NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the less drunken acts of Moltan Bausch's tenure as Chief of Staff to the Gruenberger UN Office (a role he took initially, before being promoted to Ambassador) was the establishment of the Sunset Committee for reviewing past legislation and its need for repeal or replacement. Many other nations have similar committees (or sometimes simply individuals); there is even one international Sunset Committee, in the form of Jey's "Reveal and Repeal" group.

Currently, the Sunset Committee of Gruenberg's UN Office is chaired by Rono Pyandran, Chief of Staff. Following a meeting today, they highlighted the following as what the Gruenberg UN Office rated as the ten "weakest" resolutions:
- all are extant
- all were ranked according to the possibility of repeal, the degree of damage inflicted by the resolution, the ineffectiveness of it in general, its specific clashes with Gruenberger policy and ideology, and the likelihood of obtaining cooperation from other members
- resolutions of which other repeal efforts were known to have made significant progress (World Heritage List, Sexual Freedom, Metric System, FFRA) were omitted.
- Rights of Minorities & Women, though a pile of crap, was excluded on the basis Gruenberg actually takes little issue with its flaws. I would expect it to feature on others' lists, though.
- we no doubt left out loads we meant to include.

Obviously, the list is simply the opinion of Mr Pyandran and his team; representatives from other nations would disagree on many of the choices. Thus the point of this thread, rather than simply disagreeing with my choices, is to mention and discuss your own, whether derived from Sunset Committees or otherwise.

In this way, accord on what the more objectively bad resolutions are might be met, leading to some progress towards repealing them.

*drum roll*

Gruenberg's 10 resolutions most wished to see repealed:

10. End Slavery - much much much too broad, yet still manages not to end slavery!
9. UN Biological Weapons Ban - interestingly, we object to every clause other than the one banning contagions.
8. Keep the World Disease-Free! - depending on interpretation, useless or costly, but either way, unnecessary fluff.
7. Free Education - TANSTAAFL.
6. Establish UNWCC - nice idea, shame that isn't enough to save it from sucking.
5. The Right to Form Unions - military unions bad, allowing strikers to endanger public safety terrible.
4. Support Hemp Production - protectionist folly.
3. Right to Learn Evolutionary Theory - one of the most intrusive and meddling resolutions of all.
2. Humanitarian Intervention - it is unquestionably to grant the UN such powers, especially in such a manner.
1. SPCC Regulation Act - read it, just read it.

Now, what are yours?

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

After referring the matter to several committees and subcommittees (including the Senate Committee on the United Nations, the Foreign Relations Committee, and everybody who has slept either with Darvek or Serph), the following resolutions have met with the sternest disapproval of the Republic of Krioval:


10 - Freedom of Humor (#36)

This resolution seems to be a strength miscategorization, and is covered by many other resolutions promising the freedoms of speech and artistic expression. Thus, it is unnecessary to maintain it.

9 - Establish UNWCC (#114)

Is there any reason to begin to specifically mention harmful agents in drinking water that are to be removed and then leave the list incomplete? It's a noble effort toward a novel area of international legislation, but it's time to refine this idea further.

8 - World Heritage List (#37)

There is nothing that dictates how sites are listed, save for their listing being "voluntary". That either renders the resolution ineffectual or allows for other nations to arbitrarily cripple the economies of other nations by declaring them "World Heritage" sites. Not good.

7 - Protect Historical Sites (#15)

After reading this resolution, there is nothing to say what constitutes a "historical site", let alone how these sites would be protected. It's like the World Heritage List, but worse.

6 - Free Education (#28)

Krioval is not averse to offering free education to children. However, nothing in this resolution indicates the type of education to be offered, or the form of its delivery. While subsequent resolutions may have made inroads to clarifying the intent of "Free Education", it's still in dire need of an overhaul.

5 - Support Hemp Production (#85)

Gruenberg got to it first. Instituting international trade protectionism is anathema to the Republic of Krioval as well. Let individual nations choose to subsidize hemp if they so choose. Some of us may have discovered better materials or technologies, anyway.

4 - Right to Learn about Evolution (#101)

The Theory of Evolution is a cornerstone of scientific advancement, as far as Krioval is concerned. But we see no reason to specifically promote a single scientific finding over others. Legislation promoting scientific teaching would be far better (and has been done, if I recall correctly).

