NationStates Jolt Archive

suggest three golden rules for the nations in the un debate and reason eg:

1 a human has the right to do whatever it wants only if it does not conflict with another living beings right.

2 a human may protect its own existance with resonable force

3 a human may be excused from a infrigment but only if he truely was not aware that was an infringment

There has GOT to be a resolution this contradicts somewhere.....

Now, see, I could agree to an extent with the first two, but they would need serious rewording. If I had to take them as is, I'd say no.

You may want to read just about every human rights (and some others as well) Resolution to be sure that a proposal along this lines wouldn't contradict or duplicate before you go any further.

Just be prepared for a big, big fight if you pursue the idea. Especially from the Gruenberg and friends.

You've misread what the OP was asking for. He wasn't so much asking for comments on his rules (although 1. support so long as "living in an ordered, functional, morally decent society" is accepted as a right for others 2. duplication of Res #94 3. vehemently opposed - ignorance is not an excuse). He was asking for suggestions for three "golden rules" of our own. To whit,

1. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. Except you.

3. No poofters.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

In Razat, the "golden rule" is "Do unto others before they do unto you".

IN DBL, the golden rule is "Mellow out, where all gonna die anyway."

1 a human
2 a human
3 a human Why HUMAN as many nations even regions are not made up of HUMANS..? As we believe:
A human has about as much right to live as I do to hang them if they don't obey our laws.

1. As long as it hurts nobody else, do it.

2. Hirota is always right. Other people might seem to be right, but that's because Hirota let them look that way.

3. Marmite is nice.

1. As long as it hurts nobody else, do it.

2. Hirota is always right. Other people might seem to be right, but that's because Hirota let them look that way.

3. Marmite is nice.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic finds itself in agreement with one of those 'laws': Care to guess which one? ;)

Always get paid up front.

Sorry, CPESL influence again... :p

1. The Grand Poobah is always right.

2. If the Grand Poobah is ever wrong, refer to rule number one.

3. There in no rule number 3.

1. The Grand Poobah is always right.

2. If the Grand Poobah is ever wrong, refer to rule number one.

3. There in no rule number 3.

What is that a reference to?

suggest three golden rules for the nations in the un debate and reason eg:

1 a human has the right to do whatever it wants only if it does not conflict with another living beings right.

Everything you do will impact another's existance in some way.

2 a human may protect its own existance with resonable force

Define reasonable.

3 a human may be excused from a infrigment but only if he truely was not aware that was an infringment

Ignorance is never an excuse.

Within Kivisto, we never really hammered out any Golden Rules, just sort of accepted the idea that noi matter what you do, someone will probably get hurt by it.

1) Be nice.

Within Kivisto, we never really hammered out any Golden Rules, just sort of accepted the idea that noi matter what you do, someone will probably get hurt by it.

Yar.



Here's Norderia's rule. Shut the f*** up cuz nobody gives a s*** about your golden rules.

But seriously, if Norderia had a golden rule, it'd be something akin to the Taoist concept of wu-wei. Or, for those unfamiliar (as I suspect many are, since I see the sister of it spelled ying-yang so often), something like a mix between "Go with the Flow" and "Live and let live."

suggest three golden rules for the nations in the un debate and reason eg:

1 a human has the right to do whatever it wants only if it does not conflict with another living beings right.

2 a human may protect its own existance with resonable force

3 a human may be excused from a infrigment but only if he truely was not aware that was an infringment

I find your anthropocentrism distasteful, but otherwise it's not bad. Just needs some revisions to make it look better and you can take a massive chunk out of the Human Rights category and destroy the Moral Decency Category with the exception of punishing folks for being mean.

What is that a reference to?
Nothing, it's the three rules to dealing with the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites.

1. The right to your own body is paramount.

2. All other rights are extensions of that, or are actually responsibilities.

This is sort of a summary of my opinions as regarding human rights. It's OOC, very few of my IC personas would agree.

A society that denies its people every opportunity to express themselves artistically is culturally moribund.

A society that denies its people every opportunity to express themselves artistically is culturally moribund.

Nice. You win the "Best Use of the word Moribund in a UN Forum Post" award.

Nice. You win the "Best Use of the word Moribund in a UN Forum Post" award.
ooc: Thank you. :)

May we suggest simply varying Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

A poster may not harm another poster, or, through inaction, allow a poster to come to harm.

A poster must obey the orders given to them by the moderators, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law

A poster must protect their own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

This would have some interesting side-effects. By reporting a flamer, a poster would be obeying the First Law (not allowing the flamed to come to harm).

But he would also be in conflict with the First Law (bringing harm to the flamer). But the moderators tell us to report flamers, so he is supported by the Second Law. But acting for both sides may instigate one of those long-drawn-out arguments that would eventually lead to he, himself, being DEATed, so there's potential Third-Law conflict ...

Well, surely this would appeal to the rules-lawyers among us.

Nah. Ardchoille being a magic nation, I'll go with the earlier (Wiccan) fake-mediaeval variant: Do what thou wilt, an thou harm none.

Except, Hirota, Vegemite is better.

May we suggest simply varying Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

A poster may not harm another poster, or, through inaction, allow a poster to come to harm.

A poster must obey the orders given to them by the moderators, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law

A poster must protect their own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

This would have some interesting side-effects. By reporting a flamer, a poster would be obeying the First Law (not allowing the flamed to come to harm).

But he would also be in conflict with the First Law (bringing harm to the flamer). But the moderators tell us to report flamers, so he is supported by the Second Law. But acting for both sides may instigate one of those long-drawn-out arguments that would eventually lead to he, himself, being DEATed, so there's potential Third-Law conflict ...

Well, surely this would appeal to the rules-lawyers among us.

Nah. Ardchoille being a magic nation, I'll go with the earlier (Wiccan) fake-mediaeval variant: Do what thou wilt, an thou harm none.

Except, Hirota, Vegemite is better.


However, you forget that if the flamer is operating under these same rules, it would not flame.

Ah, but then he would be a Rogue Poster, and we would require a Daneel Olivaw equivalent to figure out how he overcame his programming -- which, of course, he couldn't actually have done, so there would have to be some non-programmed intelligence at work ...

Which would possibly make Max into Lije Baley, and one of the mods the perp. *Reviews usual suspects ...*

See, I told you this would be an interesting way to go.

Nothing is more tempting than a set of inflexible rules. Precisely the sort of thing to make NS people start trying to flex them. Not break, of course, just, ah, interpret creatively.