NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm really hoping that this will quiet those asking for the replacement. Here is what myself and a few others have been working on.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Karmicaria

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the inherently private nature of sexual intimacy,

DESIRING to guarantee an individual's right to such privacy,

DEFINES for the purpose of the resolution, Sexual activities as behavior, in the form of physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, and/or to the enjoyment of any activity involving sexual gratification.

FURTHER DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual of adult age, as defined by the statutes of individual member nations.

1. BARS nations from criminalizing any form of sexual activity provided that (i) it is performed in privacy, and (ii) all participants are consenting adults.

2. FORBIDS governments, their agents and/or agencies from interfering with; conducting surveillance on; or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults,

3. EXEMPTS from clause 2 situations that include but are not limited to,
A - Gathering information for paternity determination
B - Gathering information for epidemiological investigations
C - The furtherment of criminal or civil investigations where probable cause has been established requiring such information
D - Situations where there is clear potential that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention,

I'm really hoping that this will quiet those asking for the replacement. Here is what myself and a few others have been working on.



Have at it.
Excellent.

The only possible problem is the Clause 5 exhortation for "common sense". I'm not enough of a NSUN rule lawyer to know whether a term so subject to varied interpretations has any validity in UN law.

Other than that, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

m. Benjamin Royce
Intangelon

Excellent.

The only possible problem is the Clause 5 exhortation for "common sense". I'm not enough of a NSUN rule lawyer to know whether a term so subject to varied interpretations has any validity in UN law.

Other than that, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

m. Benjamin Royce
Intangelon

Thank you. We have been trying to figure out how to change that who "common sense" thing. We'll put some more time in on it.

I have made a little change to Clause 5. I hope that this is acceptable. If not, then I guess it either goes or gets reworded again.

Nitpicking, I know, but "ENCOURAGES" in Clause 5 should really be changed to "URGES."

Thank you. We have been trying to figure out how to change that who "common sense" thing. We'll put some more time in on it.
If I may, it seems that you're trying to include some kind of safeguard against abuses of privacy done in the name of the exceptions in Articles 2 and 4.

Is that correct?

If so, perhaps language similar to the "probable cause" language present in the search and seizure laws of many nations would be appropriate. They already need a warrant to search (rather, they do in Intangelon, I can't assume for the whole UN), perhaps the warrant could include specific exemption language in the case of an exception to Articles 2 and 4.

See, this kind of verbosity is why I am diplomat and speaker, Ms. Chase, and not a drafter of legislation. Again, you have my admiration.

Nitpicking, I know, but "ENCOURAGES" in Clause 5 should really be changed to "URGES."

Alrighty then.

There is now a revised version that I have put in the first post.

If anyone can add any other examples of medical reasons that would be exempt from Clause 3, that would be great.

Thank you eveyone.

Ms. Casandra Chase

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would, again, like to express his complete support for this resolution. Regent Rudabaugh has informed the Costa Bravan Emissary to the UN, myself, that I have his go-ahead to vote "yes" to this resolution, should it come to fruition.

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo

I'm really hoping that this will quiet those asking for the replacement. Here is what myself and a few others have been working on.

Clause three might have some problems / conflicts with government regulated / managed "Companion Guilds" (i.e. prostitution).

Furthermore, Clause 1 is a deal breaker (and conflicts with the legalize prostitutional resolution as implemented in Mikitivity):

1. FURTHER BARS governments from regulating any form of private sexual activity involving consenting adults,

Government regulating health standards of companions is how we protect them.

This resolution does a good job of clarifying the points that had been the subject of extreme contentions. You have our support for a repeal and this replacement.

Although for the sake of grammatical perfectionism as is so common among our people, we note that the word "further" should only be used when a preambulatory clause or operative clause has been used already:

eg. Bars... blah

Further bars... blah

Encourages...

Urges...

Further encourages...

This does not affect the intention or the meaning of any of the clauses - it only serves to make it more UN-resolution-grammatically correct.

First, it's a pleasure to see positive comments and constructive criticism on this draft. We thank the author for her fine efforts to this point. Being familiar with the history of this proposal, we'd like to point out that this is very much what might be called a "substance" draft: posted here to guage reaction and gain suggestions on the substance of the piece. There is still much to be done with the particular wording. We're sure the author will take note of and appreciate grammatical and stylistic suggestions, but we'd like to respectfully ask our colleagues to, at this point, focus on the substance. So, on the substance....

