NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy, Mild
The United Nations,

Reaffirming its intent to ensure for all those accused of criminal acts fair legal proceedings,

Believing that all those tried for criminal acts deserve the right to sentencing by a competent judicial body, whether judge, jury, military tribunal or other, able to consider the specific conditions of the case,

Realizing that in many cases, there may be extenuating circumstances, whereby individuals with similar offences may require different sentences, and therefore full consideration of all relevant factors is needed,

Recognising that different societies treat crime and punishment in different ways, and adopt different attitudes to which sentences may be appropriate:

1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;

4. Recommends that nations devolve sentencing powers to the level most capable of taking into account all relevant considerations.
This is a revamp of a proposal that was drawn up many moons ago, under Moltan Bausch. We finally managed to prise it out, and are considering resubmission.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Full support for this. I especially like article 2.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy, Mild Player and mod input requested
I hate that category. Is there a way to make it Moral Decency?

A good proposal. It manages to juggle respect for sovereignty with the furtherment of important rights. And it doesn't mandate trial by jury (which isn't used in Ariddia (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddian_government_and_judiciary#The_Judiciary)).


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

To me, this doesn't seem like a Furtherment of Democracy proposal. I think that it might fit better in to the Political Stability or *sigh* Moral Decency categories.

The strength seems fine. I didn't see any mandating clauses, so yeah.

The Furtherment of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Political Stability
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Since these are fundamentally at odds with each other, it's up to you lot to make your case for why it belongs in a given category. As players, mods have opinions. As Mods, we make judgments. In order to judge properly, you must first provide your case. You might begin by asking yourself whose rights are being protected or restricted, and what sort of rights those might be.

Have at it.

Since these are fundamentally at odds with each other, it's up to you lot to make your case for why it belongs in a given category. As players, mods have opinions. As Mods, we make judgments. In order to judge properly, you must first provide your case. You might begin by asking yourself whose rights are being protected or restricted, and what sort of rights those might be.
This would be the preamble:

The United Nations,

Reaffirming its intent to ensure for all those accused of criminal acts fair legal proceedings,

Believing that all those tried for criminal acts deserve the right to sentencing by a competent judicial body, whether judge, jury, military tribunal or other, able to consider the specific conditions of the case,

Realizing that in many cases, there may be extenuating circumstances, whereby individuals with similar offences may require different sentences, and therefore full consideration of all relevant factors is needed,

Recognising that different societies treat crime and punishment in different ways, and adopt different attitudes to which sentences may be appropriate:

The basic point I was trying to make was that in order to arrive at a fair sentence, courts need to be able to weigh in all relevant factors, and be attuned to what is appropriate justice for the particular cultural context of the crime. Hence, sentencing should be devolved to a lower level - to a level in which the individual themselves has greater say.

That's why I'm arguing it's a political freedom - it's promoting rights to be involved in determining sentences. I don't see that as a civil right, but more as how much one is involved in the institutional processes of the state. Therefore, I say Furtherment of Democracy.

As to Moral Decency...I have no objection to writing it to that category, but right now, there's nothing in it that I see as being a restriction of civil rights, so it would need reshaping to fit.

I'd say it looks more like human rights, given the way it's worded, though FOD could work, I think.

I'd say it looks more like human rights, given the way it's worded, though FOD could work, I think.

Human Rights, okay, but not FOD. I don't like it and I don't think it really fits into that category. Political Stability would work. At least that's the way it looks to me.

Human Rights, okay, but not FOD. I don't like it and I don't think it really fits into that category. Political Stability would work. At least that's the way it looks to me.
Ok, but why?

Okay, I just re-read everything. I can now see how Furtherment of Democracy can work. I didn't quite understand your arguments at first. I do now. Political Stability isn't a good category for it.

As for the Human Rights category, you're attempting to grant the right to fair sentencing. That's the only reason I can come up with right now for Human Rights.

You might begin by asking yourself whose rights are being protected or restricted, and what sort of rights those might be.While the proposal deals explicitly with the rights of the accused, it's implicitly concerned with the rights of the wrongfully accused. It also implicitly defines the rights of the citizenry to be protected from criminals, while seeking to protect both criminals and non-criminals from abuses by their government (who also happen to be citizens).

Y'all need to look at the broader picture. Try again.
Ok, but why?
... and answer Gruen's question, while you're at it. "Yeah, now I see it," is not a strong case for judgment.

While the proposal deals explicitly with the rights of the accused, it's implicitly concerned with the rights of the wrongfully accused. It also implicitly defines the rights of the citizenry to be protected from criminals, while seeking to protect both criminals and non-criminals from abuses by their government (who also happen to be citizens).

Y'all need to look at the broader picture. Try again.
I'm not sure I follow. Again, with pictures?

I don't see this so much as being about the rights of the accused, but the rights of the convicted - whether rightly or wrongly. Yes, it's trying to promote fair trials, but its primary aim is to secure fair sentences. That's past the accused stage - you have to be convicted to be sentenced. But, taking it from your approach:

- Rights of the accused - Furtherment of Democracy, because it's suggesting their sentence should be determined by courts that are accountable to them (that latter phrase works...I'll try including it in the proposal)
- Rights of the citizenry to be protected from criminals - I suppose that's how you would write it in a Moral Decency way, but these rights are dealt with very very implicitly here, which is why I favour FoD
- Rights of the government - Furtherment of Democracy, because it's giving local, accountable bodies more power, and trying to decentralise the judicial process - so individuals are more represented.

I'm sticking with FoD.

- Rights of the accused - Furtherment of Democracy, because it's suggesting their sentence should be determined by courts that are accountable to them (that latter phrase works...I'll try including it in the proposal)

I'm sticking with FoD.
That's exactly what I meant about 'making your case'. In fact, as you noticed, breaking it down this way helps you find phrases that strengthen the proposal, while simultaneously making it fit better into a specific category.

Gruenberg, I tend to agree with you about FoD, but I'm still willing to listen. Somebody taking a different tack could easily turn this into one of the other categories in just the same way. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it?

I am very new to this but this Resolution caught my eye as a very good one. So here it goes –

To my way of thinking the language of this resolution makes this more of a Human Rights issue with a sprinkling of FoD. It is a plea to governments to be fair to those convicted, as opposed to hanging everyone for any given crime. It is a plea to take into account all mitigating factors and the “big picture” if you will of why the convicted criminal committed the crime in question.

If you felt like expanding upon this I would like to see a clause that encouraged more prosecutorial discretion - to investigate and choose to dismiss cases prior to bringing up charges, if circumstances warrant, and provisions for Defense Councilors to have full disclosure for any part of the proceedings.

For instance:
#. Requests that member nations ensure council for Prosecution is not biased politically motivated and has the latitude to dismiss cases where circumstances warrant it;

And:
#. Requests that member nations ensure that the accused has fully informed and adequate defense council during all proceedings;

May your doubloons always double!

I'm going to make an odd side argument; it's a FOD, but not really a HR issue.

Under one specific circumstance this becomes a HR issue. If the principle of double indemnity is held sacred whereby a person who is declared innocent cannot be later then retried or declared guilty, then it becomes a clear HR issue, because the only case for review is to decalre the guilty innocent (although one cound increase a sentence of the guilty). Unfortunately that cannot be assumed. Thus we must come to the conclusion that the independant body can and will review not guilty sentences and come up with a guilty verdict.

I was watching this show last week about a man who brutally killed his fiancee was tried and found not guilty. Then they finally covered the snuff film he made that clearly proved he did in fact rape and murdered that woman. But all they can do is string him along for purgery crimes. He had literally gotten away with murder!

Yet this is clearly a FOD issue. The "creation of independent and accountable bodies" is clearly a furtherment of the hallmark of the pillars of democracy.

What about changing sentences? While this hints at recommending that the initial sentencing be by those with some sort of judicial experience, I think you need a recommending clause that those holding political offices do not interfere with sentences once made.

What about changing sentences? While this hints at recommending that the initial sentencing be by those with some sort of judicial experience, I think you need a recommending clause that those holding political offices do not interfere with sentences once made.
That would get into clemencies, though, which I suspect would derail the proposal.

Besides, my main interest in this proposal would not really be relevant to that: you can't glue someone's head back on. (Well, you can...actually pretty fun.)

I was actually thinking the reverse - politicians lengthening prison sentences because it would earn them brownie points with the bloodthirsty public.

I was actually thinking the reverse - politicians lengthening prison sentences because it would earn them brownie points with the bloodthirsty public.
I don't think this proposal prohibits them from doing so.

Exactly.

Nor does it recommend they don't, except from a very tenuous interpretation of the last clause.

Exactly.

Nor does it recommend they don't, except from a very tenuous interpretation of the last clause.
That's because the relationship between the judiciary and political bodies is something for nations to decide, not the UN.

I was actually thinking the reverse - politicians lengthening prison sentences because it would earn them brownie points with the bloodthirsty public.You want a proposal outlawing mandatory minimums, write it yourself. Better yet, start a thread in General. It's more relevant there, anyway.

Over 70 approvals now, but it'll need to really pick up to make quorum.

Bollocks. I thought this had a day longer, so, while I didn't think it'd hit quorum, I thought I'd have a chance to grab the approval list today. I missed it by a few minutes...I suppose there's zero chance anyone else did?

I have it.

Thanks. "Requires 1 approval." Damn!

I grabbed it as well and copied it to the IDU Proposal forum.

What really stinks is you were short 1 approval, then dropped to 2 approvals needed, then later recovered it -- all over the course of a couple hours. :(

I didn't look to see if Malabra endorsed it, but had I acted earlier, I'm sure the IDU Delegate would have.


Resubmit it ASAP ... that way there won't be any significant downtime on the proposal. Flib should have the "we almost got it" telegram I was sending out this morning ... you can essentually use the same one.

I think you got a bit screwed by the NS downtime this morning. It meant there were a few hours when players probably tried to get on and figured, "Ah, I'll check tomorrow".

I did get screwed by downtime - I was planning on sending more TGs when the server flopped - but at the same time, I was lazy. I sent off far fewer TGs than I would have expected to make it get to quorum, and I had opportunity to send more last night.

I'll try resubmitting immediately.

I beleive that every nation has a right to make there own laws. out of all of the options i would only agree with option 2.

Thanks. "Requires 1 approval." Damn!

Ugh...that blows, mate!

Flib should have the "we almost got it" telegram I was sending out this morning ... you can essentually use the same one.

Well, I had it.

OOC: I may not be around a great deal during the debate. If this is so, I do apologise.

In advance: bear in mind the UN has already mandated fair trials and banned barbaric punishments, and this resolution can't magically undo that. Also, if you're about to bitch about violation of sovereignty, read the damn thing already.

In advance: bear in mind the UN has already mandated fair trials and banned barbaric punishments, and this resolution can't magically undo that.

Indeed:

Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.)
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=40

So i suppose the clause 2 of your proposal have to be interpreted that way:

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions, subject to previous UN legislation still in effect

OOC: I may not be around a great deal during the debate. If this is so, I do apologise.

In advance: bear in mind the UN has already mandated fair trials and banned barbaric punishments, and this resolution can't magically undo that. Also, if you're about to bitch about violation of sovereignty, read the damn thing already.

You are asking UN members to read the resolution? The problem is that the members that comment on a resolution before it reaches the floor are likely to do so, while those that visit the UN during a debate seem more likely to say something so incredibly stupid that the rest of our IQs drop (if temporarily).

Good luck!

In advance: bear in mind the UN has already mandated fair trials and banned barbaric punishments, and this resolution can't magically undo that.

Although it does ban a repeal/replace of them...

You are asking UN members to read the resolution? The problem is that the members that comment on a resolution before it reaches the floor are likely to do so, while those that visit the UN during a debate seem more likely to say something so incredibly stupid that the rest of our IQs drop (if temporarily).

Good luck!

Temporarily? I still find myself drooling into my own lap. The Cluichstani Foreign Ministry really needs to pay for some drool nurses (hot ones, I hope).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We notice that this resolution falls under the category 'The Furtherment of Democracy' rather than 'Human Rights', which provides a clue to its true purpose. The only compulsory clause is that declaring that nations have the right to choose criminal sentences themselves (rather than the UN specifiying sentences). While we sympathise with the sentiment, we have said many times before that we oppose these 'blocking resolutions' whose sole purpose is to get around the rule that resolutions aren't allowed to restrict the nature of future resolutions.

I think I'll write me a resolution that actually bans FGM. ... Oh, wait. I can't. It would be deemed "duplication." Which means that you, sir, have restricted future legislation by this body with your "blocker resolution." For shame.

We notice that this resolution falls under the category 'The Furtherment of Democracy' rather than 'Human Rights', which provides a clue to its true purpose. The only compulsory clause is that declaring that nations have the right to choose criminal sentences themselves (rather than the UN specifiying sentences). While we sympathise with the sentiment, we have said many times before that we oppose these 'blocking resolutions' whose sole purpose is to get around the rule that resolutions aren't allowed to restrict the nature of future resolutions.

I understand your sentiments, and very much share it on most subjects. There are some areas though where I do support bockers when they are the lesser of two evils , and this is one of them.

Very little, if any, of a nations justice system has international ramifications, and even blocker hating me resents the UN interfering in how we enforce our laws and deal out punisments to those that break them. This will prevent any legislation getting to the floor that demands we execute felons, or not execute, lock people up in our non-existant prisons ect.

I support this resolution and will be gladly voting for when it hits the floor.

I most certainly agree with that sentiment. I approve greatly of the blocking (although the flexibility I speak of means it isn’t blocking in the total sense) in this case as it most certainly ensures the greatest amount of national respect and flexibility for implementation into member nations thereby making it far more effective legislation.

The individual state discretion over other potentially rigid resolutions indirectly advocated by this is very welcome.

On another topic, I would like to commend Gruenberg on a well written document that not only states principle but also suggests specific institutions and frameworks that will be put into place to make this reality. This also serves to make this resolution far more effective due to the lack of ambiguity as to how this will be applied which seems to permeate other legislation.

In advance: bear in mind the UN has already mandated fair trials and banned barbaric punishments, and this resolution can't magically undo that. Also, if you're about to bitch about violation of sovereignty, read the damn thing already.

Although it does ban a repeal/replace of them...

The LAE UN team had been convinved by the argument presented by Ceorana's ambassador and will then vote AGAINST this proposal
This really show how this proposal is a real blocker, instead of a "mild" resolution.

This is sad, because we like very much clause -3-, as Love and esterel had been many times, in this hall, a proponent of the separation of powers in time and branches.

But we think the clause -2- of this proposal is not only unnecessary and useless, but also an administrative and bureaucratic burden for UN legislation. We don't really see any reason to declares so many rights to nations, which already have these rights.

Furthermore we regret the confusion created by this proposal with the abscence of a clear clarification such as "subject to previous UN legislation still in effect" inside clause 2.

I went along with the recent education Resolution, despite its prevention of future legislation.

I won't be doing the same here. This really is a "legalize capital punishment" sort of deal. Doesn't mandate it, but it prevents the prohibition thereof.

Whether or not that would be a matter for the UN is one I am undecided on, and as such, I would prefer not to block the possibility just yet.

Norderia is against.

"We support. We wish the Gruenberg representative the best of luck."

You are asking UN members to read the resolution? The problem is that the members that comment on a resolution before it reaches the floor are likely to do so, while those that visit the UN during a debate seem more likely to say something so incredibly stupid that the rest of our IQs drop (if temporarily).

Good luck!
OOC: Lol. Do I take it from that unusually cynical tone that the debate on Freedom of Assembly was less than informed? (I didn't have time to follow it, but congrats on getting it passed anyway.)

IC:
Although it does ban a repeal/replace of them...
Good thing I'm not trying to repeal/replace them then, isn't it.

We notice that this resolution falls under the category 'The Furtherment of Democracy' rather than 'Human Rights', which provides a clue to its true purpose.
Its purpose was not to be deleted for a category violation. The proposal concerns political rights, not civil rights. Any reading into the category beyond that is pure manufacture on your part.

