lands at will, and I feel it is a basic right of all tourists--human or not--to have access to swift emergency care in the event that they are caught out by one of these creatures. Furthermore, considering that the average resident knows how to avoid werewolf attack as best as possible, it will indeed usually fall to the lot of the hapless tourist to be the one caught out more often than not.

So it is in the interest of having a clean conscience--and more importantly, a booming travel industry--that I, leader of the Nomadic Peoples of Lycanthropa, hereby acknowledge my agreement with the current proposal before the United Nations, and cast my vote for there to be a universal emergency number.

Mephi, High Clawlord of Lycanthropa

I will not have my country being run by the International community, I will not relinquish further powers to the UN.

Now they are but asking for a universal telephone number, but this will inexorably lead to them proposing to take control of the emergency services.

The UN should be used to solve international crises and impose sanctions, not to aim to become a superpower in its own right.

I am voting, therefore, against the universal telephone number, but will however comply with UN mandate on this occasion, regardless of the result.

...and if there's a universal emergency number, that won't matter in the slightest.
I admit it might not be a big problem, although there must be a system that counts on those occations by letting the caller choose where to call among two or three nations with strong connection. The technique probably supports that, but it will somewhat complicate the call. Is it worth it? Besides - I doubt the telephone companies will cheer this resolution.

Fairly interesting that you can count on over twenty-four hundred UN members to oppose a phone number. Ahh, direct democracy.

Well, it's perfectly logical that there is opposition, the resolution is feel-good fluff which was poorly thought out.

If it only required nations with telephone systems which use a number sequence for reaching other parties to impliment this "112", I would have no problem with it. It assumes all national telecommunication systems are of the typical telephone-type.

Of course, if you would like I could bill your nation-state the 32 billion TC it will cost to refit our system so foreigners can "dial" "112".

The only problem I have with the number 112 is that somebody such as a kid might dial the number by accident because the numbers are so close together. If we had a number such as 911 mistakes would be harder to make because the number 9 is far away from the number 1 on the phone.

I got distracted, & therefore forgot to mention this earlier _
The emergency-response number that's currently used in the 'Godwinnian Commonwealth nations (including the St Edmundan Antarctic), which was chosen because its numbers aren't next to each other on the dial and aren't all at one end of the sequence either, is one that coincidentally should be familiar to many 'Modern-Tech' travellers: '747'...

Well, it's perfectly logical that there is opposition, the resolution is feel-good fluff which was poorly thought out.

If it only required nations with telephone systems which use a number sequence for reaching other parties to impliment this "112", I would have no problem with it. It assumes all national telecommunication systems are of the typical telephone-type.

Of course, if you would like I could bill your nation-state the 32 billion TC it will cost to refit our system so foreigners can "dial" "112".I thought I told you to quit wanking? End the fucking vote already. :rolleyes:

Well Tekania, what would you suggest? An International Emergency Breakdance perhaps?

Hi! I live in the President's yard. .... Just kidding.;) Just wondering how are you guys doin.

I got distracted, & therefore forgot to mention this earlier _
The emergency-response number that's currently used in the 'Godwinnian Commonwealth nations (including the St Edmundan Antarctic), which was chosen because its numbers aren't next to each other on the dial and aren't all at one end of the sequence either, is one that coincidentally should be familiar to many 'Modern-Tech' travellers: '747'...

The numbers 7 and 4 are actualy right next to each other.
See:
123
456
789
0

At least that's how it is on all the phones I've ever seen. But I agree that it is a good number. One of many good numbers for this. I was personaly for using 911. It's great for dialing out of office buildings and schools, because it becomes 9911.

Ceorana wholeheartedly supports this resolution and will cast its vote in the affirmative.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Scenario: You're driving in your country and get hit by a car ... the only witness is a foreigner who runs to call for help.

Does a standard number make a bit more sense now that YOUR life is on the line?