3 - Common Sense Act II (#30)

I can't think of a more blatant violation of both national and individual sovereignty than this bit of utter dreck. The job of a national judiciary is to decide cases on their merits. While some nations may have a better track record than others, it's hardly the job of the UN to compel a judge to dismiss a case without hearing it, especially in such a ham-fisted manner.

2 - Humanitarian Intervention (#92)

Ever since the disastrous attempts of the Pretenama Panel to coordinate a UN-led military operation, Krioval has been convinced that any resolution even suggesting that the UN be the world's (or universe's) police force needs to be tossed.

1 - SPCC Regulation Act (#58)

Let's see. Another environmental resolution that either replicates everything covered in other resolutions or does nothing. Wait a second. This one does *both*. It needs to go.


Dishonorable Mention:

Sexual Freedom (#7)

This really needs to be specifically applied to, well, sexual activities.


Edge of the Radar:

Keep the World Disease-Free! (#8)

Krioval feels that vaccinations should be mandatory, not voluntary. Not enough for us to agitate too much against the resolution as it stands, though.

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (#18)

It's impractical and far too focused for my taste, but there are more pressing matters.

UN Space Consortium (#50)

Another impractical resolution that also ignores any nation that may have slipped beyond the Terran gravity well. Still, hardly a priority given that most nations are still Earthbound.

Rights of Minorities and Women (#80)

I'd love to see it gone, but it doesn't do much to offend me. All beliefs may be "equal", but the very nature of the UN legislation machine seems to indicate that some are more equal than others. [insert bemused titter here]

Fossil Fuel Reduction Act (#126)

Maybe the retroactive definition of peak usage unfairly punishes developing nations. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe if it does, that's too damn bad. Krioval isn't unduly impacted by it, so it slips by.


Love-Hate Resolutions:

Mitigation of Large Reservoirs (#116)

This is the one that prompted the Kriovalian resignation from the UN, largely due to the deluge of environmental restrictions and their negative impact on economic growth. The resolution, however, is actually quite strong, even if Krioval doesn't possess enough large reservoirs that appear to need mitigation.

Abortion Legality Convention (#147)

Krioval would like to see abortion legalized in all UN states. Technically, that's still possible, but unlikely given the reasons for this resolution's passage. Still, it does encourage exemptions to abortion bans, and coupled with the explosiveness of the abortion debate, we're willing to settle for what we've got here. For the time being...


Ambassador Jevo Telovar
City of Neo Tyros
Republic of Krioval

2 - Humanitarian Intervention (#92)

Ever since the disastrous attempts of the Pretenama Panel to coordinate a UN-led military operation, Krioval has been convinced that any resolution even suggesting that the UN be the world's (or universe's) police force needs to be tossed.

That was a role play fallibility, and not a weakness in the resolution per se. The UN Gnomes do the job perfectly.

8 - World Heritage List (#37)

There is nothing that dictates how sites are listed, save for their listing being "voluntary". That either renders the resolution ineffectual or allows for other nations to arbitrarily cripple the economies of other nations by declaring them "World Heritage" sites. Not good.



We will be submitting our proposed repeal of that particular piece of legislative garbage at the beginning of next week.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Here are the ones I think of right off the top of my head. There are others too but alot of them I would want replacements made first... Also I probably forgot a bunch or did not know about them.

1 Abortion Legality Convention (#147)
I Hate blocker sooo much.
2 - World Heritage List (#37)
As has been said many times before it is seriously flawed. This has already been said.
3 - Protect Historical Sites (#15)
Just useless garbage that should be gotten rid of
4 - Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (#18)
Just useless and does nothing(too broad to do anything). Also badly written

1 Abortion Legality Convention (#147)
I Hate blocker sooo much.

And you would prefer the bitchfest that will ensue were it to be repealed? :confused:

That was a role play fallibility, and not a weakness in the resolution per se. The UN Gnomes do the job perfectly.

I think the resolution itself was fine. :)

I've always believed that the roleplaying issue was in large part fueled by some personal issues / grudges that some players (many of whom are no-longer playing NationStates) carried against others. NationStates has plenty of games mechanics issues ... and running a no-rules open roleplay is hard when two players have vastly different ideas how things should behave. Open roleplays have always been problematic. *shrug*

There were a host of "debates" that hit the UN forum in 2005, where the debates honestly seemed fueld by personal attitudes towards players and not opinions on resolutions -- as the moderators of NationStates probably have already guessed. Based on things I've heard, I think your resolution (and others) was caught up in that.