The only compulsory clause is that declaring that nations have the right to choose criminal sentences themselves (rather than the UN specifiying sentences). While we sympathise with the sentiment, we have said many times before that we oppose these 'blocking resolutions' whose sole purpose is to get around the rule that resolutions aren't allowed to restrict the nature of future resolutions.
So, you agree with the sentiment, but don't like the way it's presented? Personally, if I got a Rolex as a present, I wouldn't give a shit what sort of paper it was wrapped in.

This really is a "legalize capital punishment" sort of deal.
It doesn't force you to legalise it. And it gives you the right to prohibit it. Remember the Child Pornography Prohibition, and how many people wanted us to include mandatory sentences for crimes? We refused, and we don't remember you objecting so strongly to our protecting your judicial rights then. No, it doesn't mandate capital punishment - and it prevents the UN from mandating it.

Whether or not that would be a matter for the UN is one I am undecided on, and as such, I would prefer not to block the possibility just yet.
That's a complete non-argument. "I can't think of a reason to oppose it, so I'll do so until I can think of one" is bollocks.

Nonetheless: let's settle it now. The UN has no place banning capital punishment - discuss.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Its purpose was not to be deleted for a category violation. The proposal concerns political rights, not civil rights. Any reading into the category beyond that is pure manufacture on your part.
We fail to see how the criminal justice system is an issue of political rights and not civil rights.

So, you agree with the sentiment, but don't like the way it's presented? Personally, if I got a Rolex as a present, I wouldn't give a shit what sort of paper it was wrapped in.
There are many issues on which we think the UN shouldn't legislate, but we do not see a purpose in introducing legislation to prevent the general assembly discussing these issues in future. We have enough of a problem with resolution proliferation as it is (there are 123 resolutions currently in effect).

I think I'll write me a resolution that actually bans FGM. ... Oh, wait. I can't. It would be deemed "duplication." Which means that you, sir, have restricted future legislation by this body with your "blocker resolution." For shame.
Now that's unfair. My resolution intended to bring to an end the practice of FGM in the way least likely to cause community relations problems, and was not intended to restrict future legislation on the subject (and surely banning something the that UN only previously condemned is not actually duplication?).

There are unquestionably some very sound and worthy provisions in the text of this resolution. However, it is a generally and passionately held view in Dashanzi that state execution is an abomination, for reasons that encompass the ethical and spiritual realms. In this area, we are missionaries, if you please: the eradication of capital punishment within and without our borders is a mission we will prosecute with zeal.

Personally, I understand and sympathise with nations' wish to keep control of their legal and judicial systems 'in house'. My own nation's position on this issue is not without antagonism, unease and even regret.

I understand also that some will view our position as confused, inconsistent or, worse, hypocritical. After all, we are content to steer clear of other areas of the judicial realm.

Nonetheless, Dashanzi has voted against this resolution in the hope of keeping open the possibility of UN-sponsored resolutions restricting and even eliminating state executions. I beg your understanding of our decision, though I have little hope of holding sway over the majority of voting delegates.

Benedictions,

We notice that this resolution falls under the category 'The Furtherment of Democracy' rather than 'Human Rights', which provides a clue to its true purpose. The only compulsory clause is that declaring that nations have the right to choose criminal sentences themselves (rather than the UN specifiying sentences). While we sympathise with the sentiment, we have said many times before that we oppose these 'blocking resolutions' whose sole purpose is to get around the rule that resolutions aren't allowed to restrict the nature of future resolutions.

There is another compulsory clause in this resolutions, that is art. 3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;

is this to be understood as a call to establish a secondary review board alongside the ordinary courts to secondguess the verdicts passed in the ordinary courts of laws? Should this not be the responsibility of the courts themselves and the state prosecutors?

is this to be understood as a call to establish a secondary review board alongside the ordinary courts to secondguess the verdicts passed in the ordinary courts of laws? Should this not be the responsibility of the courts themselves and the state prosecutors?

I would disagree greatly; I believe that clause to be integral to the effective working of this resolution (i.e. ensuring the fairest sentence possible for the crime).

Such as in the Ithanian (OOC: directly taken from the UK in reality) system where the Criminal Cases Review Commission exists as an independent public body who’s main role is to “review the cases of those that feel they have been wrongly convicted of criminal offences, or unfairly sentenced.” They then send those cases on to the appropriate appeal court.

I don’t think one can call it “second guessing” in that case but rather “augmenting” the courts and also there are inevitably miscarriages of justice within any judiciary, impartiality cannot be forever ensured so there is a necessity for bodies which can be appealed to whenever those rare lapses occur.

In my view, the clause protects the defendant’s right to fair sentence and conviction which is at the heart of what this resolution is trying to do. :)

Of course, I may be entirely wrong so feel to disagree. I'm guessing from your name that you're a solicitor or legal professional of some kind, would this be a correct assumption?

#3 is a dealbreaker. In essence you are creating a UN Supreme Supreme Court where decisions of theoretically of any kind could be appealed to. Does this include parking tickets? Serial Murderers? Only involving disputes between Nations? How do you plan on invoking and enforcing a World Supreme Court? This is a HUGE issue in and of itself, hardly worthy of a side comment in a bill that doesnt even focus on it. There are BILLIONS of criminal acts in the world. How do you plan on creating a review mechanism that reviews every criminal case in every Country in the World to determine if Justice has been met? This is INSANE.

#3 is a dealbreaker. In essence you are creating a UN Supreme Supreme Court where decisions of theoretically of any kind could be appealed to. Does this include parking tickets? Serial Murderers? Only involving disputes between Nations? How do you plan on invoking and enforcing a World Supreme Court? This is a HUGE issue in and of itself, hardly worthy of a side comment in a bill that doesnt even focus on it. There are BILLIONS of criminal acts in the world. How do you plan on creating a review mechanism that reviews every criminal case in every Country in the World to determine if Justice has been met? This is INSANE.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/spongebobweed9gb.jpg

What part of what i said didnt you understand? Do you not understand how clause #3 creates a Supreme Court? Do you not understand my confusion as to the lack of ANY rules or regulations or limitations on this judging body that will decide for the whole planet what is just or not? Who votres for the members of this comittee? What are thier enforcement powers? What are thier limitations? Do they have thier own Constitution that supereceeds all the Constitutions of all the countries on the planet to follow? There are about a billion questions as to the nature of this "committee" that any right minded individual would ask before handing such a HUGE power to someone or some body.

We fail to see how the criminal justice system is an issue of political rights and not civil rights.Really, Saf, this has already been discussed. Put on your reading glasses and keep scrolling down (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11709245#post11709245).

There are many issues on which we think the UN shouldn't legislate, but we do not see a purpose in introducing legislation to prevent the general assembly discussing these issues in future. We have enough of a problem with resolution proliferation as it is (there are 123 resolutions currently in effect).And believe you me, this has already been discussed, about 80,000 times. :rolleyes:

Now that's unfair. My resolution intended to bring to an end the practice of FGM in the way least likely to cause community relations problems, and was not intended to restrict future legislation on the subject (and surely banning something the that UN only previously condemned is not actually duplication?).Actually, my central point is that all resolutions block future legislation in some way. Surely you realized this before faulting Gruenberg for doing something all resolution authors do?

As to whether FGM similarly "blocks" or not, we were told during the Gay Rights repeal debate that more constructive legislation protecting the rights of GLBT people was impossible without repealing the original. Even though the original did nothing. We can only assume that FGM, fine a proposal as it is, would have the same effect, mild strength or no.

Really, Saf, this has already been discussed. Put on your reading glasses and keep scrolling down (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11709245#post11709245).
*fetches reading glasses* Right you are. That'll teach me not to act like a newbie and wade into the middle of a thread.

And believe you me, this has already been discussed, about 80,000 times. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I know, and everyone's fed up with it. I was just explaining to Gruenberg why I don't support resolutions like this.

Actually, my central point is that all resolutions block future legislation in some way. Surely you realized this before faulting Gruenberg for doing something all resolution authors do?
Of course, but there is a difference between preventing future resolutions from declaring stance X on issue Y because the resolution declares stance not-X, and declaring (in a kind of meta-stance) that issue Y is the prerogative of State governments and the UN cannot declare X or not-X.

As to whether FGM similarly "blocks" or not, we were told during the Gay Rights repeal debate that more constructive legislation protecting the rights of GLBT people was impossible without repealing the original. Even though the original did nothing. We can only assume that FGM, fine a proposal as it is, would have the same effect, mild strength or no.
I'm afraid I missed that debate. It seems a strange decision, as similiar cases have been permitted recently - Resolution #163, 'UN Copyright Convention', covers the issues of Resolution #60, 'Public Domain', without that resolution having been repealed (although I'm drafting a repeal at the moment). The moderators can be fickle, I guess.

what is this resolution actually about? Does it do anything at all? Is there any way the Tharkent deligation can have the three minutes it took to read this back in our lives please?

what is this resolution actually about? Does it do anything at all? Is there any way the Tharkent deligation can have the three minutes it took to read this back in our lives please?

We suggest taking more than three minutes to read it then. Obviously, you need the extra time.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm afraid I missed that debate. It seems a strange decision, as similiar cases have been permitted recently - Resolution #163, 'UN Copyright Convention', covers the issues of Resolution #60, 'Public Domain', without that resolution having been repealed (although I'm drafting a repeal at the moment). The moderators can be fickle, I guess.

We're quite surprised that the distinguished member from Safalra seems to misunderstand the rules of this Assembly. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that prohibits a proposal from "covering the issues" which were the subjects of prior resolutions. We quote the pertinent portion of the Rules for UN Proposals for his convenience:

Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.

During the drafting of NSUNR #163, considerable attention and discussion was devoted to making sure the proposal did not violate these rules. It did not.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We're quite surprised that the distinguished member from Safalra
OOC: Safalra is the person. The nation is the Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra (FDOS for short).

seems to misunderstand the rules of this Assembly. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that prohibits a proposal from "covering the issues" which were the subjects of prior resolutions. We quote the pertinent portion of the Rules for UN Proposals for his convenience:
It seems this aside in the rules you quote means that resolution #163 should not have restated the purpose of the public domain:
As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

You neglect the gut of the rule:

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast.And we are far wide of the original topic here, so I'm going to let this subject stand.

<sigh>

I have only one sticking point with this resolution. The mandating of an independent body to oversee the sentencing in my court system (which already has a high degree of oversight already). I do not pretend to have a perfect understanding of what is being accomplished here, and I understand that as a group you are trying to be sensitive to national sovereignty.

From my national standpoint, your legislation accomplishes nothing that benefits my nation.

I am seeking any reason to vote FOR this resolution. I have been in this game over two years and the UN has rarely impressed me with much of anything other than the mandates that they force upon my nation, some good but most of them utterly worthless.

My past reading of UN resolutions over the years here have soured me on the body and it is going to take a lot of good things from this body before my trust is reestablished.

Right now, sadly I view the UN as an unwelcome intrusion in this game and I will watch these debates as much as my not so copius free time allows.

Oh, and the crack about nations coming in here making ill-informed remarks was unwarranted. I might agree with you but you serve the game in this capacity, it can be viewed as ill-grace to make such tactless remarks. If this group is not ready for the criticism it will draw from the well AND ill-informed, then I gently suggest you withdraw to another game function where you are protected from such scrutiny.

Respects,

Sir Geoffrey Gosford
Prime Minister of Schwarzchild

In Addition to the point raised by the Prime Minister of Schwarzchild, a point which appears to have been discussed already but I do not feel is sufficiently resolved, I have another question about this resolution. I sense an appearent contradiction between 1, and 2, which I shall quote here:

1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

Now, if nations are to determine for themselves what sentances shall be for laws violated under that jurisdiction, how can the UN than judge it as "Fair and Just" or not? Suppose (and I assure you this is purely hypothetical, we're not barbarians), that our judges rules that a youth of unstable mental who broke into a bakery to steal a loaf of bread shall be sentanced to have both his arms chopped off and a big "T" branded on his forhead. Unless he's Occulari, in which case his wrist is to be slapped throughly with a sunday-edtion newspaper.

Now, if 2 declares that we have the right to do that, what exactly is 1 supposed to mean?

This resolution is more or less just a bureaucratic quagmire, and while I do agree with the catagory "Increasing Democratic Freedoms" selection (fair trials most often imply criminal trials, and not civil trials; a civil trial fair play is civil liberty, a criminal trial fair play is a furtherment of political freedom), but because of its weak language, and its inability to distinguish between those two types of trials, it really doesn't do anything except make paperwork.

I like how they claim that it's still the juristiction of the government to set what sort of trial (after all, not everyone uses peer jury, and I can understand why; that's the reason not everyone is a lawyer), and that the types of punishment are up to us (they're not, by the way, due to earlier resolutions, but, hey, it was a nice thought), so they at least saw that other nations would have varying thoughts on these issues, but in reality, if this was passed, would anything happen? It doesn't really define a fair trial, it doesn't really say anything. It'd be like "I wish I had something nice", and expecting it to happen.

I could just imagine the Compliance Ministry jetting their guys to each nation, frowning, shaking their head, shrugging, wiring a telegram, picking up their paychecks, going home, and nothing more.

I agree completly with Algolian and Shadow-Kai. No more needs to be added, they said it perfectly. This is useless, and so I am voting against and implore everyone to do the same. If you're not going to actually propose something, then why are you speaking? I could ramble on forever in a proposal saying that we shouldn't hit dogs, and I might change a couple minds, but this is the UN, and it's supposed to be a place of action. I thought I'd be voting on these things in accordance to my beliefs, but so far, I've voted based on whether or not these proposals DO anything or not. Rediculous.

All I care about is: Does this Proposal cure cancer?

Actually it probably reduces the chances.:p Should you capture cancer then put her/him/it on trial for the murder of millions you couldn't just jump to killing (or "curing") it.

You'd actually have to give it a fair sentence under the whole mentally disturbed psycho "who can't help it". :(

I agree completly with Algolian and Shadow-Kai. No more needs to be added, they said it perfectly. This is useless, and so I am voting against and implore everyone to do the same. If you're not going to actually propose something, then why are you speaking? I could ramble on forever in a proposal saying that we shouldn't hit dogs, and I might change a couple minds, but this is the UN, and it's supposed to be a place of action. I thought I'd be voting on these things in accordance to my beliefs, but so far, I've voted based on whether or not these proposals DO anything or not. Rediculous.

It is indeed ridiculous. Why don't you start voting on whether they're in accordance with your beliefs?

Even if the language of the resolution was stronger and took a firm position on sentencing, all it means is that now it's worded more strongly. Nations may not be able to ignore that it is now law, but it doesn't mean they have to enforce that law or that they can't find loopholes to get around it. Given these problems and the lack of a UN army or police force, I find it very hard to believe that you can substantiate your claim that the UN is supposed to be a place of action rather than a place of good ideas and recommendations.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I like most of it but when a nation is at war or has a large diaster it is not Always possible to garentue those rights

I like most of it but when a nation is at war or has a large diaster it is not Always possible to garentue those rights

What are you on about? Are you contending that war tribunals should not be fair and equal?

the Great Star Empire is notoriously draconian when it comes to policing and these "political rights" we keep hearing about, but we can't see any problem with actually making sure that trials are fair and just. We support the notion that the people should not be subject to unjust and unfair trials. The law, no matter how oppressive or tree-hugging, should always be fair.

Good lord... did I just say that? The last UN ambassador from Allech-Atreus was gunned down for saying the same thing.

I think I'll go have a drink. Or two.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN

It is indeed ridiculous. Why don't you start voting on whether they're in accordance with your beliefs?

Even if the language of the resolution was stronger and took a firm position on sentencing, all it means is that now it's worded more strongly. Nations may not be able to ignore that it is now law, but it doesn't mean they have to enforce that law or that they can't find loopholes to get around it. Given these problems and the lack of a UN army or police force, I find it very hard to believe that you can substantiate your claim that the UN is supposed to be a place of action rather than a place of good ideas and recommendations.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Mr. Jones:

I always vote my beliefs, on that you can be assured.