Scenario 2: Foreigner who just spent tons of money purchasing t-shirts and good food just got hit by a car ... the only witness is her boyfriend who runs to call for help ... she, being blonde and all, doesn't know the Intolerancandia number for emergency services, so help doesn't arrive in time. She goes home and tells people about what a backasswards country Intolerancandia is, and tourists stop going there ... and the Intolerancandia economy goes down.

Does a standard number make a bit more sense now that YOUR economy is connected?

Scenario 3: One of your own citizens travels to Farawayplace and manages to pull off a finger while trying to hop a fence (don't ask why ... he doesn't even remember). Farawayplace managed to stop the bleeding, but since he couldn't get aid fast enough he now has a carrot for a thumb and is bad mouthing your nation for not teaching him about what the emergency phone numbers are in the rest of the world.

Put the international number in your pledge of allegance ... it really isn't that hard, and it really can save your nation's lawyers some annoying headaches in the future (remembering that lawyers usually earn a premium for their services, it is always best to have them focusing on improtant things -- not carrot thumbs). ;)
Oh, very well. VOTE REVERSED. FOR.

It's getting so you can't even be a curmudgeon in the UN anymore, or even try to promote the tourist version of passive eugenics!

Mikitivity, you always have been persuasive.

Howie T. Katzman

Read much Clive Barker?

The numbers 7 and 4 are actualy right next to each other.
See:
123
456
789
0

At least that's how it is on all the phones I've ever seen. But I agree that it is a good number. One of many good numbers for this. I was personaly for using 911. It's great for dialing out of office buildings and schools, because it becomes 9911.

We introduced the number back when we still used phones that had the numbers arranged in a ring around a dial, and when we went over to push-button technology instead we took that detail into account _

123
654
789
0

If it only required nations with telephone systems which use a number sequence for reaching other parties to impliment this "112", I would have no problem with it. It assumes all national telecommunication systems are of the typical telephone-type.
I don't understand. Surely your nation has some sort of method of person-to-person communication, and some sort of emergency service that can be reached over that network? As long as there's more than one person on this network and citizens have some sort of say in who they get to talk to when they interface with the system, setting up a redirection to emergency services would be a lot easier and less expensive than the figures you seem to be basing your dissention on.

The government of Telidia is in full support of this most sensible resolution.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I will not have my country being run by the International community, I will not relinquish further powers to the UN.



correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that what you asked for when you applied to be a UN member?

just my opinion...;)

^ Yep, part of being in the UN is you have to do what the average country wants. And the average country, like the average person, isn't too smart.

Myso-Kamia, like any decent nation should, already has a simple means of contacting the emergency services. There is nothing to be gained be having two identical means of establishing the contact.

Any traveller to any other country can very easily learn the emergency code. It's a lot easy than memorizing any other bit of information that people rountinely memorize.

This resolution is completely worthless. It adds a useless redundancy that punishes all nations intelligent enough to have an emergency service, and does nothing to the nations who actually need something done about theirs.

*Bob returns from his vacation just in time to hear^ Yep, part of being in the UN is you have to do what the average country wants. And the average country, like the average person, isn't too smart.

Myso-Kamia, like any decent nation should, already has a simple means of contacting the emergency services. There is nothing to be gained be having two identical means of establishing the contact.

Any traveller to any other country can very easily learn the emergency code. It's a lot easy than memorizing any other bit of information that people rountinely memorize. That is of course unless you happen to be someone who travels to other countries frequently, like myself, in which case it can become quite difficult to keep straight that you have to reach emergency services you call 911 in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, 112 in Maxtopia, 555 in Redneck Mechanics, etc. etc. Whereas having one number that will connect you to emergency services no matter what UN nation you're in eliminates that problem.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Are we seriously considering this? How did this even GET to a vote? :mad:

Rome is burning, but let's figure out a phone system that will allow tourists that can't follow simple emergency instructions to report when their traveler's checks have been lifted.

For crying out loud -- Don't we have more important things to do than to enforce upon sovereign nations how it operates its emergency services?

And who's going to pay for this? Will wealthier nations be allocated more costs than those liberally impoverished cesspools that suffocate in the exhaust of their own idealism?