I don't have any solution ... but my recommendation is that any list of resolutions to be zonked should be consistent. If you want to say, "This resolution doesn't apply to me ..." there are now hundreds of resolutions, and likely many in other categories should be added to the list.

For example, let's say you want to statwank and say, "I am opposed to all Human Rights resolutions, because they change my nation's stats by assuming I don't have certain civil liberties when I already do". (Granted, most stantwankers actually are happy to ignore their own roleplay and constantly will take positive "free" boosts on their civil rights scores <-- but I'm using this as a counter-example.) But the minute another resolution category (let's say global disarmament rolls around) they don't apply the same logic. Essentially they are inconsistent ... they know what they want their UN Classification to be and they'll ignore resolution text and *even* other UN resolution classifications.

I'd rather not participate in this Sunset Committee.

And you would prefer the bitchfest that will ensue were it to be repealed? :confused:
I'd love to see that. It would be great. The best part about it is when you read these newbs/noobs that come in saying some hilarious one line post.

I'd love to see that. It would be great. The best part about it is when you read these newbs/noobs that come in saying some hilarious one line post.

I, too, don't mind newbies coming in and saying silly things. After a while I became insensitive to those sorts of posts.

I'd love to see that. It would be great. The best part about it is when you read these newbs/noobs that come in saying some hilarious one line post.
Heh. Got a mirror handy?

Anyway, perhaps if this couldn't become centred solely on the merits of ALC (although I don't doubt many would wish to see it repealed).

As to Humanitarian Intervention: I still don't think you'd get TPP to work now, no matter how nice the forums are. But furthermore, I don't like the idea, anyway. The UN should assure territorial sovereignty, not take it away when 15 people decide your country's being naughty.

There were a host of "debates" that hit the UN forum in 2005, where the debates honestly seemed fueld by personal attitudes towards players and not opinions on resolutions -- as the moderators of NationStates probably have already guessed. Based on things I've heard, I think your resolution (and others) was caught up in that.

OOC Full disclosure: I participated in many of those debates - some were more personal than others. My attempt to repeal "Humanitarian Intervention" maxed out at 91 approvals when I submitted it, and it was only about 45 short. Considering that I was the only nation sending telegrams, it isn't a stretch to say that at least some people were willing to debate it.

(Mostly IC) The fact of the matter is that Krioval's position on UN intervention in national affairs has changed since TPP - the Republic does not think that international military ventures should be conducted under the aegis of the UN. For practical reasons, it seems woefully inefficient, and weakens the credibility of the UN to deal with *any* international events. For more legalistic reasons, "Humanitarian Intervention" comes a bit too close to creating an international police force, which even if temporary and limited appears to violate the laws governing the UN.

Ultimately, it's the second aspect of this that makes "Humanitarian Intervention" a more appealing target to void. Krioval would be entirely open to a replacement resolution that would empower a task force to investigate human rights abuses and encourage the nations of the world to work toward bolstering human rights, both at home and abroad.

OOC (again): It's problematic - forcing military action is right out. Not mentioning anything akin to military action simply replicates previous resolutions. So you're left with trying to create a resolution that alludes to sanctions or military action without specifying them. I think it could be done.

OOC Full disclosure: I participated in many of those debates - some were more personal than others.

Are they still?

I tried to get my staff to examine the list of standing resolutions and produce a definitive list of resolutions to repeal by order of priority, but it appears my staff, with the exception of Cmdr. Chiang, are woefully incompetent. That's something I need to address to Sec. Tehrani at a later time, but for now, the Federal Republic places at the top of its List of Resolutions That Really, Really Need to Go: UN Biological Weapons Ban: This resolution, while very well written, constitutes a breach of national sovereignty on the highest order. We deem any instruction to member nations as to the constitution of their own defense arsenals a contemptuous act and extremely detrimental to national and international security.
World Heritage List: As demonstrated by the honorable representative from Cluichstan, this resolution holds the highest capacity for abuse of any we have seen in the UN's work product. We are surprised more international incidents have not resulted from the lack of vetting and oversight requisite for any site in the NS world to appear on the list.In addition, the Sub-Vizier's and Amb. Telovar's respective assessments of Humanitarian Intervention have alerted us to the danger of conferring such broad and unchecked powers upon unelected UN officials, so a repeal of Resolution #92 would also be amenable to our interests. Oh, yeah, and we hate SPCC Regulation Act too. We continue in our hope that Fossil Fuel Reduction Act will eventually join the ashheap of repealed resolutions, but we consider the current efforts to that end inept.