We're pleased to see that clause 5 has been removed from the latest draft. Frankly, we considered it an insult to the member nations of the NSUN.

We'd be interested in hearing if anyone has thoughts on additional medical situations that should qualify for exemption under clause 4. We suspect there might be.

We share the concern of the honorable representative from Mikitivity on clause 1. Our laws concerning prostitution require regular health checks of those engaging in prostitution, which is, as he points out, regulation. In discussion of this draft in another forum, we recommended that the language be a prohibition against criminalizing sexual activity, not against regulating it. Perhaps a combination with revision of clauses 1 and 2 could take care of the matter. The issue deserves some careful thought and discussion.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We share the concern of the honorable representative from Mikitivity on clause 1. Our laws concerning prostitution require regular health checks of those engaging in prostitution, which is, as he points out, regulation. In discussion of this draft in another forum, we recommended that the language be a prohibition against criminalizing sexual activity, not against regulating it. Perhaps a combination with revision of clauses 1 and 2 could take care of the matter. The issue deserves some careful thought and discussion.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Your concerns have been noted and taken into consideration. I'm fully aware that there is still alot of work to be done. I don't think I've actually stopped working on it. Too much of a perfectionist.

Furthermore, Clause 1 is a deal breaker (and conflicts with the legalize prostitutional resolution as implemented in Mikitivity):



Government regulating health standards of companions is how we protect them.

We had not thought of that. This clause conflicts with how Cluichstan regulates CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21), as well.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We had not thought of that. This clause conflicts with how Cluichstan regulates CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21), as well.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well then Cluich, can you make a suggestion as to how we can fix it so it doesn't conflict? :)

How does this sound?

1. FURTHER BARS governments from criminalizing any form of private sexual activity involving consenting adults,

Speaking of conflict, as it turns out this proposal conflicts with the Tire-Burning Torque Empire's lack of laws concerning sexual activity and lack of government to enforce those laws. There's also that whole "national sovereignty" thing y'all may have heard of before. I would very much appreciate it if folks would refrain from deciding what laws should be in place in my nation.

And why the hell are there so many proposals on sex lately? Is the summer making the delegates horny or something?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

1. FURTHER BARS governments from criminalizing any form of private sexual activity involving consenting adults


Her Majesty is curious as to whether Ms. Chase's intention with this clause is to ban the criminalization of prostitution. While it may be possible for the United Nations to forbid such legislation, Her Majesty wonders whether or not it would be ethically sound for the United Nations to do so. Her Majesty would feel honoured to hear Ms. Chase's thoughts on the subject.

Cordelia Ehrenreich,
Ambassador to Her Majesty Queen Tilayaha Fustayil
United Nations Representative for Windling

The concern for Article 4 and its coverage of all possible medical exceptions could be alleviated with the kind of catch-all clause found in similar legislation. Something like "including but not limited to" prior to the listing of specifics in Article 4 could help.

Her Majesty is curious as to whether Ms. Chase's intention with this clause is to ban the criminalization of prostitution.You mean like was done with the Sex Worker's Industry Act?

You mean like was done with the Sex Worker's Industry Act?

Yeah. Been there, done that, got the wet T-shirt contest.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Sexual Freedom Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

The category & strength look appropriate.

The United Nations,

Can you explain why this is any of the UN's business? Given that the UN not only won't but can't guarantee people the right to have a say in how their home nations are governed, isn't it trying to guarantee any lesser rights rather presumptuous?

RECOGNIZING the inherently private nature of sexual intimacy,

In most societies, including ours (as a general rule), but almost certainly not all of them...

DESIRING to guarantee an individual's right to such privacy,

As I said above, what makes this any of the UN's business?

DEFINES Sexual activities, for the purpose of the resolution, as behavior, in the form of physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, and/or to the enjoyment of any activity involving sexual gratification.

Provisionally okay, I'll think about this...

FURTHER DEFINES , for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual of adult age, as defined by the statutes of individual member nations.

