NationStates Jolt Archive

OP = Wrong again

Sorry for wasting your time and forum space.
At least I learned something. :D

Grossly illegal. Much like your signature.

Grossly illegal. Much like your signature.

I'm sorry you disagree with my take on the issue, but I've been in the UN for more than 3 years and am very concerned about the current trend.

Also, I'm perfectly happy to change my signature. Besides making it smaller, is there anything else you don't like about it?

I'm sorry you disagree with my take on the issue, but I've been in the UN for more than 3 years and am very concerned about the current trend.And I wrote the rules that bind all Proposals. Guess who wins?

Also, I'm perfectly happy to change my signature. Besides making it smaller, is there anything else you don't like about it?8 lines is the limit; other than that, I don't much care.

Unless you decide to put everything in some ridiculously huge font... ;)

This is a lampoon, a conversation starter. It's not meant to evoke flaming et al, but rather to promote thought and discussion.

Hey, I have a great idea. Leave the UN! That'd about solve your problem with it.

GIVEN that all nations should have the right to decide however they'd like on issues,
That's not a given. And if they wanna, they can leave.

APPRECIATING that the UN is the only way regions and nations have any measurable "power" in the NS world,
Que? Not compared to nations outside of the UN.

ACKNOWLEDGING that this might upset some who have spent years trying to make the UN a more socially, politically, and economically progressive organization,
You give yourself too much credit to think that anyone is likely to be so moved by this to be put into a bad mood.

REALIZING that some nations “just want to have fun” with the aforesaid aspects of their nation while others were created by people with “unconventional beliefs” in the first place,
"Aforesaid"? Kinda like splendiferous or something....
Why do you keep putting phrases into quotes?

IGNORING that UN resolutions have a far less greater effect on regions than some people perceive them to have,
Is that so?

Ignore
With pleasure.

DISREGARDING that the a “UN” should be an organization that seeks to improve (or at least make a statement on) the social, political, and economic welfare of all the citizens of its constituent nations,
Why? And why is UN in quotes?

REPEALS every resolution created by the UN in the name of “freedom”
... And oppression, and civil dischord, and economic exploitation, and environmental destruction and...

Why is freedom in quotes? Why.... Just...

Just "Why?".

Hey, I have a great idea. Leave the UN! That'd about solve your problem with it.

I've been in the UN longer than you've been around. I've seen it make great strides in all issues, and now I see it coming to a point when people find it necessary to waver simply because some nations feel that resolutions are too "encroaching."

That's not a given. And if they wanna, they can leave.

Actually, it is a given with NS. It's just not a given with the UN. And either way, it was sarcasm, much like the rest of the proposal.


Que? Not compared to nations outside of the UN.

Having UN status is the only way to endorse a UN Delegate is (basically) the only way to ensure complete control over the region you inhabit (especially given recent changes) and is a prime factor in measuring Regional Influence. What "powers" exactly do non-UN nations have that UN members don't?

You give yourself too much credit to think that anyone is likely to be so moved by this to be put into a bad mood.

There are others that express discontent with the way the UN has been treating past resolutions. If it wasn't an issue, I wouldn't be posting about it in a region I've never posted in before, nor would votes on recent "repeal" bills have been so divisive.

"Aforesaid"? Kinda like splendiferous or something....
Why do you keep putting phrases into quotes?

Quotes are used not only for verbatim quotations, but also when the speaker is using a phrase that is not characteristic with his diction or beliefs. The "affect" in the poll is quoted from opposing complaints about the UN's policies, though in retrospect it was superfluous.

Moreover, I can't fathom how you can find my use of the word "aforesaid" to be grandiose (I'm sorry, "overly ornate"): I use words because they work in my sentences, not just for the hell of it or to be conceited.

Is that so?

Just because the UN makes a resolution doesn't mean that you can't vote the opposite way on the issue when it comes up. Furthermore, so far as I know, when resolutions affect nations, it is a one time thing (or a long time thing with diminished affect.) And even if it did, that's the purpose of the UN as I see it and how (I feel) it was intended to be.

Also, I simply just use your (incorrect) argument and say that people can "leave if they don't like it" instead of repealing resolutions they don't agree with under the facade of more freedom for nations.

Why? And why is UN in quotes?

I'm not sure whether you failed to grasp my sarcasm or you disagreed with the purpose of a UN. The UN is in quotes for two reasons: it's not the real UN, and it's a commonly applied title in RPs. Also, it has the qualifier "a" in front of it, which often times necessitates the use of quotes following it.