The ever present mind of Greedandmoria feels it should submit a proposed resolution on the table that bans "freeloading nations" from submitting proposals which require less than equal premiums spent by the said freeloading nations, and more by the nations that promote capitalism. This should, thereby, cease the financial support of the idiotic notion of communistic happiness by member nations of the UN.

WHERE: "Freeloading Nations" be those that run at a budget deficit because of over spending on federally funded special interest groups and liberal policies of public welfare.

... but I'm sure the baby-aborting, tree-hugging UN member nations that would vote on Greedandmoria's resolution would feel differently...

Booya! :D

How did this even GET to a vote?
Delegate approvals.


Don't we have more important things to do than to enforce upon sovereign nations how it operates its emergency services?
This resolution doesn't place any requirements on your emergency personnel; it requires you to redirect one phone number to existing emergency response services.


And who's going to pay for this? Will wealthier nations be allocated more costs than those liberally impoverished cesspools that suffocate in the exhaust of their own idealism?
You are... and what? The resolution specifically states that those nations without emergency response teams will not have to set ones up. Thus, past tech, and extremely poor nations lacking infrastructure won't be affected.


The ever present mind of Greedandmoria feels it should submit a proposed resolution on the table that bans "freeloading nations" from submitting proposals which require less than equal premiums spent by the said freeloading nations, and more by the nations that promote capitalism.
Sounds illegal, but you could get a mod ruling on that.


WHERE: "Freeloading Nations" be those that run at a budget deficit because of over spending on federally funded special interest groups and liberal policies of public welfare.
It doesn't take liberal policies of public welfare to run a deficit.


... but I'm sure the baby-aborting, tree-hugging UN member nations that would vote on Greedandmoria's resolution would feel differently...
No, I'm sure the mods would delete it for being illegal.

For crying out loud -- Don't we have more important things to do than to enforce upon sovereign nations how it operates its emergency services?

And who's going to pay for this? Will wealthier nations be allocated more costs than those liberally impoverished cesspools that suffocate in the exhaust of their own idealism?

It's just redirecting one number to another. Individuals set them up all the time. Is that so terribly expensive for a national government? Asking you to redirect 112 calls to whatever you already have is enforcing how you operate your emergency service?

The ever present mind of Greedandmoria feels it should submit a proposed resolution on the table that bans "freeloading nations" from submitting proposals which require less than equal premiums spent by the said freeloading nations, and more by the nations that promote capitalism. This should, thereby, cease the financial support of the idiotic notion of communistic happiness by member nations of the UN.

Uh, I'm pretty sure such a resolution would break several rules for UN proposals. In any case what on earth are you on about? Communist nations have hardly been "freeloading" on anything. Our socialist utopia supports itself very well, thank you. In fact we have a surplus this year. You want some foreign aid? Have some foreign aid. Take it. TAKE IT.

WHERE: "Freeloading Nations" be those that run at a budget deficit because of over spending on federally funded special interest groups and liberal policies of public welfare.

Are you aware that there are sound economic reasons why a government might want to run a deficit? Or that not all countries are run on federation systems? Or that to many people "liberal" means right wing? Or that this is even more of a sovereignity violation than you are complaining about?

The mandate to retain the individual number is maintained and just links this with a universal number. The UK, for example, already uses 999 and 911 and in some of the larger towns and cities 112 so the ability to use any of the numbers would be preferable BUT to use a singular number would be beneficial. No doubt there would many disagreements as to what that number would be...but retaining the country's own preference and allowing a universal number does make sense

Don't we have more important things to do than to enforce upon sovereign nations how it operates its emergency services?


Probably Yes...but we cannot ignore one issue in preference of another when no time scale is imposed upon us.

If Greedandmoria would like to inform me of an immediately relevant issue we should be debating in place of this obviously useful, simple and unquestionable resolution I would listen gladly but for now lets all just pass this resolution and stop bickering over something so obviously helpful...

:fluffle:

For crying out loud -- Don't we have more important things to do than to enforce upon sovereign nations how it operates its emergency services?