I'd suggest tightening this clause up so that people from certain nations that have been heard from in other recent debates couldn't claim that this clause would let them follow their home nations' laws about 'age of consent' when they're in other (stricter) nations...

1. FURTHER BARS governments from regulating any form of private sexual activity involving consenting adults,

Opposed. The government of St Edmund while not going as far in these matters as the government of 'Vlad the Mighty' has -- and wishes to retain -- laws against incest.

Also, consider that in theocracies (which are recognised as a legitimate type of government by the UN) such a clause could be invoked to keep the governing churches not only from passing laws about their subjects' sexual morality but even from enforcing any relevant vows (such as vows of chastity) that their religion expects of its own clergy... Are you another devotee of UN-enforced secularisation, like Forgottenlords?

2. EXEMPTS, from clause 1, situations where public health or safety is at stake (eg - STD epidemic)

Possible loophole for the ban on incest, due to the increased risk of congenital illnesses involved? Is there a clash with the confidentiality clause in the 'Patients Rights Act'?

3. FORBIDS governments, their agents and/or agencies from interfering, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults,

See my comments about clause #1.

4. EXEMPTS, from clause 3,
A - Gathering information for paternity determination
B - Gathering information for epidemiological investigations
C - The furtherment of criminal or civil investigations where probable cause has been established requiring such information
D - Situations where there is probable cause that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention

Possible clashes with the 'Patients Rights Act'?

I am currently working on fixing the issues with this proposal. My assistance is now on vacation, so it's just me.

Please have patience while this is done and I will address all questions and concerns shortly.

Ms. Casandra Chase

We share the concern of the honorable representative from Mikitivity on clause 1. Our laws concerning prostitution require regular health checks of those engaging in prostitution, which is, as he points out, regulation. In discussion of this draft in another forum, we recommended that the language be a prohibition against criminalizing sexual activity, not against regulating it. Perhaps a combination with revision of clauses 1 and 2 could take care of the matter. The issue deserves some careful thought and discussion.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yes, my government would be able to potentially support this proposal if the focus was changed from restricting regulation to being consistent with the Sex Workers' Industry Act by including language discouraging governments from criminalizing types of sexual activity, as per Minister Olembe's suggestion.

Howie T. Katzman

The word regulating has been change to criminalizing. I'm still working on the other suggestions.

Again, thank you every one.

OOC: I am trying to located said mentioned Sex Industry Worker's Act, but I really don't want to sift through who knows how many resolutions. I'm brand spanking new at this, so please forgive me if I put my foot in my mouth. Just a question: is there a Search option in the resolution archives?)

OOC: I am trying to located said mentioned Sex Industry Worker's Act, but I really don't want to sift through who knows how many resolutions. I'm brand spanking new at this, so please forgive me if I put my foot in my mouth. Just a question: is there a Search option in the resolution archives?)
Try this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572), the first post contains a clickable index

OOC: I am trying to located said mentioned Sex Industry Worker's Act, but I really don't want to sift through who knows how many resolutions. I'm brand spanking new at this, so please forgive me if I put my foot in my mouth. Just a question: is there a Search option in the resolution archives?)

OOC: No search option. The best resource seems to be The UN Timeline on NSWiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).

See, now THIS is what a proposal should look like... nice, easy to read, clear definitions, good focus. If only the proposal currently at vote looked like this.

It would seem that the incest and prosititution issues are the only ones that raise objection. We agree that the "medical" exemption could loophole one or both of these, but we would prefer to see clause 2 clearly spell them out as exemptions, and then perhaps toss in a section 5 that reads, "RECOGNIZING that the UN is often looked to for guidance, no inference should be made regarding a UN endorsement of government intrusion in other areas of sexual expression merely because they are not prohibited by this resolution." That should satisfy whatever individual nations might want to offer additional protections to it's citizenry.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

OOC: Many thanks to the two of you.

Well then Cluich, can you make a suggestion as to how we can fix it so it doesn't conflict? :)

How does this sound?

Sounds better, although we would prefer not to see a replacement at all.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Okay, I've changed a few things, but haven't put them here yet. I'm going to take a break from this and focus on the repeal. It (the repeal) will be getting submitted for approval on Monday.

I have made a few more revisions, which have been edited into the first post.

We are glad to see much positive and cooperative work being done to make this resolution. You guys already start to sound like *:eek:* real delegates!