... And oppression, and civil dischord, and economic exploitation, and environmental destruction and...

Now I know how Swift felt.

Why is freedom in quotes? Why.... Just...

Just "Why?".

You place things in quotes if they are not said by you and/or are something you wouldn't say. Thus, I used quotes because I would never make that claim AND because I have heard that claim used by others.

The whole "This is satire" thing wasn't in your post until after mine. The tonelessness of the internet makes it rather difficult to see where people are using sarcasm. And you were either doing so, or... Not doing so.

I didn't mention aforesaid because of its grandiosity, but rather because of its lack of grandiosity. It seems like a watered-down version of aforementioned, a more pompous and high-ball word.

The whole... Bendy... Can't get all...






I'm going to bed now. I'll be more invective-filled when it's not 4 in the morn....

You haven't heard the last from me. -shakes fist-

Apart from your slightly confrontational style, I happen to generally agree with many of your points. Normally I'm more flippant about the issues you raised, and not adverse to raising concerns about the UN being relegated to the role of talking shop.What "powers" exactly do non-UN nations have that UN members dont?Only one I can think of is absolute national soverignty. UN members are "vulnerable" to whatever the UN legislates on. I see that as the trade-off for being able to effectively participate in regional affairs.

Just one note, please don't claim that because you have been in NS longer than nation x or y does not mean you are instantly superior - lots of nations have been about just as long and could be considered absolute idiots, and whilst Norderia happens to be a relative newbie, they happen to be one that shows promise. Secondly, so many nations use puppets, we really cannot assume age of nation is a benchmark to their experience. Thirdly, Saipea is hardly an active participant in the UN forums - if you wish to reverse that trend you are welcome, but you are hardly a regular. I know you float around on other boards, but that means little.

My two non-UN nations are grossly influential nations within my region - really making all 3 of my nations important within the regional politics. I doubt there is a single member from Aberdeen that would tell you the likes of Angel Fire or Forgottenlands does not have a significant impact within the region, even though it is Forgottenlands UN which holds the delegacy position.

Just because not everyone roleplays doesn't mean that non-UN nations have no power. Just because my non-UN nations are powerful thanks to roleplay doesn't mean there isn't a point to having nations outside the UN. From invaders/defenders that are trying to hide their UN puppets in the crowd while their non-UN puppets plan, to people who are just playing to create their utopia, many people find a purpose for not being in the UN. Just because the physical power is applied only to UN nations doesn't mean that's the only power than can exist.

It is a lack of imagination that says non-UN nations have no power.

EDIT: It's like saying the only way to influence the politics of a nation is through a political party. It's the most direct way and certainly a lot easier than many methods, but there are many other ways - from CEOs that make campaign donations to journalists or celebreties (and the people behind them) to these amazingly random professers you've never heard of that get churned up every election making random political speeches.

It is a lack of imagination that says non-UN nations have no power.I should have been clearer, I was only referring to game mechanics. :)

This is SATIRE people!

ForgottenLands: I'd say that my main non-UN nation is actually more powerful than I am. Not only is it active in off-site RP, but it's in a region where the delegate votes based on how its members (UN and non-UN) vote. It's a large region and the delegate has a lot of endos, but since relatively few people actually vote, my non-UN nation has quite a bit of "pull" simply by being one of those few.

If you would like to repeal all resolutions the legal way, just join R&R. ;) :rolleyes:

Just one note, please don't claim that because you have been in NS longer than nation x or y does not mean you are instantly superior.

I didn't mean for it to come out like that. I meant it more as a "How dare you tell me to leave the UN and do nothing to stand up for my beliefs, especially as I've been a member for a relatively long time."

Just because you've been here longer doesn't mean you have any more say than anyone else. However, if you have spent this long standing up for your beliefs to no avail, and now you just want to blow out all resolutions, you'd be better off just leaving the UN. You could stay, but you're unlikely to win.

I get the joke, although I don't think it's especially funny, but my main response is, "...yeah, and?" Speaking from the sovereigntist camp, we know these sort of arguments, and the people who spout them, are stupid - but they'll always continue to be so, no matter how many times this sort of thread crops up.

Just because you've been here longer doesn't mean you have any more say than anyone else. However, if you have spent this long standing up for your beliefs to no avail, and now you just want to blow out all resolutions, you'd be better off just leaving the UN. You could stay, but you're unlikely to win.
It's a satire, FL - he doesn't want to "blow out all resolutions".