I am going to vote for this resolution, just like the last one...it doesn't make undue demands upon my nation as the standard in my country meets or exceeds UN standards.

Mechanically, as a UN member nation I must fall into line with all of these resolutions, my only way to avoid this situation is to vote with my feet. In others words, if I don't like it, I leave or do my best to get the more egregious resolutions repealed in the future.

Given those choices, I will always attempt to do something about the problems rather than taking my ball and going home.

I have stated my position clearly in previous communications to this body, I will not belabour the point any more. But the next delegate to this august body that tells me to put up or shut up is going to get popped in the snoot.

Gosford.

Having reviewed the text of this resolution, I've found that the categorization and mild strength of the resolution (as provided by the UN Secretariat) is consistent with the text of the resolution. This resolution is slightly different in focus than the Freedom of Assembly resolution that this body adopted, but essentially this resolution calls upon governments to set up a legal system that incorporates checks-and-balances via independent bodies that will review the sentences issued by national court systems.

The merit of this resolution is that it does not impose any detailed guildelines, but instead applies a flexible approach that is respectiful of sovereign rule and more likely to succeed than any one appellate or review body could possible accomplish given the diversity of governments in the UN.

Before yielding the floor, since the resolution's sponsor Gruenberg said they'd be unable to attend the UN at this time, I'd like to address a few of the comments concerning the resolution text.

First, one ambassador asked how the first clause and second clause did not contradict one-another.


1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;


2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

The first clause essentially sets the tone for the entire resolution ... namely that legal processes must be fair and just. The second clause then builds upon this ideal by essentially acknowledging that different societies will have different social and legal systems. In short, what is fair in Mikitivity may not be considered fair in Gruenberg. The exception of course are common civil rights that have been implemented by international law (i.e. previous UN resolutions).

For example, the Due Process (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Due_Process) resolution already spelled out some of the rights concerning citizens accused of crimes, and as members of the UN, both Mikitivity and Gruenberg should follow the spirit of that dated resolution. So when an international law outlines basic civil or legal rights, this resolution is saying that not only should those rights be upheld, but the third clause of this resolution actually takes a proactive measure to ensure that the rights granted by international law are applied in the sentencing (I'm sure that the government of Gruenberg already recognized that the trial process itself has already been covered via the Fair Trial and Due Process resolutions).

Another nation asked a question about the third clause's provisions for independent and accountible review bodies, and suggested that an international body such as the UN should not have oversight responsibilities over domestic legal systems. When I attended the ad hoc (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ad_hoc) meetings concerning this resolution, I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies. Gruenberg's position as a proponent of national sovereignty is well known throughout the international community ... so I think it is safe to assume that the check and balance intended by clause 3 is just to make sure that citizens have essentially a body that can check up on judges or whomever else issues sentences to make sure that those decisions are consisent with existing domestic laws.

One might argue that this hardly seems appropriate for a Furtherment of Democracy resolution, and yet by creating independent panels or boards, essentially citizens are granted additional political rights. In many of our nations, the impact of this resolution will be negligible, whereas in other nations it might take some time to create review boards ... but the purpose of this resolution is clear (and welcomed by my government): it simply intends to give citizens another way to appeal for independent help or fairness.

In essence, I believe clause three is the heart of this resolution, and as such Mikitivity strongly supports this resolution. We consider this another job well done by the government of Gruenberg!

Howie T. Katzman

We agree with Mr. Katzman.

We really have to stress to the body the importance of protecting UN members' rights to sentence their criminals* under rules forged by the people most accountable to the accused and to the people at large -- not by a presumptuous enclave of meddling international diplomats posing as some sort of "superlegislature." Criminals in the Federal Republic are not convicted of breaking UN laws; they are convicted of violating the laws of the Federal Republic, and those of the several states. It naturally follows that the penalties for breaking such laws should be created and enforced by those with the greatest understanding of why such laws were put into place. Allowing ignorant and irrelevant foreigners to usurp our laws by modifying our sentencing guidelines would violate the trust we hold with those accused of breaking our laws, and with the people we are elected (yes, Norderia, elected) to serve. And once the United Nations protects our rights to deal with our own criminals, it is only prudent it also demand that member nations apply such penalties fairly, and to allow independent watchdogs to verify their fair application. And, as Gruenberg has elegantly stated, member states are already subject to previous legislation banning torture and other forms of barbarism, so there is no further cause of action for the UN to interfere with national sentencing laws. Barring cruel and unusual punishments and other egregious violations of human rights, criminal sentencing is intrinsically an issue for national legislatures, not international bureaucrats. The logic behind this edict is perfectly sound.

Where certain elements in this body would act to endanger our nation's security and the safety of our people by restricting our right to deal with the greatest threats to our society in the harshest possible terms, the Federal Republic wholeheartedly supports this resolution.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

* "subject to previous UN legislation still in effect." :rolleyes:

This really is a "legalize capital punishment" sort of deal. Doesn't mandate it, but it prevents the prohibition thereof.Well, look who just caught up!

It doesn't force you to legalise it. And it gives you the right to prohibit it. Remember the Child Pornography Prohibition, and how many people wanted us to include mandatory sentences for crimes? We refused, and we don't remember you objecting so strongly to our protecting your judicial rights then. No, it doesn't mandate capital punishment - and it prevents the UN from mandating it.
Right, not force to legalize, that was sloppy wording on my part. As for the rest, I've no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall anything about mandatory sentences, and my whole argument during CPP was about protecting my nation's judicial rights. Not the rights of the judiciary, but the rights of people from the judiciary, in a sense. Point being, now we have an overbroad classification on hand.

That's a complete non-argument. "I can't think of a reason to oppose it, so I'll do so until I can think of one" is bollocks.
Good thing that's not what I'm saying, then, huh? I have a reason to oppose a blocker because I am not certain that the issue being blocked is one that the UN should not have a hand in. Therefore, I want to leave the possibility open.

Nonetheless: let's settle it now. The UN has no place banning capital punishment - discuss.
As said, I'm not sure whether it does or not. I'm inclined to think that capital punishment has no merit for humanism. Its merit is chiefly financial. And that is something we in Norderia have little concern for.

2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;

It seems to me that this sterile and bureacratic clause will sadly justify the action of all the nations who are overindulgent related to the followed proposals and some more:

#163 UN Copyright Convention
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=162
#156 UN Patent Law
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=155
#168 UN Counterterrorism Initiative
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=167
#169 Child Pornography Prohibition
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=168

Another nation asked a question about the third clause's provisions for independent and accountible review bodies, and suggested that an international body such as the UN should not have oversight responsibilities over domestic legal systems. When I attended the ad hoc (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ad_hoc) meetings concerning this resolution, I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies. Gruenberg's position as a proponent of national sovereignty is well known throughout the international community ... so I think it is safe to assume that the check and balance intended by clause 3 is just to make sure that citizens have essentially a body that can check up on judges or whomever else issues sentences to make sure that those decisions are consisent with existing domestic laws.

One might argue that this hardly seems appropriate for a Furtherment of Democracy resolution, and yet by creating independent panels or boards, essentially citizens are granted additional political rights. In many of our nations, the impact of this resolution will be negligible, whereas in other nations it might take some time to create review boards ... but the purpose of this resolution is clear (and welcomed by my government): it simply intends to give citizens another way to appeal for independent help or fairness.

In essence, I believe clause three is the heart of this resolution, and as such Mikitivity strongly supports this resolution. We consider this another job well done by the government of Gruenberg!

Howie T. Katzman


"I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies." While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended . This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system yet the UN hasnt seen fit to even MENTION its composition, rules, limitations, jurisdiction, enforcement powers, if its even a local as compared to an international independent group, NOTHING. How can ANYONE in good conscience vote for this bill without having a CLUE as to the critical answers to these questions.

Another nation asked a question about the third clause's provisions for independent and accountible review bodies, and suggested that an international body such as the UN should not have oversight responsibilities over domestic legal systems. When I attended the ad hoc (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ad_hoc) meetings concerning this resolution, I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies. Gruenberg's position as a proponent of national sovereignty is well known throughout the international community ... so I think it is safe to assume that the check and balance intended by clause 3 is just to make sure that citizens have essentially a body that can check up on judges or whomever else issues sentences to make sure that those decisions are consisent with existing domestic laws.

One might argue that this hardly seems appropriate for a Furtherment of Democracy resolution, and yet by creating independent panels or boards, essentially citizens are granted additional political rights. In many of our nations, the impact of this resolution will be negligible, whereas in other nations it might take some time to create review boards ... but the purpose of this resolution is clear (and welcomed by my government): it simply intends to give citizens another way to appeal for independent help or fairness.

In essence, I believe clause three is the heart of this resolution, and as such Mikitivity strongly supports this resolution. We consider this another job well done by the government of Gruenberg!

Howie T. Katzman


"I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies." While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended . This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system yet the UN hasnt seen fit to even MENTION its composition, rules, limitations, jurisdiction, enforcement powers, if its even a local as compared to an international independent group, NOTHING. How can ANYONE in good conscience vote for this bill without having a CLUE as to the critical answers to these questions.

On the positive side, if this bill passes i will remove my complete budget for the legal department and send every single one of my criminals to the UN for them to deal with. Im going to declare every single defendent that goes in front of our courts summarily guilty and let the UN independent councils actually try the appeals. Why should i bother spending money on silly things like laws and Constitutions now that a UN independent council can toss it all out the window whenever they want. Let them spend the money to clear these people instead of my government coffers. They clearly know what is right and just better than i do anyway so screw it im letting the UN foot my legal bill from here on in. But dont panic UN, i shouldnt be sending much more then 50,000 or 75,000 people a month though. But when another 10,000 countries start doing the same thing, youll need to create a new country or four just to hold all the prisioners awaiting appeals!

IC:
The Secretary of The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation, on behalf of The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia, wishes to inform the UN that DRE has been operating within the guidelines of this resolution since The Revolution took place when the nation had only 5 million citizens.

The Beloved President for Life 1: Judges every case in Excruciatia personally, which guarantees a fair and just verdict 2: Determines for himself by which method to execute the guilty, when, and how long to torture them beforehand 3: Is accountable to his own judgement which has never been wrong in any case brought before him, however he also has the power to his sentencing decisions if he needs to and 4. and he is the most, no, the only, capable of exercising aforementioned sentencing powers.

That said, BPL is disturbed by the category of this resolution, Furtherment of the disease known as "Democracy", so he has instructed me to vote against it.

Secretary of The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation,
By Order of BPL - DRE


OOC:
As Bugs Bunny said, "Ain't I a stinker" ;)

"I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies." While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended . This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system yet the UN hasnt seen fit to even MENTION its composition, rules, limitations, jurisdiction, enforcement powers, if its even a local as compared to an international independent group, NOTHING. How can ANYONE in good conscience vote for this bill without having a CLUE as to the critical answers to these questions.

On the positive side, if this bill passes i will remove my complete budget for the legal department and send every single one of my criminals to the UN for them to deal with. Im going to declare every single defendent that goes in front of our courts summarily guilty and let the UN independent councils actually try the appeals. Why should i bother spending money on silly things like laws and Constitutions now that a UN independent council can toss it all out the window whenever they want. Let them spend the money to clear these people instead of my government coffers. They clearly know what is right and just better than i do anyway so screw it im letting the UN foot my legal bill from here on in. But dont panic UN, i shouldnt be sending much more then 50,000 or 75,000 people a month though. But when another 10,000 countries start doing the same thing, youll need to create a new country or four just to hold all the prisioners awaiting appeals!This has got to be the most thick-headed analysis of any proposal I have ever seen. Read the proposal agai-- Oh my God, read the fucking proposal again. It doesn't say anything about overruling courts, or independent councils, or unbelievable power, or UN control, or even that it's required. It's only "called for." If you're so bent on saving bucks, my suggestion would be to fire that douchebag ambassador of yours and hire on a scribe who actually knows how to read the law.

It doesn't say anything about overruling courts, or independent councils, or unbelievable power, or UN control, or even that it's required. It's only "called for."

I must agree with Intestinal Fluids here. The concern is that this resolution DOES NOT preclude overruling courts, councils or UN control to come into existence.

Surely the omission of the word "domestic" could make numbers two and three contradict at some point.

"I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies." While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended . This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system yet the UN hasnt seen fit to even MENTION its composition, rules, limitations, jurisdiction, enforcement powers, if its even a local as compared to an international independent group, NOTHING. How can ANYONE in good conscience vote for this bill without having a CLUE as to the critical answers to these questions.

Ridiculous. The proposal creates no "independent council"; it calls for the creation of "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions". It's quite obvious to us that these bodies would be created within the individual nations by the nations themselves.

And we must applaud the representative of Intestinal Fluids for doing the best job of contradicting himself that we've seen yet in this Assembly. On the one hand, he wails that the "independent council" will have "the unbelievable power of overruling [his] ENTIRE justice system." In the same sentence, he moans that the proposal "doesn't even mention" the jurisdiction and powers of this body. He sneers at another representative for "guessing" at the meaning of the words of the proposal. Just where did he find the words that granted this "unbelievable power"?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I must agree with Intestinal Fluids here. The concern is that this resolution DOES NOT preclude overruling courts, councils or UN control to come into existence.

Surely the omission of the word "domestic" could make numbers two and three contradict at some point.Well, then, maybe you require a lesson in UN protocols. UN commissions cannot be created unless a resolution mandates the creation of such. As there is no mandate here to create UN commissions on judicial sentencing, and as there is no mandate to create any commission or committee or council whatsoever in the entire proposal, we can only assume the language is a recommendation for member states.

Thank you for your time.

That said, BPL is disturbed by the category of this resolution, Furtherment of the disease known as "Democracy", so he has instructed me to vote against it.

I hope you're joking.

This latest string of "categorical voting" is probably the worst criteria for voting for or against a Resolution that I have ever seen.

Tommo the Stout looks flustered, stuttering for a new sentence to begin, looking around and fidgeting, his face slowly turning red. At last, he slams his palm on his desk.

SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOUUUUUUUU!!!

He points a shaking finger accusingly and remains leaning over his desk, finger pointing, a glare on his face for several seconds, until Juhani stands and eases the larger man back into his hammock. Tommo the Stout remains rigid, only slowly returning to his seat, his eyes not once leaving the Excruciatian representative.

While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended . This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system yet the UN hasnt seen fit to even MENTION its composition, rules, limitations, jurisdiction, enforcement powers, if its even a local as compared to an international independent group, NOTHING. How can ANYONE in good conscience vote for this bill without having a CLUE as to the critical answers to these questions.

Euletabletten! You have just accused me of reading what I want out of the resolution while claiming that you read the actual words, and yet you've ignored the "actual words" making a hypocrite out of yourself:

3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;

Perhaps ENGLISH is your second language (as it is mine), but notice that the actual words say BODIES. In the English language that is plural, which strongly suggests that this resolution is establishing a series of various domestic organs, a body for each UN member ... each created in accordance with clause 2 (do I need to show you the actual words of that clause as well -- I hope not or that would be twice now that you've not really read the "actual words") which establishes that the right for overseeing sentencing lies within nations.

Now, as for the reason that the resolution doesn't mention the specific guidelines for domestic appellate organs, Gruenberg answered those questions in this very thread. I highly recommend that you, an individual that claims to read "actual words" go back and read the first three pages of this discussion where Gruenberg already answered that question.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: I'm not really mad, but Ambassador Katzman is and he has marked Intestinal Fluids off the list of UN nations set to recieve the annual Halloween Miervatian Spice Melange Bier Gift Basket. In other words, "No beer for you!" :p

This latest string of "categorical voting" is probably the worst criteria for voting for or against a Resolution that I have ever seen.

I'd comment on that but I've been known to do that myself a time or two.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I hope you're joking.

This latest string of "categorical voting" is probably the worst criteria for voting for or against a Resolution that I have ever seen.

Tommo the Stout looks flustered, stuttering for a new sentence to begin, looking around and fidgeting, his face slowly turning red. At last, he slams his palm on his desk.

SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOUUUUUUUU!!!

He points a shaking finger accusingly and remains leaning over his desk, finger pointing, a glare on his face for several seconds, until Juhani stands and eases the larger man back into his hammock. Tommo the Stout remains rigid, only slowly returning to his seat, his eyes not once leaving the Excruciatian representative.


OOC:
"The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant." ;)

Italics below is boring background "What are the characters' motivation" garbage I threw together while bored now, skip if you like :)


Although only a short wiry man, The Secretary of The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation looked back at Tommo the Stout and wondered just who this display was meant to impress. Years ago, not long after the first stage of The Revolution, The Secretary had felt the wrath of The President of Excruciatia himself.

As a young aide to a minor official, he was attending a function with the official. When he had met The President he questioned him on one policy direction. The President thought for a second then smiled at him and reached out his hand as if to shake...As soon as he took The President's hand, the aide found himself being flung at the nearest wall. He slammed into the wall and fell heavily.

The heavyset bulldog-like President then calmly walked up to the prone aide and repeatedly kicked him, not in a murderous rage, but cold, calculated, perfectly aimed kicks. He later found out that there was one kick for every word of the question he had asked The President, with even the placement of the kicks being in proportion with the aide's error of judgement in using the particular word on the topic. The President looked down at him, still with the smile on his face, and said "You don't need to be sent to an Extensive Encouragement in Patriotism Conference to learn how to do your job...This time" and walked off.

Thinking back The Secretary knew he was lucky to have escaped that day with just a few broken ribs, a permanent limp, and the loss of some of the use of his left arm...after all, he could have been sent to an EEPC. As The Secretary had officiated as an Encouragement Facilitator himself many times he knew what he would be in for...the rumours that circulated amongst the citizens of Excruciatia and it's related nations were nothing next to an EEPC, or worse, an EEPC when The President himself decided to be Encouragement Facilitator...


The Secratary of The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation again looked at Juhani and Tommo the Stout sitting opposite. He adjusted his wire-framed glasses and said "Gentlemen, I thank you for making your point of view known, and will be sure to pass your views along to the Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia, however he has examined the situation and instructed me on his wishes in this vote...and I don't think he ever jokes."

We fail to see how the criminal justice system is an issue of political rights and not civil rights.
A civil right is freedom from government interference in personal matters. A political right is freedom to become involved in the processes of one's state. This resolution calls for sentencing bodies that are accountable to the individuals subject to them - that is clearly an issue of political rights.

Nonetheless, that is it. The discussion is over - the resolution is in the category it's in, it can't be changed now, and thus it's over.

There are many issues on which we think the UN shouldn't legislate, but we do not see a purpose in introducing legislation to prevent the general assembly discussing these issues in future. We have enough of a problem with resolution proliferation as it is (there are 123 resolutions currently in effect).
This is really silly. The number of resolutions there are is irrelevant. Introducing legislation to close off an avenue of discussion makes perfect sense.

If I entered a jousting contest, I would wear armour. I don't think I'd care that it would weigh me down.

There are unquestionably some very sound and worthy provisions in the text of this resolution. However, it is a generally and passionately held view in Dashanzi that state execution is an abomination, for reasons that encompass the ethical and spiritual realms. In this area, we are missionaries, if you please: the eradication of capital punishment within and without our borders is a mission we will prosecute with zeal.
Although capital punishment is close to being Gruenberg's national sport, we do share some sympathy for you. For us, judicial punishments like incarceration are abhorrent infringements on individual liberty. We believe all people are born free, and to cage them up, restricting their freedom of assembly, of movement, and of almost all capacity to exercise free will, is simply horrific.

Nonetheless, we are willing to swallow this, look upon nations who allow this evil practice with disdain, and move on.

Nonetheless, Dashanzi has voted against this resolution in the hope of keeping open the possibility of UN-sponsored resolutions restricting and even eliminating state executions. I beg your understanding of our decision, though I have little hope of holding sway over the majority of voting delegates.
If you will agree to extend such resolutions to all punishments that infringe on the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of individuals - in the interests of being coherent, rather than coming from a knee-jerk pit of emotivism - then we'll support such proposals.

There is another compulsory clause in this resolutions, that is art. 3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;

is this to be understood as a call to establish a secondary review board alongside the ordinary courts to secondguess the verdicts passed in the ordinary courts of laws? Should this not be the responsibility of the courts themselves and the state prosecutors?
No.

In my view, the clause protects the defendant’s right to fair sentence and conviction which is at the heart of what this resolution is trying to do.
Yes, that's what I was aiming for.

#3 is a dealbreaker. In essence you are creating a UN Supreme Supreme Court where decisions of theoretically of any kind could be appealed to.
Fuck "in essence", because I am "in fact" not creating any such body at all.

How do you plan on invoking and enforcing a World Supreme Court?
I don't...

There are BILLIONS of criminal acts in the world. How do you plan on creating a review mechanism that reviews every criminal case in every Country in the World to determine if Justice has been met?
Again, I don't.

Do you not understand how clause #3 creates a Supreme Court?
No, I really don't understand how a non-mandatory clause that refers to nations could establish a mandatory UN body.

Do you not understand my confusion as to the lack of ANY rules or regulations or limitations on this judging body that will decide for the whole planet what is just or not?
I thought it best not to set any rules for this body, because I didn't create it. Making up rules for something that doesn't exist seems a little silly.

OOC: Despite that being what we do all day...

Who votres for the members of this comittee?
Nobody, because it doesn't exist.

What are thier enforcement powers?
None.

What are thier limitations?
I was going to say "none", but that's the wrong way round. Given they don't exist, I suppose they're really quite limited.

Do they have thier own Constitution that supereceeds all the Constitutions of all the countries on the planet to follow?
No.

There are about a billion questions as to the nature of this "committee" that any right minded individual would ask before handing such a HUGE power to someone or some body.
I would seriously question your assertion that rewriting a proposal to do something it actually doesn't do, phantoming a non-existent committee out of the air, that it doesn't set up, and then pretending it sets this up, allotting it powers that it can't exist to weild in the first place, and then spewing interminably fucktarded shit about it until I pretty much just want to kill some pigeons is "right minded".

what is this resolution actually about?
Read it.

Does it do anything at all?
Yes, it does. To find out what....read it.

Is there any way the Tharkent deligation can have the three minutes it took to read this back in our lives please?
Wasting my time telling me I wasted your time is...ugh.

I have only one sticking point with this resolution. The mandating of an independent body to oversee the sentencing in my court system (which already has a high degree of oversight already).
"Calls for" is not a mandatory operator.

From my national standpoint, your legislation accomplishes nothing that benefits my nation.
It prevents the UN from farking with your nation's courts.

If this group is not ready for the criticism it will draw from the well AND ill-informed, then I gently suggest you withdraw to another game function where you are protected from such scrutiny.
Dunno who you were addressing here, but on the off-chance it was me, there's a phrase about "sticking", "the business end of a mop", and "all the way up" that comes to mind.

Now, if nations are to determine for themselves what sentances shall be for laws violated under that jurisdiction, how can the UN than judge it as "Fair and Just" or not?
1. Clause 1 is only a request. It's not mandatory.
2. The UN has already defined a fair trial.

Suppose (and I assure you this is purely hypothetical, we're not barbarians), that our judges rules that a youth of unstable mental who broke into a bakery to steal a loaf of bread shall be sentanced to have both his arms chopped off and a big "T" branded on his forhead. Unless he's Occulari, in which case his wrist is to be slapped throughly with a sunday-edtion newspaper.

Now, if 2 declares that we have the right to do that, what exactly is 1 supposed to mean?
It's a request - the UN batting its eyes and asking if pretty please you wouldn't mind doing it. I see no contradiction in that.

I like how they claim that it's still the juristiction of the government to set what sort of trial (after all, not everyone uses peer jury, and I can understand why; that's the reason not everyone is a lawyer), and that the types of punishment are up to us (they're not, by the way, due to earlier resolutions, but, hey, it was a nice thought), so they at least saw that other nations would have varying thoughts on these issues, but in reality, if this was passed, would anything happen? It doesn't really define a fair trial, it doesn't really say anything. It'd be like "I wish I had something nice", and expecting it to happen.
No, it'd be like stopping anything nasty from happening in the future.

I could just imagine the Compliance Ministry jetting their guys to each nation, frowning, shaking their head, shrugging, wiring a telegram, picking up their paychecks, going home, and nothing more.
Hahahahahaha! That was really funny! Hahahahahaha!

Oh wait - shut up.

If you're not going to actually propose something, then why are you speaking?
To stop other people from speaking.

I could ramble on forever in a proposal saying that we shouldn't hit dogs, and I might change a couple minds, but this is the UN, and it's supposed to be a place of action. I thought I'd be voting on these things in accordance to my beliefs, but so far, I've voted based on whether or not these proposals DO anything or not. Rediculous.
That's nice. Maybe you should go away and write that proposal about dogs. Failing that, maybe you should just go away.

All I care about is: Does this Proposal cure cancer?
YES!

I like most of it but when a nation is at war or has a large diaster it is not Always possible to garentue those rights
I agree - but this resolution doesn't prohibit nations from making allowances for such situations.

In essence, I believe clause three is the heart of this resolution, and as such Mikitivity strongly supports this resolution. We consider this another job well done by the government of Gruenberg!
Thank you very much, Ambassador Katzman.

We really have to stress to the body the importance of protecting UN members' rights to sentence their criminals* under rules forged by the people most accountable to the accused and to the people at large -- not by a presumptuous enclave of meddling international diplomats posing as some sort of "superlegislature." Criminals in the Federal Republic are not convicted of breaking UN laws; they are convicted of violating the laws of the Federal Republic, and those of the several states. It naturally follows that the penalties for breaking such laws should be created and enforced by those with the greatest understanding of why such laws were put into place. Allowing ignorant and irrelevant foreigners to usurp our laws by modifying our sentencing guidelines would violate the trust we hold with those accused of breaking our laws, and with the people we are elected (yes, Norderia, elected) to serve. And once the United Nations protects our rights to deal with our own criminals, it is only prudent it also demand that member nations apply such penalties fairly, and to allow independent watchdogs to verify their fair application. And, as Gruenberg has elegantly stated, member states are already subject to previous legislation banning torture and other forms of barbarism, so there is no further cause of action for the UN to interfere with national sentencing laws. Barring cruel and unusual punishments and other egregious violations of human rights, criminal sentencing is intrinsically an issue for national legislatures, not international bureaucrats. The logic behind this edict is perfectly sound.

Where certain elements in this body would act to endanger our nation's security and the safety of our people by restricting our right to deal with the greatest threats to our society in the harshest possible terms, the Federal Republic wholeheartedly supports this resolution.
I could not have said it better.

Point being, now we have an overbroad classification on hand.
Ok. And some people wanted me to mandate 20 years imprisonment for those found guilty of this overbroad crime. This proposal gives you the right to let them off with a slap on the wrist.

Good thing that's not what I'm saying, then, huh?
You're beginning to sound like me...I like it!

I have a reason to oppose a blocker because I am not certain that the issue being blocked is one that the UN should not have a hand in. Therefore, I want to leave the possibility open.
See Ambassador Faisano's speech - sums up pretty clearly for me why the UN should be staying out of this.

As said, I'm not sure whether it does or not. I'm inclined to think that capital punishment has no merit for humanism. Its merit is chiefly financial. And that is something we in Norderia have little concern for.
Right, but some nations do have concern for that - they simply cannot afford to maintain extensive prison networks.

While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended . This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system yet the UN hasnt seen fit to even MENTION its composition, rules, limitations, jurisdiction, enforcement powers, if its even a local as compared to an international independent group, NOTHING.
It doesn't create this. It calls for nations to create panels to review their sentences nothing more.

On the positive side, if this bill passes i will remove my complete budget for the legal department and send every single one of my criminals to the UN for them to deal with.
There's no one at the UN to deal with them. But it would make for some entertaining goings-on in the Strangers' Bar.

Im going to declare every single defendent that goes in front of our courts summarily guilty and let the UN independent councils actually try the appeals.
What UN independent councils? It doesn't have any.

Why should i bother spending money on silly things like laws and Constitutions now that a UN independent council can toss it all out the window whenever they want.
It can't.

Let them spend the money to clear these people instead of my government coffers. They clearly know what is right and just better than i do anyway so screw it im letting the UN foot my legal bill from here on in. But dont panic UN, i shouldnt be sending much more then 50,000 or 75,000 people a month though. But when another 10,000 countries start doing the same thing, youll need to create a new country or four just to hold all the prisioners awaiting appeals!
Quite amusing that one of the most sweeping national sovereignty proposals the UN will pass is being damned by these words. Here's my list of fun things for you to:
1. Learn how to spell "their".
2. Read the proposal.
3. Fuck off.

That said, BPL is disturbed by the category of this resolution, Furtherment of the disease known as "Democracy", so he has instructed me to vote against it.
Voting based on category, rather than on what the proposal actually does, is really really stupid.

As Bugs Bunny said, "Ain't I a stinker"
OOC: No, not really.

I must agree with Intestinal Fluids here. The concern is that this resolution DOES NOT preclude overruling courts, councils or UN control to come into existence.

Surely the omission of the word "domestic" could make numbers two and three contradict at some point.
Such courts and councils would not be able to ban or impose sentences for national crimes. War crimes courts could still exist.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Voting based on category, rather than on what the proposal actually does, is really really stupid.

OOC:
Note though BPL - DRE's interpretation of the resolution that makes it an endorsement of the torture, executions, you name it going on in Excruciatia....obviously not the intended result of the resolution by it's category ;) The only Democracy in The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia belongs to The President.

Guess I was reading Orwell's 1984 again when I started Excruciatia and it's cousins.

OOC:

Note though BPL - DRE's interpretation of the resolution that makes it an endorsement of the torture, executions, you name it going on in Excruciatia....obviously not the intended result of the resolution by it's category
Er, that was exactly the point of the proposal.

You're beginning to sound like me...I like it!

It was a remark directed at doing just that. We both drip with condescension, I thought the mood was perfect for that. :p

Hey! I want to freely decapitate my criminals at will, if they commit a crime, mugging, GTA, J-walking ect. Then i expect them to die!

May seem harsh but this is my country, my rules, my law. This is how i keep my nation in line.

Although our countries UN memebership is still pending, I feel the need to state that this newest resolution seems more an expansion upon Resolution 21, then it's own seperate resolution.

Although capital punishment is close to being Gruenberg's national sport, we do share some sympathy for you. For us, judicial punishments like incarceration are abhorrent infringements on individual liberty. We believe all people are born free, and to cage them up, restricting their freedom of assembly, of movement, and of almost all capacity to exercise free will, is simply horrific.

Nonetheless, we are willing to swallow this, look upon nations who allow this evil practice with disdain, and move on.
Yes, but a caged individual is nonetheless alive and thus has the opportuinty of making a future for themselves should they wish to.

If you will agree to extend such resolutions to all punishments that infringe on the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of individuals - in the interests of being coherent, rather than coming from a knee-jerk pit of emotivism - then we'll support such proposals.
Knee-jerk emotivism? Good sir, I am rarely provoked to anger but I feel pushed to the quick as of now. Incarceration, however upsetting, is not even remotely comparable to having one's life ceased. Consider the perspective of the godless: death is the end. No more.

Now you may find it amusing to twist my words in such cynical and diversionary fashion, but I struggle to see the humour. I have lost a brother and several others close to me to a bloodthirsty state. Prior to the New Cultural Revolution, thousands - yes, thousands - were executed every year in Dashanzi. Your weasel words in this pitiful resolution not only would have done nothing to save them, they would in fact have handed the perpetrators carte blanche to slaughter at will.

Enough of your smug sarcasm and casual disregard for others. Show some respect, damn you.

* ooc: Emotional hyperbole that only serves to prove the opponent's point. Gotta love it. *

Hey! I want to freely decapitate my criminals at will, if they commit a crime, mugging, GTA, J-walking ect. Then i expect them to die!