But really, the resolution is well-written and we find little conflict with our own interpretations of the clauses. We leave the floor open to any other speakers and delegates who would have more serious objections.

"
FURTHER DEFINES , for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual of adult age, as defined by the statutes of individual member nations.

1. BARS governments from criminalizing any form of private sexual activity involving consenting adults,
"

Perhaps the definition of adult should be changed to match the definition used by recently passed legislation, (they go by the age of consent). Otherwise the two might conflict, or at least interact strangely.

Hmm, the "Age of Consent" thread is dead. It was a dangerous thread :)

Would this be a good thread to discuss what an adult is? Or should I start a new thread on the subject?

All these moral resolutions seem to be tryign to create, one size fits all, solutions for moral problems, which is silly. A person is mature for different things, at different ages. These resolutions seemed designed to make each nation set a single cutoff point, before which you are not an adult, after which you are.

"
FURTHER DEFINES , for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual of adult age, as defined by the statutes of individual member nations.

1. BARS governments from criminalizing any form of private sexual activity involving consenting adults,
"

Perhaps the definition of adult should be changed to match the definition used by recently passed legislation, (they go by the age of consent). Otherwise the two might conflict, or at least interact strangely.

Hmm, the "Age of Consent" thread is dead. It was a dangerous thread :)

Would this be a good thread to discuss what an adult is? Or should I start a new thread on the subject?

All these moral resolutions seem to be tryign to create, one size fits all, solutions for moral problems, which is silly. A person is mature for different things, at different ages. These resolutions seemed designed to make each nation set a single cutoff point, before which you are not an adult, after which you are.

The definintions are fine. They might get reworded a little, but they are not getting completely changed.

I am relieved. You have our full support for both repeal and replacement. Excellent work, Ms Chase.

I'm going to post the revised version as soon as I get the chance. There are still a few things that are going to get taken out and reworded.

The latest version has been edited into the first post.

The Community of His Fordians is impressed with the work done on this resolution. We certainly hope this will be presented officially to the floor of the UN, and we will certainly support it strongly.

Please explain what International need this is addressing. I understand how a member state might want to have such a law in place but I cannot see how this resolution is the business of the UN. Pardon to playful tone here, but isn't this really an issue that belongs in the "bedroom" of the member states rather than the global arena? Again, please explain what International need this addresses.

Regards,
Prince Nill
Prince of UberNothing

Please explain what International need this is addressing. I understand how a member state might want to have such a law in place but I cannot see how this resolution is the business of the UN. Pardon to playful tone here, but isn't this really an issue that belongs in the "bedroom" of the member states rather than the global arena? Again, please explain what International need this addresses.


The international desire to guarantee and protect the civil liberties and human rights of all the peoples of the world.

OOC: Why do I feel dirty?

The international desire to guarantee and protect the civil liberties and human rights of all the peoples of the world.

OOC: Why do I feel dirty?

You're cheating on national sovereignty with international federalism? :p

>.>

<.<

You're cheating on national sovereignty with international federalism? :p

>.>

<.<


No. No. No, that's not it. I think I've done that before. Might've been before I NSO'd myself, but I think I've done it.

Waitaminit. No. I think FL will back me when I say that we have, as yet, never climbed into bed with each other. <<shiver>>

I think it's supporting human rights. Not my general style. Something about the freedom of sex leads me to it, I think, but it just feels so wrong to back an international human rights protection.

so wrong that you just gotta try it once

Alrightee. My turn.

RECOGNIZING the inherently private nature of sexual intimacy,

DESIRING to guarantee an individual's right to such privacy,

DEFINES Sexual activities, for the purpose of the resolution, as behavior, in the form of physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, and/or to the enjoyment of any activity involving sexual gratification.

FURTHER DEFINES , for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual of adult age, as defined by the statutes of individual member nations.

1. Bars nations from criminalizing any form of sexual activity provided that (i) it is performed in privacy, and (ii) all participants are consenting adults.