We also place particular value upon possible repeals of The Sex Education Act (it doesn't do anything, save lecture member states on how they should educate children about sex), Adoption and IVF Rights (the UN hasn't even given adoption rights to straight couples, minority couples, interracial couples, interspecies couples, etc.; why should gay and foreign couples be given special privilege?) and UN Educational Committee (terrible, just terrible).

We supported previous efforts to strike out Metric System, Banning the use of Landmines, Hydrogen Powered Vehicles and Ban Single Hulled Tankers, and would support any future efforts to repeal them, but for now we consider these dead issues.

We wholeheartedly support the repeal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494817) currently at vote.

And we are Officially Amused™ at all the nations still bent on repealing Abortion Legality Convention.

Amb. Bausch deserves much praise for creating the Sunset Committee under the auspices of the Gruenebrger UN Office, and though it comes as no big surprise, we are in agreement with all of its recommendations.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

And we are Officially Amused™ at all the nations still bent on repealing Abortion Legality Convention.
Well I would like to say I never really was going to try. I hate it but don't think it is worthwhile to go after. For a long time now I don't plan on spending any time trying to get it repealed. But I do hate it.

Anyway about "Free Education" I think it is usefull to keep there as a way of saying at least pretend to give your people education. But I would be in strong favor of a better replacement.

Also I'd like to add Freedom of Humor to my list of things to be repealed because it serves no purpose.

OK here's my list, these are in no particular order and I'm not sure how many I've even got here, but here's the ones I'd like to see get the axe.

Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029618&postcount=19)
Reason: Doesn't do shit, the text states that all nations have to research them but never says that they have to be built.

Metric System (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029635&postcount=25)
Reason: Why the hell should the UN care if it's members measure in feet or meters or cubits or whatever?

World Heritage List (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029723&postcount=38)
Reason: My genitals are on the list.

UN Educational Committee (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030130&postcount=55)
Reason: Two words, misplaced apostrophe.

SPCC Regulation Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030159&postcount=59)
Reason: If I'm reading this right, it doesn't do anything.

Public Domain (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030168&postcount=61)
Reason: Shareware and freeware and not public domain.

Banning whaling (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030229&postcount=71)
Reason: Redundancy due to the passing of UNCoESB (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120)

Right to Learn about Evolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873880&postcount=102)
Reason: Micromanaging nation's education systems.

The Sex Education Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9513272&postcount=119)
Reason: See above

IT Education Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042612&postcount=132)
Reason: See the reason for Right to Learn about Evolution or The Sex Education Act.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Right to Learn about Evolution
Reason: Micromanaging nation's education systems.

not really... It does not enforce it be taught in schools so that's is good but

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.

I have a few problems with this sentence
1) Symbolical?? what does that have anything to do with anything
2) Mandating disaproval is just confusing.
3) It could just ban teachers and students from being severly punished for engaing in evolution studies. But it says some confusing statment that is just plain stupid.

IT Education Act
Reason: See the reason for Right to Learn about Evolution or The Sex Education Act.

It only is a mild resolution encouraging information technology to be taught in schools. Not micromanaging. You could say it was useless but it is not micro-manging.

OK here's my list, these are in no particular order and I'm not sure how many I've even got here, but here's the ones I'd like to see get the axe.

World Heritage List (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029723&postcount=38)
Reason: My genitals are on the list.


OOC: Edit the list and only tell the NSWiki admins ... problem solved. ;)

IC:
That is rather disturbing. Given that there is so much opposition to the list, my government will likely vote against any repeal, as we like the concept ... but we also will hold no ill will against nations that seek to repeal the resolution. However, should the World Heritage List be overturned I've heard rumours that the UNA-Mikitivity would likely just create and manage its own list ... with many entries being dropped.

Banning whaling (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030229&postcount=71)
Reason: Redundancy due to the passing of UNCoESB (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120)

Right to Learn about Evolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873880&postcount=102)
Reason: Micromanaging nation's education systems.