May seem harsh but this is my country, my rules, my law. This is how i keep my nation in line.And if this passes the UN will be unable to ban capital punishment.

Although our countries UN memebership is still pending, I feel the need to state that this newest resolution seems more an expansion upon Resolution 21, then it's own seperate resolution.
That's impossible, that would be an amendment and amendments are illeagal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hey! I want to freely decapitate my criminals at will, if they commit a crime, mugging, GTA, J-walking ect. Then i expect them to die!

May seem harsh but this is my country, my rules, my law. This is how i keep my nation in line.

Awwww, it sounds like a certain leader wasn't luved enough when he was widdle!
:fluffle:

We'll add you to our happy-thoughts prayer list.

Awwww, it sounds like a certain leader wasn't luved enough when he was widdle!
:fluffle:

We'll add you to our happy-thoughts prayer list.

I am still "widdle" :P Just i like my nation strict :p

Oh and yes, i will be running for President or PM when im older :p

OOC:

Er, that was exactly the point of the proposal.


OOC:
:confused: The Excruciatian President's interpretation of the proposal further up the thread that basically allowed him to continue being the one man justice system is the point :confused: He will be happy to hear that ;)

To save scrolling up here is BPL - DRE's current "conformity" with the 4 points of the resolution:

The Beloved President for Life 1: Judges every case in Excruciatia personally, which guarantees a fair and just verdict 2: Determines for himself by which method to execute the guilty, when, and how long to torture them beforehand 3: Is accountable to his own judgement which has never been wrong in any case brought before him, however he also has the power to change his sentencing decisions if he needs to and 4. and he is the most, no, the only, capable of exercising aforementioned sentencing powers.

Kaigan Miromuta took the podium and spoke to the general assembly.

"I have been directed by the Shogun of the Kirisuban Empire to register our vote in favour of this proposal.

If sucessfully passed this act will safeguard the soverign rights of a nation to carry out its judical laws and punishments."

He steps down having said what he needed to and returns to his seat.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR the resolution "Fair Sentencing Act" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. This the position currently shared by the majority of UN voters who have registered their votes.

Hellar Gray

Gruenberg, you have made it quite clear in your mind what the "independent council" cant do. Fair enough. Please explain what it "can" do? And if the answer is whatever the soviergn country leader wants it to, then what exactly is the point? Hasnt the soverign already in effect placed sufficient checks and balances on his or her own country that he is satisfied that there is proper justice in his country without making yet another committee? If the soverign felt an extra comittee was needed to insure justice in his country then he would have already made one. He doesnt need the UNs help for that. So if its just a suggestion, that can be causally disregarded then why have it in there at all?
If the UN just wants to make suggestions to countries i have a Suggestions Box and an Employee of the Month Box and a #2 pencil at the entrance and exit of every border and we will be happy to read them and consider any and all suggestions.

It's a statement of policy. It places the NSUN on record as strongly supporting the action. Many NSUN resolutions contain such statements. If the representative of Intestinal Fluids could take time out from coming up with cutesy little snide remarks about suggestion boxes and pencils, we'd suggest he review the list of passed resolutions and see for himself.

And while he's at it, he could learn how to spell sovereign and find the apostrophe on his keyboard.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

*snip*

You haven't been paying attention. There is nothing about Independent Councils. There is no mention of UN control. These words shouldn't have to be repeated over and over again. If you would read and make the slightest attempt to understand the resolution, you would save yourself a whole lot of grief.

If you have nothing productive to say, then please for the sake of Gruenberg's sanity, keep quiet. Quit arguing a point that has been proven wrong.

Dahlia Black
Un Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Gruenberg, you have made it quite clear in your mind what the "independent council" cant do. Fair enough. Please explain what it "can" do?

Sweet lord almighty, are you really that daft? Or can you just no read?

This "independent council" which you keep on about can't do a damn thing BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. It will not exist. This resolution creates no UN body that does anything.

Please, go back and read (CAREFULLY) the transcripts of the Gruenberg response.

Get it? No council. No powers for council. Council does not exist.

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs
Allech-Atreus UN Office
Sitting in for Ambassador Pendankr

Fine this is the clause word for word. "3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;"

So please go back and remove the word independent council anywhere and everywhere i used it and substitute it with the phrase "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing desicions"
and THEN explain what powers "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" actually have. Who are these people that sit on these nonexistent "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" What does "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" mean exactly? What powers do they have to change anything? If the answer is none then why ask for them?

Is "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" just your words for my currently existing Supreme Court? If so the wording indicating this to be the case, is not at all clear. What about the fine soverign leader that earlier mentioned he judges every citizen personally. Are you going to force a "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" on his system of government against his will? Is that for the UN to decide how or thru what process he serves justice to his people as long as its not violating war crimes?

Right. It says CALLS FOR. It does not mandate that every UN nation does this. And it is not calling for the creation of a council. This has been explained to you over and over again. You just don't seem to be getting it.

There are no mandating clauses, so this resolution will not force anything on any one. Isn't it wonderful to have choices?

And it's spelled "sovereign".

Right. It says CALLS FOR. It does not mandate that every UN nation does this. And it is not calling for the creation of a council. This has been explained to you over and over again. You just don't seem to be getting it.

There are no mandating clauses, so this resolution will not force anything on any one. Isn't it wonderful to have choices?

And it's spelled "sovereign".

So the purpose of the bill is to suggest things? Why are we wasting the UNs valuable time on suggestions? Heres another, Dont wear white after Labor Day. It seems both proved the exact same thing. Nothing.

"And it is not calling for the creation of a council. This has been explained to you over and over again. You just don't seem to be getting it." HAHA you will notice in my last post i said NO such thing. ANY reference of ANYTHING regarding any form of council and a creation thereof was lifted in direct quotes DIRECTLY from the bill. At no time did i reference anything about a creation of anything that wasnt a direct quote from the bill itself. So i dont see how i can not be understanding something when im using it as a direct quote from the source.

And in my country we spell soverignty any way i say we do. :) Cheers!

Fine this is the clause word for word. "3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;"
Do you understand what "calls for" means?


and THEN explain what powers "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" actually have.
They have whatever powers your nation says thay have. Assuming you choose to create them.
Who are these people that sit on these nonexistent "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions"
They are whoever you choose them to be. Your decision.
What powers do they have to change anything? If the answer is none then why ask for them?
Again, they have whatever powers you assign to them.

more nonsensical drivel
* Throws the representative from Intestinal fluids out the window. His body lands with a resounding thud atop the body of the former representative from Discoraversalism.*

Right. It says CALLS FOR. It does not mandate that every UN nation does this. And it is not calling for the creation of a council. This has been explained to you over and over again. You just don't seem to be getting it.

There are no mandating clauses, so this resolution will not force anything on any one. Isn't it wonderful to have choices?

And it's spelled "sovereign".

So the purpose of the bill is to suggest things? Why are we wasting the UNs valuable time on suggestions? Heres another, Dont wear white after Labor Day. It seems both proved the exact same thing. Nothing.

"And it is not calling for the creation of a council. This has been explained to you over and over again. You just don't seem to be getting it." HAHA you will notice in my last post i said NO such thing. ANY reference of ANYTHING regarding any form of council and a creation thereof was lifted in direct quotes DIRECTLY from the bill. At no time did i reference anything about a creation of anything that wasnt a direct quote from the bill itself. So i dont see how i can not be understanding something when im using it as a direct quote from the source.The BILL says create,("Calls for the creation of..")so i say create and you respond with wait there is nothing created your stupid! Sigh.

And in my country we spell soverignty any way i say we do. :) Cheers!

Unless of course a independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions tells me im not allowed :(

So the purpose of the bill is to suggest things? Why are we wasting the UNs valuable time on suggestions? Heres another, Dont wear white after Labor Day. It seems both proved the exact same thing. Nothing.

What's you goddamn point? It's a single clause in the resolution that doesn't force you to do anything. I can't imagine why you're complaining about NOT being forced to do something.

HAHA you will notice in my last post i said NO such thing. ANY reference of ANYTHING regarding any form of council and a creation thereof was lifted in direct quotes DIRECTLY from the bill. At no time did i reference anything about a creation of anything that wasnt a direct quote from the bill itself. So i dont see how i can not be understanding something when im using it as a direct quote from the source.The BILL says create,("Calls for the creation of..")so i say create and you respond with wait there is nothing created your stupid! Sigh.

The bill "calls for the creation of," it does not "create." It's a handy little trick of the English language. Go away.

And in my country we spell soverignty any way i say we do. :) Cheers!

And in my country we put morons to death! Better hope you don't ever show up there!

Unless of course a independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions tells me im not allowed :(

Well I'll be damned! I certainly would enjoy seeing this magical, nonexistent, invisible independent and accountable body that exists in your head! It just makes my day when an argument consists of "hey, I don't like the UN not forcing me to set up a council that won't exist, that I won't like."

Will you go away now, please? My sanity needs time to repair the bulwarks.

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs
Allech-Atreus UN Office
sitting in for Ambassador Pendankr

The bill "calls for the creation of," it does not "create." It's a handy little trick of the English language.


YAY i think we are getting near the light at the end of the tunnel. Ok slowly now, what does this bill "call for the creation of"? Could you please in a paragraph or 3 tell me exactly what we are supposed to create? Even if its just optional?An example if i could beg of you.....

Leader X comes to the UN with open arms. MR UN, i wholehartedly LOVE your suggestion that i create an "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decision" to fall 100% within the suggestion of the UN. I LIVE to please the UN. I wish to follow all rules to the very best i can! What exactly should Leader X do to fufill this section of this bill that the UN clearly thinks is a good idea? Leader X wants to follow all the rules and suggestions of the UN like a good little boy and wants to have his system be "acceptable" to this bill..

Your answer is?

*Thinks: "What? I thought I threw this fool out the window. He must have bounced."*
Your answer is?
Shut up and go away.

Come back when you:
A. Understand the English language.
B. Understand how NSUN legislation works.

The Moral of the story is, dont ask for something if you yourself dont even know what it is your asking for.

The Moral of the story is, dont ask for something if you yourself dont even know what it is your asking for.

Yes, yes it is.

Will you go away now?

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs

Fuck. My head hurts.

Is this what they taught you in Diplomats school? Last time i checked this was the place to debate the merits or lack thereof of a proposed Bill. Was i doing anything less?

Is this what they taught you in Diplomats school? Last time i checked this was the place to debate the merits or lack thereof of a proposed Bill. Was i doing anything less?

First off, I didn't go to diplomat school. I'm the Chief of Office Affairs for the Allech-Atreus delegation. I did survive a war which claimed my entire family, and am fairly knowledgeable about such things as "law" and "debate" and "basic language comprehension." I'm pretty damn good at spotting bullshit.

This is the place to debate pros and cons, not whip up imaginary non-issues like you have been doing. The clause you have been beating like a red-headed stepchild doesn't do anything at all- that's why it suggests you do something. Why in the hell are you complaining about a clause that doesn't force you to do stuff? It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way.

The clause suggests nations establish some sort of body to handle these issues. It doesn't force you to. That's all there is to it. I hope that makes some goddamn sense to you, because I'm not about to kill anymore of my brain cells trying to explain it.

I'd like to extend a couple of aspirin to the Kennyite delegate for his head, right after I down a few myself.

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs

This is the place to debate pros and cons, not whip up imaginary non-issues like you have been doing. The clause you have been beating like a red-headed stepchild doesn't do anything at all- that's why it suggests you do something. Why in the hell are you complaining about a clause that doesn't force you to do stuff? It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way.

The clause suggests nations establish some sort of body to handle these issues. It doesn't force you to. That's all there is to it. I hope that makes some goddamn sense to you, because I'm not about to kill anymore of my brain cells trying to explain it.



You find it strange for a delegate to refuse to vote for a bill that suggests doing something that noone has any clear idea of what exactly is being suggested in the first place? Sorry, despite the fact that you find paragraphs that dont at all make clear sence and solve them by " It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way." I dont support legislation that asks something, although not quite sure what but by god we ask nicely and move on. It doesnt matter if its the primary point or item #89 of a list of 4000 items. Make it clear as to what it means and if i agree, i support it. Fail to make it even remotely clear what said paragraph means it gets dumped. I couldnt imagine in good concience voting for any bill i didnt fully even understand. Ive attempted to understand what the nature of these groups are supposed to be, but since the bill fails to explain these groups more fully, it becomes insufficient grounds to support a bill. <shrug> Sorry.

Last time i checked this was the place to debate the merits or lack thereof of a proposed Bill. Was i doing anything less?

You: "The resolution says this and it's going to force me to do that."

Several UN forum regulars: "No, it doesn't say that and it doesn't force you to do anything."

You: Fuck off. I know better. This is what it says and why is it making me do these things?"

Several UN forum regulars: "That's not what it says."

You: "But why does it say that and why do I have to do these things?"

ad infinitum......

I'd like to extend a couple of aspirin to the Kennyite delegate for his head, right after I down a few myself.

Could I have a couple of those too? Some morphine perhaps, if you have any?

You: "The resolution says this and it's going to force me to do that."

Several UN forum regulars: "No, it doesn't say that and it doesn't force you to do anything."

You: Fuck off. I know better. This is what it says and why is it making me do these things?"

Several UN forum regulars: "That's not what it says."

You: "But why does it say that and why do I have to do these things?"

ad infinitum......

LoL. This is how im seeing it.

Ficticious UN bill being debated.

The UN promises to:

1. Fix the leaking plumbing and sewers in the UN building
2. Sweep all UN areas for bugs.
3. Fix the squeaky hinges on gate 4
4. Call on all nations to kill all the Jews.(Random race/class:pick your fav.)
5. Send the broken window screens in for repairs.
6. Install new carpet in the foyer.

Me: Hey wait a minute. Im not going to support a bill that supports the extermination of the Jews.

UN Member: No it doesnt.

Me: Huh? It says so right here. #4 "call on all nations to kill all the Jews

UN Member: Your stupid it doesnt say that. It says it CALLS ON, that means its optional.

Me: Why would the UN want to kill all the Jews? How do they plan to do it? What caused this?

UN Member: The UN isnt killing all the Jews i told you!! i SAID it was OPTIONAL! The bill "It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way." So you will be voting for this bill then?

Me: NO! i dont support killing of all the Jews.

UN Member: Its not ABOUT killing of the Jews its about fixing the building. The killing of the Jews thing is just a small insignificant part of this bill. We cant explain why or give you any details as to the plan or what that part really means but hey what do you want from a piece of legislation anyway? If you dont like that part then hey its ok to just agree with the rest of the bill ignore that part and go on your merry way. So you will be supporting the bill?

Me: ARGH!

LoL. This is how im seeing it.

Ficticious UN bill being debated.

The UN promises to:

1. Fix the leaking plumbing and sewers in the UN building
2. Sweep all UN areas for bugs.
3. Fix the squeaky hinges on gate 4
4. Call on all nations to kill all the Jews.(Random race/class:pick your fav.)
5. Send the broken window screens in for repairs.
6. Install new carpet in the foyer.

Me: Hey wait a minute. Im not going to support a bill that supports the extermination of the Jews.

UN Member: No it doesnt.

Me: Huh? It says so right here. #4 "call on all nations to kill all the Jews

UN Member: Your stupid it doesnt say that. It says it CALLS ON, that means its optional.

Me: Why would the UN want to kill all the Jews? How do they plan to do it? What caused this?

UN Member: The UN isnt killing all the Jews i told you!! i SAID it was OPTIONAL! The bill "It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way." So you will be voting for this bill then?

Me: NO! i dont support killing of all the Jews.

UN Member: Its not ABOUT killing of the Jews its about fixing the building. The killing of the Jews thing is just a small insignificant part of this bill. We cant explain why or give you any details as to the plan or what that part really means but hey what do you want from a piece of legislation anyway? If you dont like that part then hey its ok to just agree with the rest of the bill ignore that part and go on your merry way. So you will be supporting the bill?

Me: ARGH!