2. FORBIDS governments, their agents and/or agencies from interfering, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults,

3. EXEMPTS, from clause 2, but is not limited to,
A - Gathering information for paternity determination
B - Gathering information for epidemiological investigations
C - The furtherment of criminal or civil investigations where probable cause has been established requiring such information
D - Situations where there is probable cause that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention,

First, capitalize the rest of "Bars" in Clause 1 to go with the rest of the Resolution.
Next, place "for the purpose of this Resolution" in your definitions immediately following the operative word, removing the comma beginning the term and placing the term being defined in quotes. Like so: "DEFINES for the purpose of this Resolution, 'Yada yada,' as..."
The reason you do not place a comma between "DEFINES" and "for the purpose" is because "for the purpose" is necessary to the meaning of the sentence. To surround something with commas is to suggest that it can be removed without changing the effect of the sentence.

Aside from the grammatical junk, the definitions are good.

Clause #2's list should be changed a tad. "... From interfering with; conduscting surveillance on;..."
When you have a list, and one of the items in the list contains commas, then the commas that separate the items become semicolons.
That's nitpicky.

Clause #3: Omit the comma after exempts and change the sentence to read, "from Clause 2 (pick your word here, I can't think of one: actions, situations, interferences) that include, but are not limited to," as "are not limited to" is currently just hanging there refering to nothing.

Probable Cause refers to something that happened in the past. Section D of Clause 3 should read "Situations where there is the clear potential for death..."

The substance is good, and the wording is nearly there.

Alrightee. My turn.

[quote]First, capitalize the rest of "Bars" in Clause 1 to go with the rest of the Resolution.

Done. Sorry about that. An oversight on my part.

Next, place "for the purpose of this Resolution" in your definitions immediately following the operative word, removing the comma beginning the term and placing the term being defined in quotes. Like so: "DEFINES for the purpose of this Resolution, 'Yada yada,' as..."
The reason you do not place a comma between "DEFINES" and "for the purpose" is because "for the purpose" is necessary to the meaning of the sentence. To surround something with commas is to suggest that it can be removed without changing the effect of the sentence.

Done and done.

Clause #2's list should be changed a tad. "... From interfering with; conduscting surveillance on;..."
When you have a list, and one of the items in the list contains commas, then the commas that separate the items become semicolons.
That's nitpicky.

Yes it is nitpicky, but that's why this has been posted. The changes have been made.

Clause #3: Omit the comma after exempts and change the sentence to read, "from Clause 2 (pick your word here, I can't think of one: actions, situations, interferences) that include, but are not limited to," as "are not limited to" is currently just hanging there refering to nothing.

Again, done.

Probable Cause refers to something that happened in the past. Section D of Clause 3 should read "Situations where there is the clear potential for death..."

It does look a lot better that way.

The substance is good, and the wording is nearly there.

Thank you for your help. I don't see anything wrong with being a little nitpicky. :D All revisions have been edited into the first post.

Looks good. Now put quotation marks around the words you're defining, and it's got my grammatical seal of approval.

And probably my vote, should it ever come to that.

All OOC, cuz I haven't really gotten myself into that Nadnerb mood yet:

Looks good. Now put quotation marks around the words you're defining, and it's got my grammatical seal of approval.

Quotation marks aren't necessary in this case.

/editor

And probably my vote, should it ever come to that.

Not mine, though. It is very well written, and a lot of effort was clearly put into it (kudos, Karmi!), but I just don't believe this is an area in which an international body need be legislating.

It is very well written, and a lot of effort was clearly put into it (kudos, Karmi!), but I just don't believe this is an area in which an international body need be legislating.

Are you making a national sovereignty argument against it?

Are you making a national sovereignty argument against it?

Yes. Yes he is. Congratulations. You win today's first "I Can Read" award.

Are you making a national sovereignty argument against it?

We agree with the esteemed representitive of Cluichstan. As well-intentioned as the drafters of this proposal may seem, this sort of legislation oversteps the proper bounds of the NSUN and violates the sovereign rights of nation states.

We agree with the esteemed representitive of Cluichstan. As well-intentioned as the drafters of this proposal may seem, this sort of legislation oversteps the proper bounds of the NSUN and violates the sovereign rights of nation states.

OOC: Good to see you back, TEK. :)

Yes. Yes he is. Congratulations. You win today's first "I Can Read" award.

It's tough to tell these days. I have had national sovereignty explained on these forums with a very narrow definition.