ForgottenLands: I'd say that my main non-UN nation is actually more powerful than I am. Not only is it active in off-site RP, but it's in a region where the delegate votes based on how its members (UN and non-UN) vote. It's a large region and the delegate has a lot of endos, but since relatively few people actually vote, my non-UN nation has quite a bit of "pull" simply by being one of those few.

Yes, but in the end, it's the UN nations (namely the Delegate) who can control ejections, repel invasions, edit the WFE, etc.

Besides, you're arguing for my point by asserting that non-UN nations have power. I'm just saying "notwithstanding that UN nations have more power than non-UN nations..."

I get the joke, although I don't think it's especially funny, but my main response is, "...yeah, and?" Speaking from the sovereigntist camp, we know these sort of arguments, and the people who spout them, are stupid - but they'll always continue to be so, no matter how many times this sort of thread crops up.

I might "spout" (though I don't think I have on this thread), but I'm hardly stupid. Please tell me why you (and if you want, why your "camp") disagrees with my ideas concerning what position the UN should take on resolutions.

I might "spout" (though I don't think I have on this thread), but I'm hardly stupid. Please tell me why you (and if you want, why your "camp") disagrees with my ideas concerning what position the UN should take on resolutions.
Okay, I didn't mean to insult you - sorry.

Perhaps I didn't get the joke after all. I had assumed you were making the point that ultrasovereigntists like Gatesville and Change make some pretty silly arguments at times to defend their positions ("IGNORING that UN resolutions have a far less greater effect on regions than some people perceive them to have,"). And were expressing distaste for those who thought human rights should never be considered, only national rights ("DISREGARDING that the a “UN” should be an organization that seeks to improve (or at least make a statement on) the social, political, and economic welfare of all the citizens of its constituent nations,").

That, in essence, you had seen Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, Legalise Euthanasia, and so on, repealed, and in general quite a few repeals passing (more so in previous times), and were concerned that a lot of progressive legislation was going to be stripped away - hence the sarcasm of the poll.

If that's not what you meant, then could you explain?

It's a satire, FL - he doesn't want to "blow out all resolutions".

I get that.....I'm explaining the argument

I get that.....I'm explaining the argument
Ah, ok. I am confused.

This is a satireYeah, satire's usually funny. This isn't.

I've been in the UN longer than you've been around.Oh, is this a status contest?! Well, I've written a resolution*. What have you done?

I've seen it make great strides in all issues, and now I see it coming to a point when people find it necessary to waver simply because some nations feel that resolutions are too "encroaching."Your longevity certainly hasn't taught you much. Most repeals come to fore not because the targeted resolutions "encroach" (which is an illegal argument anyway), but because they only amount to a bunch of flowery, meaningless rhetoric, and don't actually do anything. I wonder what "strides" you believe most of these resolutions have made when they really don't require nations to do anything to advance your stated pet causes?

There are others that express discontent with the way the UN has been treating past resolutions.I know, and they get on my nerves. You're hardly the first to storm onto this forum to bitch and moan about all the repeals; I find your little "satirical" rant self-righteous, self-serving, uninformed, and painfully unoriginal.

Just because the UN makes a resolution doesn't mean that you can't vote the opposite way on the issue when it comes up. Furthermore, so far as I know, when resolutions affect nations, it is a one time thing (or a long time thing with diminished affect.) And even if it did, that's the purpose of the UN as I see it and how (I feel) it was intended to be.From the narrow Gameplay aspect of the game. Speaking from an RP standpoint, compliance is mandatory. Unless you're me.

* It was a repeal. :p

Yes, but in the end, it's the UN nations (namely the Delegate) who can control ejections, repel invasions, edit the WFE, etc.

Besides, you're arguing for my point by asserting that non-UN nations have power. I'm just saying "notwithstanding that UN nations have more power than non-UN nations..."

That depends on what you mean by "power". For passing UN resolutions, my non-UN nation has more clout than my UN does, because of its vote in a region with a powerful delegate. For the regional stuff, my UN nation is more powerful, but only by endorsing the delegate (unless I can con a bunch of people into supporting me as delegate).

Yes, but in the end, it's the UN nations (namely the Delegate) who can control ejections, repel invasions, edit the WFE, etc.

Besides, you're arguing for my point by asserting that non-UN nations have power. I'm just saying "notwithstanding that UN nations have more power than non-UN nations..."
So, a region's founder can do all that without needing to be a UN member, what's your point?