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what it looks like to me.
I do not like the idea of number three myself.

And the more I read here, the more convinced I become that there is something not being explained.

So this proposal will give each nation within the UN permission to create an independent and accountable body (or is it bodies?) capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions?

If not, why is it even in there?

Click on this link to Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=call%20for

Now scroll down until you get to this:57. call for,
a. to go or come to get; pick up; fetch.
b. to request; summon.
c. to require; demand; need: The occasion calls for a cool head.

Now please explain to me how, exactly, when using the term "calls for" in a UN proposal, it means about the exact opposite of the dictionary definition?

Here are a couple of the "explanations for the term 'Calls For':It doesn't create this. It calls for nations to create panels to review their sentences nothing more.

"Calls for" is not a mandatory operator.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that indicates who is to make these bodies, who is to staff them, who is to pay for them, the extent of their powers or the limits to their powers.

Now please explain to me how, exactly, when using the term "calls for" in a UN proposal, it means about the exact opposite of the dictionary definition?

Even if "calls for" means suggestion in the games tradition, it still does nothing to change my point. You still have to know exactly and explain clearly what your intending that the UN starts running around and suggesting to nations.

You find it strange for a delegate to refuse to vote for a bill that suggests doing something that noone has any clear idea of what exactly is being suggested in the first place? Sorry, despite the fact that you find paragraphs that dont at all make clear sence and solve them by " It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way." I dont support legislation that asks something, although not quite sure what but by god we ask nicely and move on. It doesnt matter if its the primary point or item #89 of a list of 4000 items. Make it clear as to what it means and if i agree, i support it. Fail to make it even remotely clear what said paragraph means it gets dumped. I couldnt imagine in good concience voting for any bill i didnt fully even understand. Ive attempted to understand what the nature of these groups are supposed to be, but since the bill fails to explain these groups more fully, it becomes insufficient grounds to support a bill. <shrug> Sorry.

I agree with this post.
Except the very last last sentence.

Even if "calls for" means suggestion in the games tradition, it still does nothing to change my point. You still have to know exactly and explain clearly what your intending that the UN starts running around and suggesting to nations.

I agree.
And instead of explaining it, they are merely attempting to hide behind word games.

I agree.
And instead of explaining it, they are merely attempting to hide behind word games.

Who is this they of which you speak? Everyone who has a different opinion than you? Or everyone that isn't an idiot? I'm inclined to think the latter.

Ooh, look, someone with an impressive dictionary! Hey, guess what, realworld definitions don't cut the mustard when you're dealing with the law! Why don't you go spend some time dicking around in the UN Resolution Repository, and come back when you comprehend the notion of "mild" proposals.



Me: Hey wait a minute. Im not going to support a bill that supports the extermination of the Jews.

UN Member: No it doesnt.

Me: Huh? It says so right here. #4 "call on all nations to kill all the Jews

UN Member: Your stupid it doesnt say that. It says it CALLS ON, that means its optional.

Me: Why would the UN want to kill all the Jews? How do they plan to do it? What caused this?

UN Member: The UN isnt killing all the Jews i told you!! i SAID it was OPTIONAL! The bill "It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way." So you will be voting for this bill then?

Me: NO! i dont support killing of all the Jews.

Hahah! Oh my, aren't you a paragon of logic and intelligence! Yeah, because suggesting people establish councils to ensure the fairness of trials and so forth is the same as asking all UN members to kill the Jews. Brilliant strawman there.

Why don't you crawl back into the hole you came out of and stop complaining about legislation that can't hurt your nation. Honestly, you're not making any friends (except for dictionary guy over there), and you make the entire UN look bad with your crap arguments.

Felix, you're in luck. We just got a shipment of medical morphine in for the delegation's In-Office Restaurant, Shoeshine, & One-Stop Medical Emporium. Stop by after the debate, we'll get you hooked up.

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs

Why don't you go spend some time dicking around in the UN Resolution Repository, and come back when you comprehend the notion of "mild" proposals.

Oh goodie people actually wanting to use facts to support arguements.This is encouraging. Please show me in the UN resolution Depository where is defines "mild propposals" as not really needing to fully explain things. Thanks!



Hahah! Oh my, aren't you a paragon of logic and intelligence! Yeah, because suggesting people establish councils to ensure the fairness of trials and so forth is the same as asking all UN members to kill the Jews. Brilliant strawman there.

im curious..what is your analysis of Iron Felixes little play that i was responding too?

You: "The resolution says this and it's going to force me to do that."

Several UN forum regulars: "No, it doesn't say that and it doesn't force you to do anything."

You: Fuck off. I know better. This is what it says and why is it making me do these things?"

Several UN forum regulars: "That's not what it says."

You: "But why does it say that and why do I have to do these things?"

You find no trouble with him completley misrepresenting what i said yet dont say a word about it. He is out and out putting lies and misrepresentations. Yet all i did was do a fictitional discussion to help illistrate a point i was feeling and making and clearly indicated it as such. How come no witty crack or criticism at his comments?? If your having trouble with my strawman arguement, then please help me think of an example where suggesting i just overlook parts of bills i dont like or understand, and vote for the bill anyway, makes sence.


Why don't you crawl back into the hole you came out of and stop complaining about legislation that can't hurt your nation. Honestly, you're not making any friends (except for dictionary guy over there), and you make the entire UN look bad with your crap arguments.

I complain about legislation that is not properly explained. Will never ever ever ever vote for a bill that has not been properly explained. Ive YET had anyone explain it in any remotely reasonable satisfaction. I dont come here to make friends i come here to debate the merits of proposed bills. The only way i can make the UN look bad is by exposing the large number of people willing to vote for a sound good, feel good bill without considering the clear shortcommings.

Before anybody says anything about it, yes, I have paid attention to the entire debate. Yes, I am aware that some of the things I am about to say have already been said. No, I was not actually capable of responding to things as they came up (OOC-heavy work week). Yes, I do feel strongly compelled to speak on these issues. Yes, I and my government are heavily in favour of this proposal. No, we can't stand stupid people who read things into things where no things exist and at the same time are incapable of reading what actually is there. Yes, this is going to take a little while. Yes, I strongly recommend reading the whole bloody post and taking the time to understand everything said before responding. No, I will not be diplomatic about failure to do so. Yes, I will most likely be harsh about some of the things that need to be covered. Yes, I will definitely be repeating myself over and over and over and over. Yes, I will definitely be repeating myself over and over and over and over. Yes, I will definitely be repeating myself over and over and over and over.

Now then, on to business.

#3 is a dealbreaker. In essence you are creating a UN Supreme Supreme Court where decisions of theoretically of any kind could be appealed to.

No. It doesn't do anything of the sort. You're an idiot.

Does this include parking tickets? Serial Murderers?

Yes. You're an idiot.

Only involving disputes between Nations?

No. This deals entirely with internal matters within individual nations themselves. International affairs are not touched by this legislation. Nothing about the Fair Sentencing Act says otherwise. You're an idiot

How do you plan on invoking and enforcing a World Supreme Court?

We don't. You're an idiot.

This is a HUGE issue in and of itself, hardly worthy of a side comment in a bill that doesnt even focus on it.

Doesn't comment on it because this bill does nothing to create any such issue. You are reading things that don't exist and commenting about phantoms. You're an idiot.

There are BILLIONS of criminal acts in the world.

Quite possibly. What's your point? That you're an idiot? We already got that one, thanks.

How do you plan on creating a review mechanism that reviews every criminal case in every Country in the World to determine if Justice has been met?

We don't. You're an idiot.

This is INSANE.

Nope. Just idiotic. No, that isn't a comment on the proposal, it's a comment on the one who brought up all this malarky.

What part of what i said didnt you understand?

That would be the stuff that didn't make sense. Like the parts where you claimed things about this bill that are so incredibly and obviously false that the average 4 year old would be laughing at you about them.

Do you not understand how clause #3 creates a Supreme Court?

Seeing as it doesn't, no, we don't. Care to try to justify the stance that it does?

Do you not understand my confusion as to the lack of ANY rules or regulations or limitations on this judging body that will decide for the whole planet what is just or not?

I understand your confusion. It's my experience that idiots tend to walk around confused a great deal of the time. Nothing to be done about it really. They're idiots.

Who votres for the members of this comittee?

Where does it say that members must be voted in? Answer me that, and I'll give you a response to your question.

What are thier enforcement powers?

Where in the proposal does it say that they get any? Answer me that, and I'll give you a response to your question.

What are thier limitations?

They are limited to overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions. That's taken straight from the text of the proposal. Perhaps you should take the time to read it.

Do they have thier own Constitution that supereceeds all the Constitutions of all the countries on the planet to follow?

Where in the proposal does it even imply such a thing? Answer me that, and I'll give you a response to your question.

There are about a billion questions as to the nature of this "committee" that any right minded individual would ask before handing such a HUGE power to someone or some body.

What powers would those be. The proposal is very clear about the nature of the independant bodies. Any details that are left out are left to the discretion of national governments.

<sigh>

I have only one sticking point with this resolution. The mandating of an independent body to oversee the sentencing in my court system (which already has a high degree of oversight already).

Good for you. Would that all nations are as enlightened as to take care ensuring that their judicial systems are being held accountable. If only there was some way that we could ensure it......Oh Wait! We're voting on it. Awesome.

I do not pretend to have a perfect understanding of what is being accomplished here, and I understand that as a group you are trying to be sensitive to national sovereignty.

The candor and honesty are appreciated.

From my national standpoint, your legislation accomplishes nothing that benefits my nation.

Then the question becomes, is it doing anything to hurt your nation?

I am seeking any reason to vote FOR this resolution.

If the bill won't be altering your nations legislature, as you mentioned that these protocals are already in place, and you feel that these measures are good for the judicial system, that would be a good reason to vote FOR it.

I have been in this game over two years and the UN has rarely impressed me with much of anything other than the mandates that they force upon my nation, some good but most of them utterly worthless.

With all due respect, the amount of time you have been her is completely irrelevant to anything.

My past reading of UN resolutions over the years here have soured me on the body and it is going to take a lot of good things from this body before my trust is reestablished.

That is unfortunate. Though, realistically, your trust is not necessary.

Right now, sadly I view the UN as an unwelcome intrusion in this game and I will watch these debates as much as my not so copius free time allows.

Without bothering with the card itself: "I hate the UN, so WTF am I even doing here?"

Oh, and the crack about nations coming in here making ill-informed remarks was unwarranted.

I thought you said you were paying attention to the UN over the years...?

I might agree with you but you serve the game in this capacity, it can be viewed as ill-grace to make such tactless remarks.

T-A-C-T? You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

If this group is not ready for the criticism it will draw from the well AND ill-informed,

Criticism from the well informed is always welcome. "D15 15 teh 5uXXor5!" as an argument is never welcome. Realistically, when people jump into the middle of something without having the slightest clue what they are talking about, that's what you get. A bunch of fools blasting meaningless shite that serves only to clog up the airwaves for those who wish to continue the debate. It's irritating, it's unnecessary, and there is no real reason that we should allow it to continue unhindered.

then I gently suggest you withdraw to another game function where you are protected from such scrutiny.

Seeing as you have nothing but ill will for both the UN and the debate floor, may I kindly suggest that you take your own advice.

Mr. Jones:

I always vote my beliefs, on that you can be assured.

I am going to vote for this resolution, just like the last one...it doesn't make undue demands upon my nation as the standard in my country meets or exceeds UN standards.

Then WTF was the point of half of your previous tirade.

Mechanically, as a UN member nation I must fall into line with all of these resolutions, my only way to avoid this situation is to vote with my feet.

Which you has suggested to a number of others.

In others words, if I don't like it, I leave or do my best to get the more egregious resolutions repealed in the future.

Seeing as you have stated a stance in favour of the bill, where is this going?

Given those choices, I will always attempt to do something about the problems rather than taking my ball and going home.

Good. It is generally a better ball game with more people to play.

I have stated my position clearly in previous communications to this body, I will not belabour the point any more. But the next delegate to this august body that tells me to put up or shut up is going to get popped in the snoot.

So us telling the morons to not waste our time is completely unacceptable, but you threatening people with physical violence if we call you on your behavious is? Do I need to get into the hypocricy of that?

It seems to me that this sterile and bureacratic clause will sadly justify the action of all the nations who are overindulgent related to the followed proposals and some more:

#163 UN Copyright Convention
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=162

More of a civil matter than a criminal one, but nations already had the right to sentence as they saw fit on this one.

#156 UN Patent Law
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=155

Same argument as for UNCC.

#168 UN Counterterrorism Initiative
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=167

Deals with international matters of extreme nature. The only way that FSA really becomes an issue here is in areas of extradition, which is already covered by the Right To Refuse Extradition.

#169 Child Pornography Prohibition
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=168

Once again, nations already had the right to sentence as they see fit in these cases.

It comes down to having FSA to ensure that the trials for such issues are carried out in a fair and just fashion, instead of railroading alleged perpetrators through trial at shotgun speed to meet the executioner.

"I was under the impression that these oversight bodies would simply be domestic oversight bodies." While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended .

And yet you managed to completely fail to understand any of the words you read. Fascinating. We're actually planning a scientific experiment in Kivisto to test the effect of the lack of oxygen on morons. The thought is that, as they have lessened brain power, the brain should not need as much oxygen to function, and they should be able to survive for much longer than the average person without air. Would you be willing to volunteer?

This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system

Nope. The independant and accountable bodies have the power to oversee and review sentencing decisions.

yet the UN hasnt seen fit to even MENTION its composition,

Independant and accountable. Fill in the details as your nations sees fit.

rules,

Oversee and review sentencing decisions.

limitations,

To oversee and review sentencing decision. And they must be independant and accountable.

jurisdiction,

Sentencing decisions.

enforcement powers,

There are none listed or granted to them within the text of the bill. You figure it out.

if its even a local as compared to an international independent group,

Is there anything to imply that it would be international. There is that line earlier in the bill that ran something like
2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;
Yeah. That was the one. That help you out there son? Do you still need some help with your homework. Tomorrow we'll move on to Watching Dick Run.

NOTHING.

Nothing at all. Except for every piece of information that you claim isn't there. You're an idiot.

How can ANYONE in good conscience vote for this bill without having a CLUE as to the critical answers to these questions.

Fair enough. Probably pretty handy that the only people that don't realize that the answers aren't contained within the text of the bill are complete morons.

On the positive side, if this bill passes i will remove my complete budget for the legal department and send every single one of my criminals to the UN for them to deal with.

Groovy. I'll co-opt them from the UN, put them thruogh our very thorough military training, and ship them back to you. Have fun!

Im going to declare every single defendent that goes in front of our courts summarily guilty and let the UN independent councils actually try the appeals.

That would be awesome if it weren't for the complete lack of any UN independant councils that preside over such things. What a shame that you would send so many innocent people to jail over nothing. Of course, you are an idiot, so it is kind of expected.

Why should i bother spending money on silly things like laws and Constitutions now that a UN independent council can toss it all out the window whenever they want.

Well, we could. But we haven't yet. So relax. Here, have a Snickers.

Let them spend the money to clear these people instead of my government coffers.

Oooooh. Not a bad idea. Except that the UN has no budget to speak of, it currently has no jurisdiction to do any such thing, this bill doesn't grant the UN that kind of power, and you're an idiot.

They clearly know what is right and just better than i do anyway

Well, we do, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

so screw it

WOOT! ORGY!

im letting the UN foot my legal bill from here on in.

Do you one better, I'll take care of all of your legislature needs from here on out. Just sign your entire nation over to The Master of Kivisto, and you'll never need to worry about it again.

But dont panic UN,

Don't worry, we won't.

i shouldnt be sending much more then 50,000 or 75,000 people a month though.

I'll take them. My armies could use some reinforcements. We need some more people to complete some extra refitting on the Death Star anyways. Hazardous job, but hey, you don't want them anyways.

But when another 10,000 countries start doing the same thing,

As far as I know, you're the only idiot that has the notion that this is going to be occuring.

youll need to create a new country or four just to hold all the prisioners awaiting appeals!