IT Education Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042612&postcount=132)
Reason: See the reason for Right to Learn about Evolution or The Sex Education Act.How could I forget these gems? They gotta go too.

There's something very seriously wrong with the world when international legislation directly affects the status of Bob Flibble's genitalia.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

OOC: Edit the list and only tell the NSWiki admins ... problem solved.I'm sure the culprit would put it back in...

not really... It does not enforce it be taught in schools so that's is good but

It only is a mild resolution encouraging information technology to be taught in schools. Not micromanaging. You could say it was useless but it is not micro-manging.
Doesn't matter to me, both Right to Learn about Evolution and IT Education Inititive involve the UN telling it's members what their school systems should be teaching, therefore it's micromanaging.

I'm sure the culprit would put it back in...
Why do you think I haven't taken it out. Although I still want to know who put it in there to begin with.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm sure the culprit would put it back in...

And would be banned from NSWiki in the process *if* Flib complained. It is supposed to be a resource, not a frat house.

And would be banned from NSWiki in the process *if* Flib complained. It is supposed to be a resource, not a frat house.
OOC: Well, IC I find it annoying, however OOC I find it hilarious hence my not removing it or complaining about it

Why do you think I haven't taken it out. Although I still want to know who put it in there to begin with.

There is a history option. It would take some time, but if you look and compare any two edits you can eventually find the ISP or account that made the change. If you're serious, I can *try* to spend the time to find out. I suspect we do not really want to know. :(

OOC: Well, IC I find it annoying, however OOC I find it hilarious hence my not removing it or complaining about it

:) I was guessing that, which is why I (somebody who takes the list seriously) never complained about any of the edits that I think we all know are a joke.

There is a history option. It would take some time, but if you look and compare any two edits you can eventually find the ISP or account that made the change. If you're serious, I can *try* to spend the time to find out. I suspect we do not really want to know. :(
OOC: Nahh, if the culpret wants to admit it that's fine, but you don't have to go to any trouble. Besides I've got a theory about who did it and I'd hate to find out that I was wrong. And no it wasn't me logged out either.

Now I'm curious as to who you think it is...

Now I'm curious as to who you think it is...
Now now now, that would be telling.

Now now now, that would be telling.

OOC: I'd love to say that it was me, but I didn't think of it. Really wish I had, though. That's the funniest addition to the list since my repeal was first proposed. :D

World Heritage List: As demonstrated by the honorable representative from Cluichstan...


Why the coughing, my friend? It wasn't my nation who sent a representative to this body who still owes thousands of empty beer cans (OOC: yes, silly, but that's Cluichstan's currency) for prostitution services...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There is a history option. It would take some time, but if you look and compare any two edits you can eventually find the ISP or account that made the change. If you're serious, I can *try* to spend the time to find out. I suspect we do not really want to know. :(
I do this kind of stuff all the time for fun. It is actualy a pretty anonymous. 3 useless edits in total and each has a big gap between them making an edit and somebody else doing it. I can also only get with any kind of accuracy the state they live in not even the city.

BTW I did not plan on saying who it was here.

Why the coughing, my friend? It wasn't my nation who sent a representative to this body who still owes thousands of empty beer cans (OOC: yes, silly, but that's Cluichstan's currency) for prostitution services...Well if that's the case, then by all means, give me Mr. Riley's outstanding invoices, and a Paradise City recycling plant will send you payment in full by week's end, Ambassador.

*cough!*

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

And would be banned from NSWiki in the process *if* Flib complained. It is supposed to be a resource, not a frat house.
Actually, probably not. The NSwiki list has become *the* official World Heritage List, and therefore any edit removing something from the list, which is not permitted by res#37, would be reverted. (There has been exceptions for putting obscene items on the list, but otherwise it would be kept.)

Actually, probably not. The NSwiki list has become *the* official World Heritage List, and therefore any edit removing something from the list, which is not permitted by res#37, would be reverted. (There has been exceptions for putting obscene items on the list, but otherwise it would be kept.)

I'd call Flibs family jewels on the cutting edge of obscene content. Sorry Flib. ;)

But what you are essentially saying is that whomever vanadlizes that article between now and the time that it is repealed will result in their sarcastic additions becoming a permanent part of the World Heritage List.

I'd call Flibs family jewels Well, technically, it's the Jackhammer, not the jewels...