Okay. The guy was trying to make a point about exessive repeals. He made his point, and you guys may or may not agree with him. We have establsiehd it was satire, and not really a repeal. Thus there is no repeal to debate.

Thus, this thread should be locked and everybody go home.

But...but...I wanted to make fun of Saipea. :(

But...but...I wanted to make fun of Saipea. :(

Are you humanly capable of making fun of a random person?

Okay, I didn't mean to insult you - sorry.

Perhaps I didn't get the joke after all. I had assumed you were making the point that ultrasovereigntists like Gatesville and Change make some pretty silly arguments at times to defend their positions ("IGNORING that UN resolutions have a far less greater effect on regions than some people perceive them to have,"). And were expressing distaste for those who thought human rights should never be considered, only national rights ("DISREGARDING that the a “UN” should be an organization that seeks to improve (or at least make a statement on) the social, political, and economic welfare of all the citizens of its constituent nations,").

That, in essence, you had seen Gay Rights, Abortion Rights, Legalise Euthanasia, and so on, repealed, and in general quite a few repeals passing (more so in previous times), and were concerned that a lot of progressive legislation was going to be stripped away - hence the sarcasm of the poll.

If that's not what you meant, then could you explain?

No, you're right, that was what I meant for the most part (and I took no offense.)

But beyond the "controversial" issues, I'm seeing crap such as bills to repeal child labor rules because "some nations aren't developed economically enough." When repeals like that start creeping up, you know something's wrong.

Are you humanly capable of making fun of a random person?

I'm not sure. But Saipea is a fellow Generalite and I'm fairly sure I can make fun of someone I'm familiar with. :cool:

Okay. The guy was trying to make a point about exessive repeals. He made his point, and you guys may or may not agree with him. We have establsiehd it was satire, and not really a repeal. Thus there is no repeal to debate.

Thus, this thread should be locked and everybody go home.

I wasn't aware that the UN Forum was solely for proposals.
I have a valid point and I'd like to discuss it somewhere. Where do you suggest I post this instead?

That depends on what you mean by "power". For passing UN resolutions, my non-UN nation has more clout than my UN does, because of its vote in a region with a powerful delegate. For the regional stuff, my UN nation is more powerful, but only by endorsing the delegate (unless I can con a bunch of people into supporting me as delegate).

"my non-UN nation has more clout than my UN does, because of its vote in a region with a powerful delegate" = My non-UN nation's power stems from a UN Delegate. Also, I don't exactly know what you mean by "clout".

So, a region's founder can do all that without needing to be a UN member, what's your point?

My point is that nations with UN status be they Delegate or member have more power than their fellow nations due to Regional Influence and endorsements and can do more things.


Although I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, I have no desire to argue about it. By disagreeing with my "point", which was actually more of a partial concession to the opposing argument, you simply strengthen my main argument. I repeat, it is tangential to the point of the thread, and it's not worth nitpicking over.

I wasn't aware that the UN Forum was solely for proposals.
I have a valid point and I'd like to discuss it somewhere. Where do you suggest I post this instead?
It isn't.

Here is fine.

Although I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, I have no desire to argue about it. By disagreeing with my "point", which was actually more of a partial concession to the opposing argument, you simply strengthen my main argument. I repeat, it is tangential to the point of the thread, and it's not worth nitpicking over.

Seriously, if all your going to do is bash away at this thread saying that the only way to have power is through the UN, then we're going to show you every single God-damned way we can have power without being a bloody member. Founders have a shitload of power within their region.

And gee, the only way you can have power WITHIN the UN is if you have access to a UN Vote. While various members could probably show you up (and I'm sure if someone like Omigodtheykilledkenny, Waterana, Yelda, Gruenberg, Texan Hotrodders, etc, etc, etc pulled their UN puppets out and didn't replace them, I'm sure they'd still have a shitload of power).

If you're going to say "convincing another member to vote a certain way makes you wield power through another member and therefore you are wielding it through a UN account" just sounds like utter garbage. While we're at it, let's go say how Dubya can influence the UN vote by declaring the Axis of Evil a great threat to the American people therefore encouraging the NSUN to pass a law to fight the Axis of Evil. Yes, the resolution was a joke, but UNR #1 certainly did exist, AND I can assure you that there are many issues where GWB will be able to encourage certain members to vote one way or the other just by making a random speech. I doubt he has, has ever had, nor ever will have an account here, nor would I be surprised if he doesn't know it exists (I also wouldn't be surprised if he did know it existed), yet somehow he still seems to have a bit of power over the NSUN.