Appeals? Even if we assumed that you aren't mentally handicapped and this proposal does anything remotely like what you claim it does, we just start sending them back to you as disgruntled free citizens. Problem solved.

I must agree with Intestinal Fluids here. The concern is that this resolution DOES NOT preclude overruling courts, councils or UN control to come into existence.

Doesn't enforce them either. And there is a single word that seems to be getting ignored, here. Accountable. The independant councils must be accountable.

Surely the omission of the word "domestic" could make numbers two and three contradict at some point.

Only if you're a fool.

Gruenberg, you have made it quite clear in your mind what the "independent council" cant do. Fair enough. Please explain what it "can" do?

It can oversee and review sentencing decisions.

And if the answer is whatever the soviergn country leader wants it to,

Nope. It can oversee and review sentencing decisions.

then what exactly is the point?

To have an independant and accountable body that will oversee and review sentencing decisions.

Hasnt the soverign already in effect placed sufficient checks and balances on his or her own country that he is satisfied that there is proper justice in his country without making yet another committee?

There are a great many countries who are not very interested in making their justice system actually just. They are more interested in protecting their own power.

If the soverign felt an extra comittee was needed to insure justice in his country then he would have already made one.

Unless he wasn't interested in promoting actual justice.

He doesnt need the UNs help for that.

Unless he wasn't interested in promoting actual justice.

So if its just a suggestion, that can be causally disregarded then why have it in there at all?

As a statement of intent and preference by the UN.

If the UN just wants to make suggestions to countries i have a Suggestions Box and an Employee of the Month Box and a #2 pencil at the entrance and exit of every border and we will be happy to read them and consider any and all suggestions.

Fantastic. You should go start reading those. We'll drop you a line when we are interested in hearing from an idiot. That will be never, by the way.

Fine this is the clause word for word. "3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;"

Congradulations, it only took you almost the entire debate to manage to read a SINGLE CLAUSE.

So please go back and remove the word independent council anywhere and everywhere i used it and substitute it with the phrase "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing desicions"

No. You're an idiot and I will call you on your complete incapacity to comprehend even the simplest notions.

and THEN explain what powers "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" actually have.

They have the power to oversee and review sentencing decisions.

Who are these people that sit on these nonexistent "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions"

You're misquoying other people and misunderstanding their intent. The independant and accountable bodies exist. The UN committee does not.

The people that sit on these independant and accountable councils are people who are both independant and accountable. Fill in the rest of the details as your nation sees fit. Only two requirements to meet. Shouldn't be too hard.

What does "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" mean exactly?

It means: A body of people, who are independant and accountable, who are capable of overseeing, and reviewing, sentencing decisions.

What powers do they have to change anything? If the answer is none then why ask for them?

So that if there is any question as to the validity of a sentencing or ruling handed down by any judicial body, there will be an independant and accountable body who will have overseen, and reviewed, all such decisions, and will be able to analyse the respective merits and flaws of a given decision.

Is "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" just your words for my currently existing Supreme Court?

Quite possibly. Is your Supreme court an independant and accountable body capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions? If the answer is yes, then you're an idiot for even asking the question.

If so the wording indicating this to be the case, is not at all clear.

Maybe not if you're a complete idiot, I suppose. Those of us who are capable of basic reading comprehension have no such issues.

What about the fine soverign leader that earlier mentioned he judges every citizen personally.

What about him? He obviously has a great deal of spare time on his hands. Either that, or he leaves his people to wait for years before their case is brougt before him, which would be in contradiction to previous legislation that this body has set forth. I think it's in the Fair Trial set.

Are you going to force a "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" on his system of government against his will?

Nope. The bodies in question are not being forced on anyone.

Is that for the UN to decide how or thru what process he serves justice to his people as long as its not violating war crimes?

It is for the UN to decide whatever we allow the UN to have the power to decide. In this case, the core ideal is that nations will have a fair and just judicial process that is their own to run as they see fit.

So the purpose of the bill is to suggest things?

Actually, it Requests, Recommends, Calls For, and Declares. There are no suggestions being made.

Why are we wasting the UNs valuable time on suggestions?

You have something you would rather be doing with your time? Please. feel free to go and do something else, other than waste our time with inane prattling, and allow us to continue a rational debate over the real merits and/or drawbacks of this bill.

Heres another, Dont wear white after Labor Day.

Fashion is one of the areas that I believe the UN has not as yet legislated upon. Feel free to attempt to draft something up for the General Assembly here to vote upon. I believe it would fall under the Moral Decency category. You may wish to include some thing in there along the lines of:

AWARE that, after Labour Day, wearing white is, like, totally last season;

It seems both proved the exact same thing. Nothing.

Hardly. FSA has proven (or will once it passes) that the UN has an interest in fair and just judicial systems. It also proves that the UN is mindful of the various legislative styles of different nations and does not wish to infringe upon them unnecessarily.

What you suggest simple proves that you are a narrow minded idiot.

"And it is not calling for the creation of a council. This has been explained to you over and over again. You just don't seem to be getting it." HAHA you will notice in my last post i said NO such thing.

Actually, you did. You finally stopped calling it a UN council, but you still referred to them.

ANY reference of ANYTHING regarding any form of council and a creation thereof was lifted in direct quotes DIRECTLY from the bill.

Fair enough. Too bad you still don't seem to understand what the words mean.

At no time did i reference anything about a creation of anything that wasnt a direct quote from the bill itself. So i dont see how i can not be understanding something when im using it as a direct quote from the source.


I could quote something directly from a Masters level physics text book. That doesn't mean I have the slightest clue what I'm talking about. Granted, I wouldn't pretend to know what I'm talking about when referencing material I don't understand because I am not a complete idiot.

And in my country we spell soverignty any way i say we do. :) Cheers!

Good for you. Here's a ball. Perhaps you'd like to bounce it.

YAY i think we are getting near the light at the end of the tunnel.

Luckily for the rest of us, the light at the end of the tunnel you're in could likely be a train.

Ok slowly now, what does this bill "call for the creation of"?

Independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions.

Could you please in a paragraph or 3 tell me exactly what we are supposed to create?

Supposed to create? Nothing.

Even if its just optional?An example if i could beg of you.....

The Supreme Court that you already said you had in place, assuming that your Supreme Court is both independant and accountable, and they are actually capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions. Though, honestly, if the intellect displayed by the representative of Intestinal Fluids is any indicator, I have doubts about the capacity of the citizenry to actually accomplish such a feat.

Leader X comes to the UN with open arms.

He wants a hug?

MR UN, i wholehartedly LOVE your suggestion that i create an "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decision" to fall 100% within the suggestion of the UN.

Good for you. Have a Klondike.

I LIVE to please the UN.

More than a little disturbing. You should try dating.

I wish to follow all rules to the very best i can!

Such is appreciated.

What exactly should Leader X do to fufill this section of this bill that the UN clearly thinks is a good idea?

Leader X should create an independent and accountable body capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions made by the judicial system of his nation.

Leader X wants to follow all the rules and suggestions of the UN like a good little boy and wants to have his system be "acceptable" to this bill..

Good for him. If he can read, he won't have to look any further than the text of the bill in question.

Your answer is?

You're an idiot.

The Moral of the story is, dont ask for something if you yourself dont even know what it is your asking for.

The only one here who seems to be confused is the idiot from Intestinal Fluids.

Is this what they taught you in Diplomats school?

No. This is what my mother taught me to do to fools. Actually, I'm playing excessively nice, by her way. Thou shalt not suffer a fool to live, is her preferref credo on such matters.

Last time i checked this was the place to debate the merits or lack thereof of a proposed Bill. Was i doing anything less?

What you were doing was tilting at windmills. Creating an issue out of absolute nothingness and making as though the phantom had come to rape your children in their sleep. There are those here who have more than adequately addressed both sides of the real debate. You - you have taken up space. You have shown yourself to be a fool. You have effectively destroyed any credibility that your presence may have had within these halls. For this, I thank you. Every assembly needs a drunk or a fool for everyone to point and laugh at.

You find it strange for a delegate to refuse to vote for a bill that suggests doing something that noone has any clear idea of what exactly is being suggested in the first place?

The only individual who does not understand that clause is you, friend. Don't worry about it. It's not your fault. You were probably born an idiot. Or dropped on your head, or something to that effect.

Sorry,

Don't be sorry. Just don't do it again.

despite the fact that you find paragraphs

Clauses. Articles. Not paragraphs.

that dont at all make clear sence

They make perfectly clear sense to those of us who are not idiots.

and solve them

These are not mathematical problems that require solution. They are simple words that mean what they say.

by " It asks you nicely, hoping that you have the sense to agree, and then it goes on it's merry way."

It doesn't ask nicely. It Calls For. Doesn'y take away from the logic of the line, though.

I dont support legislation that asks something, although not quite sure what but by god we ask nicely and move on.

Good for you. We'll let you know when someone includes ASKS NICELY in a proposal.

It doesnt matter if its the primary point or item #89 of a list of 4000 items.

Then you truly are an idiot. I fail to be surprised.

Make it clear as to what it means

The meaning is quite clear to those of us who are not idiots.

and if i agree, i support it.

I think this would be better phrased: and if I understand, the general assembly will have a collective aneurism as the world implodes in a puff of logic.

Fail to make it even remotely clear what said paragraph means it gets dumped.

The only one here who fails to find even remote meaning in that clause is the local fool from Intestinal Fluids.

I couldnt imagine in good concience voting for any bill i didnt fully even understand.

Then you will never vote for anything. You make no effort to even attempt to comprehend what is before you. This is beginning to feel reminiscent of the UNCC/NatSov debate with Disco.......

Ive attempted to understand what the nature of these groups are supposed to be,

I really don't think you have. The description of the is a single line in the text of the bill. We'll repeat it for you:

independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;

That's all there is to it.

but since the bill fails to explain these groups more fully,

More fully than than a concise desription of exactly what they are, exactly what they are to be comprised of, and their exact intent, that is.

it becomes insufficient grounds to support a bill. <shrug> Sorry.

Don't be sorry. Just go back to school, learn to read, pick up some basic logical comprehension capabilities, and come back when you're not an idiot.

In short: Hush now, the adults are talking.

Could I have a couple of those too? Some morphine perhaps, if you have any?


I got a better idea.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/smilies/dinkeat/eatdrink005.gifhttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/smilies/dinkeat/thshooter.gifhttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/smilies/dinkeat/beerfunnel.gif


Oskar Feldstein
Representing Kivisto
Boiling The Master's Underwear

Oh goodie people actually wanting to use facts to support arguements.This is encouraging. Please show me in the UN resolution Depository where is defines "mild propposals" as not really needing to fully explain things. Thanks!

Go look it up. I'm sure you'll come back with something about how Mild means that it wants you to do nastiness with some one's grandmother.

im curious..what is your analysis of Iron Felixes little play that i was responding too?

You find no trouble with him completley misrepresenting what i said yet dont say a word about it.

He hardly misrepresented you. You claimed that the bill does things that it does not and was forcing you to do them. It has been explained a number of times how the proposal does not do what you claim it does, AND, even if it did, which it does not, it would not be mandatory.

He is out and out putting lies and misrepresentations.

Where was his lie? In the part where you claimed the bill does stuff it doesn't, or in the part where you were told you were wrong?

Yet all i did was do a fictitional discussion to help illistrate a point i was feeling and making and clearly indicated it as such.

You equated the suggestion to set up a supreme court with the suggestion to perpetrate a holocaust. You really are an idiot.

How come no witty crack or criticism at his comments??

His were accurate. Yours are idiotic.

I complain about legislation that is not properly explained.

It is fully explained. You simply fail to understand.

I Will never ever ever ever vote for a bill that has not been properly explained.

It is fully explained. You simply fail to understand.

Ive YET had anyone explain it in any remotely reasonable satisfaction.

It is fully explained. You simply fail to understand.

I dont come here to make friends i come here to debate the merits of proposed bills.

You should try doing that then, instead of attacking phantoms.

The only way i can make the UN look bad is by exposing the large number of people willing to vote for a sound good, feel good bill without considering the clear shortcommings.

Why do you wish to make the UN look bad? What's the point of belonging to an organization that you wish to discredit? What are the clear shortcomings of the proposed bill? You have yet to mention a single legitimate flaw with the text as given. Of course, you are an idiot, after all.

Despite your Barbaric behavior and harsh invectives i shall remain above it and be the better person because of it. Instead i will take advantage of someone who appears to want to directly address issues. Glad to hear it. Can i ask you some questions that will help me clear up this troublesome phrase "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions". If im Leader of country X and me and my croonies hand down judicial decisions as we see fit, does the independent board that we have appointed that consists of my mom dad and uncle vito fufil the UNs suggestion of an independent board for sentencing? My Uncle Bob likes to hang crooks by thier testicals even more then i do so im sure he will make a FINE independent boardmember for sentencing. Does this satisfy the UNs suggestion? Are there any qualifications as to who this independent board is or who it contains? Or can Leader X just stuff it with puppets? Who defines and decides exactly what independent and accountable bodies are? Your definition of independent and accountable body is simply an independent and accounatble body without addressing what that really means. Accountable to whom? The UN? The soverign leader? It doesnt say. It should. One persons independent board is anothers hangmans jury. How do you address the the qualifications of establishing the independence of this board? Who decides? Does the UN make the final decision on if a board can fairly be considered independent or not? NO? YES? Where does it make this clear either way?

sorry d/p

this is really dumb... define competent, define extenuant, define fair, define just. god damnit when the hell is someone smart gonna right a resolution?!

"Recognising that different societies treat crime and punishment in different ways, and adopt different attitudes to which sentences may be appropriate:" so, in other words you can follow this stuff that i am saying if you follow it and don't have to follow the crap that i'm saying if you dont.
"1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;" so if i chop my procescution's heads off and i call it fair and just is it okay?
"2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;" oh god, at least Gruenberg let me decide what sentences i make for the guilty! how about, hmmm... three weeks in the locks for stealing a candy bar!
"3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;" wow, just wow, who's gonna pay for this again?
"4. Recommends that nations devolve sentencing powers to the level most capable of taking into account all relevant considerations." weeeeeell, leoqadel devoloves sentencing powers to itself as for we take into account all relevant considerations.

guess what?
AGAINST

OOC: Intestinal fluids, if you really want to be taken seriously and not shat upon by a whole bunch of people, I implore you to use paragrahs and line breaks. It's very difficult to respond to you when it's illegible what you write.

Just a hint for the future. Not all nouns need to be capitalized, and not every post has to be one big paragraph.

Ficticious UN bill being debated.

The UN promises to:

1. Fix the leaking plumbing and sewers in the UN building
2. Sweep all UN areas for bugs.
3. Fix the squeaky hinges on gate 4
4. Call on all nations to kill all the Jews.(Random race/class:pick your fav.)
5. Send the broken window screens in for repairs.
6. Install new carpet in the foyer.
We take offense at these allegations that we are not doing our job of insuring that the UN Building is properly maintained.

1. The plumbing in the UN building is in perfect working order
2. There are no insect infestations in the UN building (excluding any nations representatives who might be insects)
3. The hinges on Gate 4 were just oiled this morning.
4. Not our department.
5. We're currently awaiting replacement screens which should arrive sometime this week.
6. What carpet? The foyer has a tile floor, makes it easier to clean.

Ken Scott
VP, Building Maintence
UN Building Management

Who is this they of which you speak? Everyone who has a different opinion than you? Or everyone that isn't an idiot? I'm inclined to think the latter.
I am talking about the idiots (your word not mine) who are using personal definitions that disagree with the dictionary.
If you are one of them, then by all means consider yourself an idiot (again, your word, not mine)

Ooh, look, someone with an impressive dictionary! Hey, guess what, realworld definitions don't cut the mustard when you're dealing with the law! Why don't you go spend some time dicking around in the UN Resolution Repository, and come back when you comprehend the notion of "mild" proposals.
So the UN has redefined words?
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this UN dictionary?