Well, technically, it's the Jackhammer, not the jewels...
Yeah, it Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich's family jewels that are on the list.

But what you are essentially saying is that whomever vanadlizes that article between now and the time that it is repealed will result in their sarcastic additions becoming a permanent part of the World Heritage List.
Unfortunately, yes. That's the way the resolution established the list, and consensus seems to be that the NSwiki list is the official list, and therefore nothing can be removed from it, except for clear vandalism.

Although, I think a sensible debate could be had on this. Since the list only says that nations can add things to the list, there would be an argument for removing everything added by an anonymous user.

However, I suggest we stop hijacking Gruen's thread. If we want to continue this discussion, it would probably be best to start a new thread.

I only get 10? Hoo-boy.

Ban Single-Hulled Tankers - Environmental, fuzzy headed crap. Let the market dictate what types of tankers are used.
Protect Historical Sites - Feel-good nonsense.
'RBH' Replacement - Oh, God... the errors in this are staggering. To say nothing of the fact that socialized medicine makes my teeth hurt.
Metric Fucking System - Metric sucks.
Freedom of Humor - Worthless pap. Endless source of headaches from people trying to defend stupid proposals.
UN Space Consortium - No. Just... no.
Rights of Minorities and Women - What drunken lemur wrote this shit? And what brain donors voted for this internally inconsistant gut-bomb?
Definition of Marriage - I don't want my government defining marriage, let alone the UN.
Support Hemp Production - Get a job, hippy.
Right to Learn about Evolution - Ridiculous micromanagment.

Man... I'm glad we aren't members. Y'all got a lot of cleaning ahead of ya.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Right. Add The Sex-Industry Workers Act, Freedom of Humor and Right to Learn Evolution to my list. And basically everything that passed prior to March 2005. That should do it. Rights and Duties and UBoR and all that stuff can stay, but everything else ... just die.

I'd also ask what makes the wiki list "official"? It's only been used as a demonstration of the resolution's absurdities; no one is under any obligation to recognize it. And what use is there for UNA-Mikitivity to manage its own WHL if the present resolution is repealed, seeing as how the Confederated City States lack any authority to enforce the list's protections?

I'd also ask what makes the wiki list "official"? It's only been used as a demonstration of the resolution's absurdities; no one is under any obligation to recognize it. And what use is there for UNA-Mikitivity to manage its own WHL if the present resolution is repealed, seeing as how the Confederated City States lack any authority to enforce the list's protections?

In the case of a UNA-Mikitivity World Heritage List, Ceorana already pointed out that the problem with the current interpetation of the resolution is that any nation can submit anything. If the UN does not want a World Heritage List, there is nothing (read no international authority) to prevent nations from forming their own lists and finding their own means to make their lists worthwhile or not. I'd have to contact the UNA-Mikitivity to be certain of its plans, but knowing that Ms. Van Dyne has considerable spice melange at her disposal, I could see her basically purchasing a few assets in other nations. If a few other national interests did the same, in nations with somewhat reasonable laws, the basic idea behind the list can easily survive.

On the subject of the Sunset Committee, I honestly suspect this will just be another repeal-fest. Personally I find the dedicated ambassadors that spend day after day after day working to remove anything that has any substance (good or bad -- Rights and Duties does nothing ... it has no substance, but merely restates rights that existed prior to its adoption ... thus I'm not sure why you like it so much) admirable from the point of view that these individuals are both driven and hard workers. But I also am always pleased when their efforts are split between repeals and drafting new resolutions. I'd rather the Sunset Committee challenge itself with really finding resolutions that have "sunsetted" past their usefulness. Anybody can just repeal anything on site ... few nations have the "faculties" it takes to actually draft new resolutions. That is where I'd rather see more effort be placed.

Howie Katzman

OOC: I was shocked when I shall only 4 pages of proposals last week. I think most of us remember when it was 20. Even the number of posts in this forum have decreased in the past 6 months. :( I've found I come by here less often, because there seem to be fewer draft proposal discussions going on (and these are always interesting to lurk in). I honestly wish you all luck, but I really don't understand why resolutions that have passed are things you really want to pull back up again. I guess that is because I make a point to avoid my ex's like the PLAGUES they are, and revisiting them, I've done *that* enough times to realize the outcome is never as satisfying as how I imagine it.