Yes, that does seem like such an excellent argument. :rolleyes:

Yeah, satire's usually funny. This isn't.

The only qualification of satire is that it is marked by irony, derision, and/or wit. I'm sorry you didn't find it funny; I don't find it very amusing either.

Oh, is this a status contest?! Well, I've written a resolution*. What have you done?

It was a stupid off the cuff remark to a person who made a stupid reply. I've already acknowledged that. I've written several resolutions (that have never been approved); don't start fights over comments not directed at you.

Your longevity certainly hasn't taught you much. Most repeals come to fore not because the targeted resolutions "encroach" (which is an illegal argument anyway), but because they only amount to a bunch of flowery, meaningless rhetoric, and don't actually do anything. I wonder what "strides" you believe most of these resolutions have made when they really don't require nations to do anything to advance your stated pet causes?

Most of the repeals I've seen have been for the reasons I've given, not for the reasons you've given.

From the narrow Gameplay aspect of the game. Speaking from an RP standpoint, compliance is mandatory. Unless you're me.

Well if you interpret it that way, my point is even more valid The UN's purpose (in RP) is to improve the social, economic, and political rights of all its constituent UN member nations; the current trend of appeals (from what you seem to be arguing) are simple insubordination.

Example: The UN passes a resolution for religious tolerance. Your UN nation doesn't allow it. Thus, you find that (in RP) you are bound to allow religious tolerance in your nation. You disagree with this, and write a repeal claiming a) the resolution was "flowery, meaningless rhetoric" (despite an obvious implementation of it), b) the resolution encroaches on your nation from making decisions in RP (despite the fact that that is the purpose of the UN in the first place.)

Nonetheless, the complaints I’ve heard have been more about how the RP elements of the UN mess with their nation in real life, rather than the for RP purposes.

Seriously, if all your going to do is bash away at this thread saying that the only way to have power is through the UN, then we're going to show you every single God-damned way we can have power without being a bloody member.

Look through this thread. I am not the one "bashing away at this" point.

I'm going to say this slowly so that maybe it can penetrate whatever wall of misunderstanding you seem to have built:

The OP was a satire…The point in question is impertinent to my argument…Other people have been raising complaints about it, not me…The point itself is something I have heard from people who disagree with my argument…I simply included it as a concession for my argument…By arguing against that point, you are arguing for my argument…I really don’t care about that point…I would like nothing more than for people to ignore the point and address my argument.

Look through this thread. I am not the one "bashing away at this" point.

I'm going to say this slowly so that maybe it can penetrate whatever wall of misunderstanding you seem to have built:

The OP was a satire…The point in question is impertinent to my argument…Other people have been raising complaints about it, not me…The point itself is something I have heard from people who disagree with my argument…I simply included it as a concession for my argument…By arguing against that point, you are arguing for my argument…I really don’t care about that point…I would like nothing more than for people to ignore the point and address my argument.

So...what exactly is your argument? That there are too many repeals, that getting rid of crappy old legislation, some of which is illegal anyway under the current ruleset, is a bad thing? That attempts to repeal all resolutions and start anew are an inherently bad idea? That we're somehow regressing by repealing all the bad/old stuff?

Look through this thread. I am not the one "bashing away at this" point.

And by continuing to bring it up over and over again, you are perpetuating the debate on it.

I'm going to say this slowly so that maybe it can penetrate whatever wall of misunderstanding you seem to have built:

Actually, it long since passed the point of satire. The proposal was an attempt at satire. At best, this thread has become a strawman, devil's advocate thread

BTW, with 99% of proposal failing to reach quarom, what the majority of proposals say means dip squat. If you want to satirize or make a point about the tone that repeals have taken, you've come to the wrong spot. Yes, there are many who believe in nation's rights, yes there are many who believe the UN should get its fingers out of national issues, but there are few here who are trying to get all resolutions repealed. If you want to start ACTUALLY debating about trends, start with the proposals in queue, the ones that actually make it to vote and what happens with them. Probably 90% of proposals are never mentioned on these forums and 98% are never debated. However, 95% of resolutions passed in the last year have been debated by the author on these forums. In fact, I would venture a guess at 100%, but I can't verify. Kenny's argument makes sense. Your argument sounds like targetless bitching which is probably why we're having such a hard time making sense of your actual arguments. Nearly as high, the number of proposals that have been put to vote that were debated by the author on these forums. I can think of only one instance where this wasn't a fact - UNSA1.