I'm in favor of a good replacement. The purpose of government is to protect rights. A good replacement protects rights. National governments have a bit more leeway then the UN, but the UN should devote itself to protecting universal human rights.

I'm in favor of a good replacement. The purpose of government is to protect rights. A good replacement protects rights. National governments have a bit more leeway then the UN, but the UN should devote itself to protecting universal human rights.

We wish to note that not all nations consider sexual irresponsibility a "universal human right".

We wish to note that not all nations consider sexual irresponsibility a "universal human right".

Hell, we consider irresponsibility a "universal human right", and sex a "universal human right."

Government has no place interfering in the reproductive process. It is one of the most basic rights, all other rights descend from it (if your parents were prohibited from having sex where would you be now?).

Hell, we consider irresponsibility a "universal human right", and sex a "universal human right."

Government has no place interfering in the reproductive process. It is one of the most basic rights, all other rights descend from it (if your parents were prohibited from having sex where would you be now?).

OOC: :headbang: (And I hate that smiley.)

OOC: :headbang: (And I hate that smiley.)

Wasssssssssssssssssssssssssssup.

Hell, we consider irresponsibility a "universal human right", and sex a "universal human right."

Government has no place interfering in the reproductive process. It is one of the most basic rights, all other rights descend from it (if your parents were prohibited from having sex where would you be now?).

OOC: :confused:

Yeah, I know about the whole National Sovereignty thing. Being a member of the NSO, I find myself being opposed to my own resolution.

I've always had a mild interest in Nat Sov. As such, I tend to be of mixed opinion on the matter. Fundamental human rights trump Nat Sov in my opinion. But is this a fundamental human right? Now there's the rub.

This is a hard call, but I have to side with the idea that it is a right. There are certanly moral issues here, but morality has to come from within. It might be a concern of the church, but certanly not the state.

More importantly, there is an odd irony that those who live by the sword often get themselves wounded by swords. Politicians are just like anyone else and get into hot water for what technically goes on in private between two consenting adults. (In fact that seems to happen a lot around here in the UN ... not that this applies to me ... well yes my assistant is kind of cute and ... NO COMMENT.)

I find myself being opposed to my own resolution.Pity I don't quote other players in my sig...

Pity I don't quote other players in my sig...

Since I don't think that The Most Glorious Hack has read my explaination for this, I will explain again.

Yes, from a National Sovereignty standpoint, I am opposed to this. But, looking at it as a basic human right, I'm for it. I want to make sure that the people do not have their privacy of sexual relations infringed upon. I'm not trying to take people's sexual freedom away from them. It's quite the opposite.

Oh, no, I understood your point. I was more commenting that, out of context, it's a pretty humorous phrase.

Oh, no, I understood your point. I was more commenting that, out of context, it's a pretty humorous phrase.

Okay. Yeah I thought it was pretty funny after I read it over. :p

Okay. Yeah I thought it was pretty funny after I read it over. :p

How often have authors voted against their own resolutions once they hit vote? Or even argued against their own resolution after they have come up to vote?

I think it's rare for an author to even admit there is an arguement against their own resolution!

This is a hard call, but I have to side with the idea that it is a right. There are certanly moral issues here, but morality has to come from within. It might be a concern of the church, but certanly not the state.

So what about nations, such as TEK, where the church is the national government?

Yeah...so...yeah.

I cast my vote AGAINST the current resolution when it was decided UNANIMOUSLY and DEMOCRATICALLY to do so. Do you think you guys could call off your dogs? I get enough telegrams as it is.

Premier Robbins - United Socialist States of Ferretton
Alliance of Socialist States Delegate to the UN

Yeah...so...yeah.

I cast my vote AGAINST the current resolution when it was decided UNANIMOUSLY and DEMOCRATICALLY to do so. Do you think you guys could call off your dogs? I get enough telegrams as it is.

Premier Robbins - United Socialist States of Ferretton
Alliance of Socialist States Delegate to the UN

Just out of curiousity, how many telegrams have you recieved about this? I myself have only sent out two. One when we were lookng for approvals and then one to all who approved thanking them.

Just out of curiousity, how many telegrams have you recieved about this? I myself have only sent out two. One when we were lookng for approvals and then one to all who approved thanking them.

I've recieved 4 so far.