OOC: I was shocked when I shall only 4 pages of proposals last week. I think most of us remember when it was 20.The list is now being patrolled regularly, as opposed to "Whenever Enodia got around to it". That's a lot of why it's kept so short.

And, to be fair, not only do I remember the days of 20+ pages, but I also remember the constant bitching by players that it was impossible to go through so many to find one good one in a field of crap.

Actually, probably not. The NSwiki list has become *the* official World Heritage List, Debatable, at best.

A slight, veiled figure rises from the seat usually occupied by the buxom Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille:

Fellow representatives, as the principals of my delegation are currently engaged in urgent talks, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11508107&postcount=164) I must beg your permission to speak on a matter that my government considers too important to put on hold until the current foofaraw is dealt with.

The matter I refer to is the suggestion by the honourable representative from Krioval and others that Freedom of Humour (#36) be repealed.

The main reason for this suggestion appears to be that the resolution does nothing that is not well covered by other, more attractively written, resolutions.

I would point out, however, that in my government's opinion it does something not achieved by any other. If I may quote from it,

... the member states of the United Nations shall make no laws preventing any sentient being from exercising this right to humor except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community or where said exercise is unduly hurtful to a particular individual or group.

The emphasis is, or course, mine. In those words, the resolution actually allows member states to set quite severe limits on the activity that it purports to render free. Thus, the resolution contains an internal contradiction.

However, the limits themselves promote humour. Few things are more attractive to humourists than the blanket provision that certain subjects are forbidden. Particularly these subjects. Poking fun at the "accepted moral standards" of rigidly moral communities, and being "unduly hurtful" to such particular individuals as the national leader and to such groups as his political adherents, is the staple of a great deal of humour in Ardchoille and, I am sure, elsewhere.

Consequently, this little gem of a resolution, while being divided against itself, nonetheless succeeds in adding lustre to the very quality it endorses. It does not merely free humour, it embodies humour.

Such Moebius logic makes it unique. Should it fall victim to the sanitising slashers of Sunset, I doubt we will ever be able to achieve its like again. On behalf of its twisted admirers among your respective populaces, I beg you to spare it.

If, however, it does suffer repeal, I give notice of my Government's intention to seek its inclusion on the World Heritage List as an early example of a species all too often endangered in the deliberations of this Assembly. Thank you, and goodnight.

Debatable, at best.
Not really. Consensus seems to be that that list is the official one. But it doesn't have to be that way. If someone on the UN forum were to start up a roleplay of the WHL, and consensus became that that were the official WHL, then, as far as NSwiki is concerned at least, it is the real WHL.

Of course, since neither would be administered by the UN, you wouldn't really need to accept either.

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceorana UN Office

I thought I just told you that no one is under any obligation to recognize the wiki list? It isn't official. "Consensus," my ass. It's just a bunch of people goofing around with what was intended to be a visual aid to demonstrate the proposal's flaws.

I thought I just told you that no one is under any obligation to recognize the wiki list? It isn't official. "Consensus," my ass. It's just a bunch of people goofing around with what was intended to be a visual aid to demonstrate the proposal's flaws.
I think I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that the wiki list is the superlatively official one: the most official one. But that doesn't mean it's official at all.

I thought I just told you that no one is under any obligation to recognize the wiki list? It isn't official. "Consensus," my ass. It's just a bunch of people goofing around with what was intended to be a visual aid to demonstrate the proposal's flaws.

Last time I tried to point this out, I had some fool try and convince me that since I don't recognise it, I shouldn't be playing NS.:rolleyes:

Last time I tried to point this out, I had some fool try and convince me that since I don't recognise it, I shouldn't be playing NS.:rolleyes:Wasn't me.

Anyway, back on topic, yeah, WHL really needs the axe.

I thought I just told you that no one is under any obligation to recognize the wiki list? It isn't official. "Consensus," my ass. It's just a bunch of people goofing around with what was intended to be a visual aid to demonstrate the proposal's flaws.

:) That is also the opinion of the UNA-Mikitivity. Ceo however is a NSWiki admin and is sworn to keep a neutral point of view ... so by definition ... he has to keep an open mind to the possibility that some of those entries are serious. Flib's family jackhammer is now and forever a NS UN treasure!

I would very much like to see 'Public Domain' and 'Support Hemp Production' repealed.

Benedictions,