The only qualification of satire is that it is marked by irony, derision, and/or wit. I'm sorry you didn't find it funny; I don't find it very amusing either.
Mk, as a comedy theatre buff, I'mma have to tell you that there is a lot more to satire than only one "qualification." And I'm having a hard time seeing the irony in your "satirical" proposal. Is it that you're using a UN proposal to remove everything on the UN books? Cuz that's the only bit of irony in there.

It was a stupid off the cuff remark to a person who made a stupid reply. I've already acknowledged that. I've written several resolutions (that have never been approved); don't start fights over comments not directed at you.
Fine, I'll start it. You come in here with what looks to me to be any number of moronic proposals to throw a big "EFF YOU" to the UN. How else might one react? I can only imagine... The fact that you changed your first post to include the word "satire" and bolden it doesn't alter this. Stupid is as stupid does, and I did not does any stupid.

You chose the worst possible way to bring up this issue you're having with the direction the UN has taken. What did you expect?

Fine, I'll start it. You come in here with what looks to me to be any number of moronic proposals to throw a big "EFF YOU" to the UN. How else might one react? I can only imagine... The fact that you changed your first post to include the word "satire" and bolden it doesn't alter this. Stupid is as stupid does, and I did not does any stupid.

You chose the worst possible way to bring up this issue you're having with the direction the UN has taken. What did you expect?

No matter how I raised the issue, people would have had a problem with it. I chose to raise the issue the way I did because I thought it'd be an amusing change. And I'd even argue that it was, for people who agree with the argument I raise. Sadly, I did have to point out that it was satire (or sarcasm, if you prefer). Apparently the majority of people responding to my thread (namely, those who disagreed with my argument or found some irrelevant point to waste their time over) can't even distinguish between a genuine proposal and a commentary on a state of affairs.

You have a problem with the content, fine. But don't try and bullshit yourself and me by complaining about the vehicle in which my message was delivered. There was nothing wrong with the way I initiated the topic; there has been something quite wrong with the maturity of some of those who have responded to it.

The “complaint”/“bitch”/issue I’ve raised is a valid one, and so far as I can tell, my arguments are sound. I have failed to see a satisfactory response, and mostly I’ve received either ignorance of the argument I’m making or vitriol from “locals” who feel that I’m an intruder of no worth who is infringing on their turf by posting here.

Most of the repeals I've seen have been for the reasons I've given, not for the reasons you've given.Resolutions repealed since Dec. 1, 2005: UCPL (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=44) -- argument: bad law/open to replacement
Right to Divorce (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=134) -- argument: serious flaws/micromanagement
Save the forests of the World (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=47) -- argument: ineffective
MANDATORY RECYCLING (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=12) -- argument: bad law/open to replacement
Law of the Sea (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=73) -- argument: bad law/needs replacement
Stop dumping - Start Cleaning (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=34) -- argument: bad law/poorly written
The Rights of Labor Unions (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=37) -- argument: bad law
Gay Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=11) -- argument: ineffectiveness/redundancy
Abortion Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60) -- argument: bad law/national sovereignty
Scientific Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=1) -- argument: bad law/ineffectiveness
Citizen Rule Required (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=7) -- argument: ineffectiveness/national sovereignty
Replanting Trees (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=22) -- argument: ineffectiveness/bad law
Legalise Euthanasia (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=42) -- argument: national sovereigntyNope. Looks like I'm right. The UN isn't reversing "strides" it has made in the past; it is ridding itself of waste, and by that opening avenues for new and better laws to issue.

Even though as a rule I abhor "repeal/replace."

No matter how I raised the issue, people would have had a problem with it.

You're right. We would have because your feelings on the matter are wrong. However, how we would've responded would've been much different.

Post: some stupid attempt at humor
Response: stop wasting our time

Post: a logical vent that brings up several points and arguments
Response: Civil noting the failings of your point while sparking a debate about the merits both for and against NatSov beliefs sparking a rather enjoyable debate over one of the UN's most central topics of discussion.

We tend not to flame when it is a failing of understanding at work. We do tend to flame when either idiocy or demonizations of this body are conducted.

I chose to raise the issue the way I did because I thought it'd be an amusing change.

You were wrong, and you have yet to back down from defending it.

And I'd even argue that it was, for people who agree with the argument I raise.

Guess what: Every regular that's replied here absolutely agrees with you that the UN shouldn't be blindly shoving through repeals based solely on NatSov. Many believe that a few should be repealed for that reason, but not all. The moderators passed rules outlawing repeal attempts based entirely upon NatSov with no supporting arguments.