For crying out loud, all you have to do is re-direct a phone call. Surely it can't be that expensive?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

For crying out loud, all you have to do is re-direct a phone call. Surely it can't be that expensive?

Indeed! Most members no doubt use non-geographic numbers within their telecommunications systems already. All this resolution establishes is a common non-geographic number to be used across member states routed to existing emergency services. Implementing this will require little more cost than establishing a new free phone or local call number.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I don't understand. Surely your nation has some sort of method of person-to-person communication, and some sort of emergency service that can be reached over that network? As long as there's more than one person on this network and citizens have some sort of say in who they get to talk to when they interface with the system, setting up a redirection to emergency services would be a lot easier and less expensive than the figures you seem to be basing your dissention on.

Except of course if the system does not use an entered series of numerical digits to route calls in the first place....

Well Tekania, what would you suggest? An International Emergency Breakdance perhaps?

I have no problem with allowing telephone networks to use "112" internationally, I object to it being required in all forms of communication systems, since it does not factor in the variability in forms of communication systems in use.... The author should have limited the scope to "telephone" networks only.

I thought I told you to quit wanking? End the fucking vote already. :rolleyes:

Yes, you directed that towards me, but you're not my master, and you have no capability to actually command me to do anything, child.

Perhaps Tekwankania would be more appropriate... ;)

Yes, you directed that towards me, but you're not my master, and you have no capability to actually command me to do anything, child.Play nice. No need to start petty name calling.

It is with sadistic pleasure that I announce:

The resolution International Emergency Number was passed 9,531 votes to 3,521, and implemented in all UN member nations.Let us all bow our heads in shame for all those nations that don't use numbers. :rolleyes:

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE!

As if we hadn't known since yesterday that this would pass.

It is with sadistic pleasure that I announce:

Let us all bow our heads in shame for all those nations that don't use numbers. :rolleyes:

<adopts Nelson Muntz voice>

"Ha-ha!"

May the blessings of our otters be upon all those who voted for this glorious resolution!

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

Let us all bow our heads in shame for all those nations that don't use numbers. :rolleyes:I suspect there are a few nations out there with that sort of problem. Luckily several school teachers are available to educate their governments in how to count. Sadly, there is only so much a decent education can do for such people.

Perhaps Tekwankania would be more appropriate... ;)

OOC: Grow up. If you feel the need to call people names, keep your mouth shut. Anyway, I'm filing an official grievance against you.

I suspect there are a few nations out there with that sort of problem. Luckily several school teachers are available to educate their governments in how to count. Sadly, there is only so much a decent education can do for such people.

It has nothing to do with the lack of knowing numbers, it's the lack of using them in the first place. Who ever said that numbers MUST be used as a system of contact in a nations communication system, there are other options such as keyed or verbal entry of organizational/personal names/addresses with or without a system of visual/auditory icons for service selections.

Play nice. No need to start petty name calling.

I didn't start any name calling. I have been playing nice.

I have no problem with allowing telephone networks to use "112" internationally, I object to it being required in all forms of communication systems, since it does not factor in the variability in forms of communication systems in use.... The author should have limited the scope to "telephone" networks only.

No, the author should not.

We all play this game, which features daily issues which *do* assume modern day technology ... do you regularly complain to the moderators / game admins about that too?

Give proposal authors a break, because if they had to accomidate for "Unicorns, Kittens, and 'stuff'", our proposals would be considerably longer and do far less. Use some of that creativity for your roleplay to just work around a way to either address the spirit of the resolution or thumb your nose at it -- bearing in mind that the POINT of coming to places like this forum is to get *some* feedback from others, thus whatever you do should appeal to at least some audience besides thy shelf.

Yeah, people's shelfs have really started to become high maintenance these days. :D

Well said Mikitivity.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

And you too, good nation!

The UN is approving every little piece of insignificant legislation... shouldn't we be discussing more relevant issues? What kind of man-monkey can't dial 911, or 999, etc??? Jeeziecreezie!!! :p