And let's see....how many actually laughed?

I've counted zero so far.

Sadly, I did have to point out that it was satire (or sarcasm, if you prefer).

When you have to explain the joke, it's not funny.

Apparently the majority of people responding to my thread (namely, those who disagreed with my argument or found some irrelevant point to waste their time over) can't even distinguish between a genuine proposal and a commentary on a state of affairs.

Considering this concept has been proposed SEVERAL times by various minor members and been deleted as many times, it would be difficult for us to distinguish between a genuine proposal and an attempt to commentate on the state of affairs.

You have a problem with the content, fine. But don't try and bullshit yourself and me by complaining about the vehicle in which my message was delivered. There was nothing wrong with the way I initiated the topic; there has been something quite wrong with the maturity of some of those who have responded to it.

Name one person that's actually thought this was a good idea. Name one person that responded positively to this thread. We've had more than a few instances where regulars have berated other regulars for their attitude to try and get them to smarten up - and even sorta happened on this thread. Yet still, no one was upset by the maturity level.

The “complaint”/“bitch”/issue I’ve raised is a valid one, and so far as I can tell, my arguments are sound. I have failed to see a satisfactory response, and mostly I’ve received either ignorance of the argument I’m making or vitriol from “locals” who feel that I’m an intruder of no worth who is infringing on their turf by posting here.

Actually, your argument has yet to be stated. Instead you're complaining about the way you've been treated when you haven't said a damn thing.

If your argument is that the UN should stop repealing resolutions based solely upon NatSov: the mods have already outlawed such proposals
If your argument is that the UN's current trend for repealing resolutions is extreme, there are many who can give you plenty of stats showing that we are still passing way more legislation than we are repeals (not to mention, plenty of arguments on why it isn't a bad thing from a lot of perspectives)
If your argument is that the UN is too concerned about National Sovereignty, there are many here who can debate the matter

If you honestly think that any of these arguments are original, haven't been debated in the past month, haven't been flogged thousands of times after the matter was dead and is worthy of another look, you are quite mistaken. National Sovereignty is THE #1 debating topic in this United Nations. More lines are drawn distinguishing NatSov and IntFed than any other topic. Yes, this is probably because its one of the few that can be applied to just about any topic, but still.

Repeals are an old argument. I'm honestly sick of complaints about too many repeals. Repeals and new resolutions take a lot of effort to draft and there is a lot of time given to all of them on our forums. We are drafting proposals, one that ARE NOT repeals, and putting a lot of them forward. Just look around you - as I write this, the 5 most recently updated threads after this one are all new proposals. There are three repeal proposals that are listed total including the one at vote, while 8 proposals for new legislation are sitting there. The next two proposals we'll be voting on are new legislation. Again, there are many who could give you the stats of how many repeals we actually deal with (I'm too lazy to look them up), so let's drop the blanket statements.

Repeals based on NatSov are irrelevant.

Now, are we happy, or do you have more to randomly bitch about?

We've refrained from commenting do far because, quite frankly, we were somewhat befuddled by the arguments on both sides. We do want to make two comments, though....

The representative of Saipea seems to be complaining -- as best we understand it -- that the number of repeals which have been adopted indicates the NSUN is reversing an earlier trend toward progressive legislation in favor of a "national sovereignty" or non-encroachment stance. We don't consider that a necessary assumption. We looked over the NSWiki listing and identified 10 repeals which we could definitely recall supporting. In not one single instance did we do so based on any concern about "encroachment." Our support was based solely on our judgment that resolutions to be repealed were bad legislation -- in some cases, ineffective, in others, containing provisions with positively damaging effects. Our record on this may not be typical, but we're unwilling to assume it's untypical, either.

We would also suggest that, in considering the issue, attention should be limited to repeals that have been adopted by this Assembly. We noticed that the representative of Saipea cited a proposal which may be on the current listing, but which has not (to date) been brought to the floor for a vote. We don't consider the nature of proposals in the submitted list to be any indicator of any trend. The proposal list is constantly salted with utter trash that would never stand a prayer of passage.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

* UCPL -- argument: bad law/open to replacement
* Right to Divorce -- argument: serious flaws/micromanagement
* Save the forests of the World -- argument: ineffective
* MANDATORY RECYCLING -- argument: bad law/open to replacement
* Law of the Sea -- argument: bad law/needs replacement
* Stop dumping - Start Cleaning -- argument: bad law/poorly written
* The Rights of Labor Unions -- argument: bad law
* Gay Rights -- argument: ineffectiveness/redundancy
* Abortion Rights -- argument: bad law/national sovereignty
* Scientific Freedom -- argument: bad law/ineffectiveness
* Citizen Rule Required -- argument: ineffectiveness/national sovereignty
* Replanting Trees -- argument: ineffectiveness/bad law
* Legalise Euthanasia -- argument: national sovereignty

Nope. Looks like I'm right. The UN isn't reversing "strides" it has made in the past; it is ridding itself of waste, and by that opening avenues for new and better laws to issue.

Point taken, and once again, a very good, incisive post.

On the other hand, national sovereignty has been used as an argument against some of the more "controversial" ones, despite the fact that I've now been told that using it as an argument is not allowed. Not only that, but the majority of them now seem to be left to the nations (as you haven’t marked “open to replacement” next to them), which seems to me as a step back. Furthermore, I'd like to know why something would qualify as a "bad law."


Guess what: Every regular that's replied here absolutely agrees with you that the UN shouldn't be blindly shoving through repeals based solely on NatSov. Many believe that a few should be repealed for that reason, but not all. The moderators passed rules outlawing repeal attempts based entirely upon NatSov with no supporting arguments.

Good enough for me. Sorry for wasting your time.

We've refrained from commenting do far because, quite frankly, we were somewhat befuddled by the arguments on both sides. We do want to make two comments, though....

The representative of Saipea seems to be complaining -- as best we understand it -- that the number of repeals which have been adopted indicates the NSUN is reversing an earlier trend toward progressive legislation in favor of a "national sovereignty" or non-encroachment stance. We don't consider that a necessary assumption. We looked over the NSWiki listing and identified 10 repeals which we could definitely recall supporting. In not one single instance did we do so based on any concern about "encroachment." Our support was based solely on our judgment that resolutions to be repealed were bad legislation -- in some cases, ineffective, in others, containing provisions with positively damaging effects. Our record on this may not be typical, but we're unwilling to assume it's untypical, either.

We would also suggest that, in considering the issue, attention should be limited to repeals that have been adopted by this Assembly. We noticed that the representative of Saipea cited a proposal which may be on the current listing, but which has not (to date) been brought to the floor for a vote. We don't consider the nature of proposals in the submitted list to be any indicator of any trend. The proposal list is constantly salted with utter trash that would never stand a prayer of passage.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

You're right on both counts.

I tend to be a bit more lenient on wording of resolutions, and thus, I'm not as easily inclined to repeal it on mechanical merits as opposed to ideological ones. I suppose that is the crux of this disagreement, though, and probably why I shouldn't be here in the first place.

Well if you interpret it that way, my point is even more valid The UN's purpose (in RP) is to improve the social, economic, and political rights of all its constituent UN member nations; the current trend of appeals (from what you seem to be arguing) are simple insubordination.

And where is that defined in the rules? You might want it to be the case, but other people are free to want otherwise...

On the other hand, national sovereignty has been used as an argument against some of the more "controversial" ones, despite the fact that I've now been told that using it as an argument is not allowed.

What's not allowed is using it as the main argument in a proposal: Using it as a secondary argument in a proposal is normally allowed, and using it in debates is certainly still legal...

On the other hand, national sovereignty has been used as an argument against some of the more "controversial" ones, despite the fact that I've now been told that using it as an argument is not allowed. Not only that, but the majority of them now seem to be left to the nations (as you haven’t marked “open to replacement” next to them), which seems to me as a step back.Nope. We've already passed replacements for five of those resolutions, and two more replacements are currently in queue.

Furthermore, I'd like to know why something would qualify as a "bad law."I used that as a generic description for repeals that actually critiqued the laws' effect, rather than simply stating that the UN shouldn't pass such laws, let the nations decide, etc.

And where is that defined in the rules? You might want it to be the case, but other people are free to want otherwise...
Ya, that was just me being ignorant.

What's not allowed is using it as the main argument in a proposal: Using it as a secondary argument in a proposal is normally allowed, and using it in debates is certainly still legal...
'k.


Nope. We've already passed replacements for five of those resolutions, and two more replacements are currently in queue.
Oh. I knew that.

I used that as a generic description for repeals that actually critiqued the laws' effect, rather than simply stating that the UN shouldn't pass such laws, let the nations decide, etc.
Gotcha.