Hahah! Oh my, aren't you a paragon of logic and intelligence! Yeah, because suggesting people establish councils to ensure the fairness of trials and so forth is the same as asking all UN members to kill the Jews. Brilliant strawman there.
Are you truly this stupid or are you trying for an academy award?

you make the entire UN look bad with your crap arguments.
Kettle meet pot.

Click on this link to Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=call%20for

Now scroll down until you get to this:57. call for,
a. to go or come to get; pick up; fetch.
b. to request; summon.
c. to require; demand; need: The occasion calls for a cool head.

Now please explain to me how, exactly, when using the term "calls for" in a UN proposal, it means about the exact opposite of the dictionary definition?Opposite of the dictonary definition? Did you not notice the part I bolded up there?

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that indicates who is to make these bodies, who is to staff them, who is to pay for them, the extent of their powers or the limits to their powers.
Great, another nation who thinks that the UN needs to tell them exactly how to wipe their ass.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Risottia will not vote for this resolution unless some changes are made.

1.We do not understand the bit about "independent" bodies for revising trials. Independent, from whom? Independent from executive power? From other judges? From the state prosecutor? From the state authorities? The formulation is unclear and misleading.
We would support a change, striking out the "independent" word, or defining more accurately this issue.

2.There is no word about the right to defence against accusations. If a person is charged with some crime, he must have the right to defence, else the trial won't be just.
We would definitely support a change introducing the right to defence.

3.It would be a good idea to introduce a "innocent until proven guilty" clause.

OOC:
Leoqadel, Excruciatia approached the resolution in similar way and proved that according to Excruciatia it was already following all points of the resoultion (in it's own sick evil dictatorial one-man-band way), with the only problem being the "Furtherment of Democracy" category.

The President of Excruciatia requests, declares, calls for and recommends a pizza....whether or not anyone will give him one though is another story.... ;)

The vote for the thing is currently about 2.6:1 for, so looks like it will pass, so I guess the lesson here is call it democracy and even if it seems to do nothing it will get through ;)

Risottia will not vote for this resolution unless some changes are made.Impossible.

1.We do not understand the bit about "independent" bodies for revising trials. Independent, from whom? Independent from executive power? From other judges? From the state prosecutor? From the state authorities? The formulation is unclear and misleading.
We would support a change, striking out the "independent" word, or defining more accurately this issue.Up to your nation to decide. Lacking a specific definition, nations are assumed to have enough smarts to figure it out for themselves. Perhaps a dictionary would be useful.

2.There is no word about the right to defence against accusations. If a person is charged with some crime, he must have the right to defence, else the trial won't be just.
We would definitely support a change introducing the right to defence.Like is demanded in Fair Trial (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029626&postcount=22)? Of course, since this only deals with sentencing, the procedure followed by the court leading up to that point is utterly irrelevent.

3.It would be a good idea to introduce a "innocent until proven guilty" clause.Oddly enough, this is also irrelevent. Do try to keep up. This isn't rocket science.


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

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that indicates who is to make these bodies, who is to staff them, who is to pay for them, the extent of their powers or the limits to their powers.

Great, another nation who thinks that the UN needs to tell them exactly how to wipe their ass.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich stomps out of the men's room, his robes hitched up around his waist with one hand and a wad of toilet paper in the other. He heads over to the Mestemian delegation, bends over and runs the wad of toilet paper over his arsehole. Dropping the soiled toilet paper on the table in front of the Mestemians, he snarls, "There. That's how it's done. I trust we can move on now."

The sheik lets his robes drop to cover himself and resumes his seat at the Cluichstani table.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich stomps out of the men's room, his robes hitched up around his waist with one hand and a wad of toilet paper in the other. He heads over to the Mestemian delegation, bends over and runs the wad of toilet paper over his arsehole. Dropping the soiled toilet paper on the table in front of the Mestemians, he snarls, "There. That's how it's done. I trust we can move on now."

The sheik lets his robes drop to cover himself and resumes his seat at the Cluichstani table.
Gao Qiang leans over to the Mestemian delegation.

"Pay no heed to this unnerving display. I wouldn't trust anyone who only wipes once."

Thank you for explaining me how much this resolution sucks.

Impossible.

Up to your nation to decide. Lacking a specific definition, nations are assumed to have enough smarts to figure it out for themselves. Perhaps a dictionary would be useful.

Like is demanded in Fair Trial (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029626&postcount=22)? Of course, since this only deals with sentencing, the procedure followed by the court leading up to that point is utterly irrelevent.

Oddly enough, this is also irrelevent. Do try to keep up. This isn't rocket science.


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

1.Impossible? So what's this forum - a total waste of time? Your answer implies that.
So I'm voting against, and will urge all nations to do the same. See what happens when you are not diplomatic enough?

2.And, speaking of democracy, you may stick your dictionary up the your own body hole of your choice, and your sarcasm too. If you cannot understand the difference between "independent from executive power" and "independent from judiciary power", you're clearly lacking the wits political power requests. Go read Montesquieu. Or even Winnie the Pooh would be enough to better your cultural level.

3.If you ever were to try sending a rocket to orbit, you would hit your neighbour's house. This happens when you're inaccurate like you are when you're discussing UN proposals. Of course the trial procedure isn't IRRILEVANT (not "irrilevent" like you wrote, and you dare to tell me "go get a dictionary"? Hilarious, given that I'm no native english speaker). An unjust debate will lead to unfair sentences. But maybe you're answering "it's up to your country to decide". Then this resolution is TOTALLY USELESS.:headbang:

1.Impossible? So what's this forum - a total waste of time? Your answer implies that.

There are times when this is true. Some people like to learn about the rules of NationStates through the school of hard knocks. Apparently you are one of them. You could always read the FAQ.

Once a proposal is submitted to the list it cannot be amended. Moderators can delete it, for cause or if the proposer asks nicely, but once sumbitted it cannot be modified. Amendments to proposals are IMPOSSIBLE. Amendments to existing passed resolutions are ILLEGAL. (Only repeal/replace can modify an existing resolution.)

Some people come to the forum before they submit their proposal, and these can be debated and modified, although it's still the inalienable right of the proposer to propose whatever they want. (And get a strike if blatently illegal.) Many people find that the average representative and deligate is several levels beyond a complete moron and it's a waste of time to discuss anything in a civilized manner here, so they work out resolutions on offsite forums and slap a piece of art right onto the queues for everyone to approve.

Now I don't want to say that it's better to drink than read these forums, but I went on a pub crawl Saturday and all I got after 8 bars (all over 100 years old) was an upset stomach. Reading this forum for just this one thread is giving me a migrane.

:headbang: Make it stop. Make it stop. Oh yea, click on the [x]. :D

Has anyone besides myself noticed a trend in the tone of this entire thread? It appears that the people who are against the bill and use reasonable and appropriate language to disagree are bombarded with invective, insults and completly degrading and frankly embarassing behavior. I see no such behavior from the people for the most part who disagree with this bill. Surley people can disagree without reducing arguements to the playground level? Why is this happening? Do the moderaters have some control over this forum? Ive been told to fuck off for no reason and have been subjected to in my own opinion unjustified abuse. Why do i have to be subjected to being repeatedly called a moron and an idiot and told to fuck off for simply argueing for my own opinion? The UN of the real world the delegates are treated with at least a small amount of respect and modesty despite disagreements. Im frankly dissapointed with the level of discourse here. Take that kind of behavior to General and put some level of respect back into the expectation of behavior of delegates.

First, Representative Feldstein wins many goat-shaped cookies; second, thanks to all those who've been fighting the good fight. Sorry to largely repeat you, but:
Yes, but a caged individual is nonetheless alive and thus has the opportuinty of making a future for themselves should they wish to.
I hardly call spending the rest of one's life rotting in a jail cell "making a future for themselves".

Knee-jerk emotivism? Good sir, I am rarely provoked to anger but I feel pushed to the quick as of now. Incarceration, however upsetting, is not even remotely comparable to having one's life ceased.
Why not? If you're sentencing someone to life without parole, you are taking away their liberty. Is that not the same logic on which your opposition to capital punishment is presupposed?

Consider the perspective of the godless:
No. I come from a theocracy, and the godless's views are irrelevant to our sentencing laws.

I have lost a brother and several others close to me to a bloodthirsty state.
Aw, diddums.

Prior to the New Cultural Revolution, thousands - yes, thousands - were executed every year in Dashanzi. Your weasel words in this pitiful resolution not only would have done nothing to save them, they would in fact have handed the perpetrators carte blanche to slaughter at will.
Not true. This resolution cannot override the authority of The Pretenama Panel to investigate and punish acts of genocide.

Enough of your smug sarcasm and casual disregard for others. Show some respect, damn you.
Earn it.

OOC:
:confused: The Excruciatian President's interpretation of the proposal further up the thread that basically allowed him to continue being the one man justice system is the point :confused: He will be happy to hear that ;)
No doubt.

The Beloved President for Life 1: Judges every case in Excruciatia personally, which guarantees a fair and just verdict 2: Determines for himself by which method to execute the guilty, when, and how long to torture them beforehand 3: Is accountable to his own judgement which has never been wrong in any case brought before him, however he also has the power to change his sentencing decisions if he needs to and 4. and he is the most, no, the only, capable of exercising aforementioned sentencing powers.
That sounds to me like it would contravene Due Process and Definition of 'Fair Trial'. You'll need to at least stick an advisory jury in the mix.

Gruenberg, you have made it quite clear in your mind what the "independent council" cant do. Fair enough. Please explain what it "can" do?
The phrase "independent council" doesn't appear in the proposal. I've made clear that it can do nothing, because I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. I can't clarify beyond that.

And if the answer is whatever the soviergn country leader wants it to, then what exactly is the point?
If you're talking about the optional bodies suggested by clause 3, then how they operate is a matter for each nation to determine. Yes, I suppose they could be entirely subjugated to political whim - though that would strike me as a little pointless. Their point is that where they are a good idea: a check to judicial overreaching. It is possible to have a good idea, and at the same time not wish - or be able - to force everyone to adopt it.

Hasnt the soverign already in effect placed sufficient checks and balances on his or her own country that he is satisfied that there is proper justice in his country without making yet another committee?
I don't know - the appointment of the judiciary is a national prerogative. In some countries, there might well be such a separation of powers between judiciary and executive that the leader has no say in who apportions justice.

If the soverign felt an extra comittee was needed to insure justice in his country then he would have already made one.
This isn't referring to the leader, though, but the nation more generally.

So if its just a suggestion, that can be causally disregarded then why have it in there at all?
Because it's reasonable policy worth suggesting to the world at large, but at the same time it's unrealistic to expect every nation capable of implementing it. Hence it is non-mandatory.

If the UN just wants to make suggestions to countries i have a Suggestions Box and an Employee of the Month Box and a #2 pencil at the entrance and exit of every border and we will be happy to read them and consider any and all suggestions.
Why can't the Passed UN Resolutions archive operate as this suggestions box? What is wrong with having soft resolutions, that encourage and recommend rather than mandate and demand?

You're being silly: complaining that the resolution violates sovereignty, and when you're shown it doesn't, complaining that it doesn't do anything. But...you don't want it to do anything. So cease your disingenuous prattle.

and THEN explain what powers "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" actually have.
I can't: the nations decide who allots these bodies' powers, and what they might entail.

Who are these people that sit on these nonexistent "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions"
Up to each nation.

What does "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" mean exactly?
I can't and won't say exactly, because it's not up to me. It's up to national governments. In a broad sense, it means that these bodies should be free from political interference and at the same time be checked by the will of the people, should be able to review those that make sentencing decisions and those sentencing decisions, and perhaps recommend reforms to the system where there are clearly problems.

Beyond that, go buy a fucking dictionary.

What powers do they have to change anything?
Up to nations, although they were intended as more like bodies that would issue recommendations to the legislature, than that would have legislative power themselved.

Is "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" just your words for my currently existing Supreme Court?
I don't know - what is your currently existing Supreme Court?

Are you going to force a "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" on his system of government against his will?
No.

Is that for the UN to decide how or thru what process he serves justice to his people as long as its not violating war crimes?
No.

So the purpose of the bill is to suggest things? Why are we wasting the UNs valuable time on suggestions?
Because if we don't, the UN will start requiring things - and that would violate national sovereignty.

You need to rethink your stance. You don't want the UN meddling in your justice system, but you don't want the UN not to meddle in it either?

So i dont see how i can not be understanding something when im using it as a direct quote from the source.
Nor do I. Yet still you manage.

YAY i think we are getting near the light at the end of the tunnel. Ok slowly now, what does this bill "call for the creation of"? Could you please in a paragraph or 3 tell me exactly what we are supposed to create? Even if its just optional?An example if i could beg of you.....
Given it is up to nations to decide, yet again, I can't tell you. Here's, for the sake of getting you to shut the fuck up, though, an example:

A sub-committee of the legislature that looks at sentencing decisions, and where it sees problems in the system (corruption, disproportionate sentencing, etc.) compiles papers on them, which it then reports to the legislature as a whole, which might then to decide to enact reforms.

But that's only one example: there are other ways of doing it.

The Moral of the story is, dont ask for something if you yourself dont even know what it is your asking for.
No, the moral of the story is, "Shut up."

Is this what they taught you in Diplomats school? Last time i checked this was the place to debate the merits or lack thereof of a proposed Bill. Was i doing anything less?
You were doing less: you completely skipped any discussion of the bill and pretended it did things it didn't. Boring and irrelevant.

You find it strange for a delegate to refuse to vote for a bill that suggests doing something that noone has any clear idea of what exactly is being suggested in the first place?
No, I don't, but I have a perfectly clear idea of what it's suggesting. Seems almost everyone else does too. So your hypothetical is irrelevant to the current proceedings.

I dont support legislation that asks something, although not quite sure what but by god we ask nicely and move on.
You know, this would all have been so much easier if at the beginning you had simply asked what the line you didn't understand meant.

Make it clear as to what it means and if i agree, i support it. Fail to make it even remotely clear what said paragraph means it gets dumped. I couldnt imagine in good concience voting for any bill i didnt fully even understand. Ive attempted to understand what the nature of these groups are supposed to be, but since the bill fails to explain these groups more fully, it becomes insufficient grounds to support a bill.
At least you have made an inner peace with your astonishing stupidity. That's good enough for me.

--killing jews example--
Misrepresentation of our arguments. Note, I have repeatedly justified clause 3on grounds that it is good policy - just that it can't be mandatory. Killing all the Jews is not good policy, and therefore even suggesting it should not be voted down. The funny thing is, I myself have argued exactly this before: that I won't vote for a proposal that makes a bad or disagreeable suggestion, however mild it may be. But you haven't demonstrated why clause 3 is unsound policy: you've just moaned that it's a suggestion.

So try again, with an example that actually reflects the proposal at hand.

So this proposal will give each nation within the UN permission to create an independent and accountable body (or is it bodies?) capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions?
They don't need the UN's permission. It gives them a suggestion that they might do this.

Now please explain to me how, exactly, when using the term "calls for" in a UN proposal, it means about the exact opposite of the dictionary definition?
The dictionary definition is "request". So if by "exact opposite", you mean "exactly what it says", then yes.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that indicates who is to make these bodies, who is to staff them, who is to pay for them, the extent of their powers or the limits to their powers.
That's because all of this is for individual nations to decide.

Even if "calls for" means suggestion in the games tradition, it still does nothing to change my point. You still have to know exactly and explain clearly what your intending that the UN starts running around and suggesting to nations.
Thing is, we do know. We've repeatedly pointed out what this clause alludes to. That you don't understand English does not automatically equate to any lack of exposition on our part.

And instead of explaining it, they are merely attempting to hide behind word games.
We have explained it, over and over. Announcing yourself as a member of the "I don't need to read!" club is never especially conducive to winning agreement.

I complain about legislation that is not properly explained.
We have explained it, over and over.

As for the rest, it's just too much. Fuck off. Vote against, call me an idiot, try to repeal it, whatever. Just fuck off.

this is really dumb... define competent, define extenuant, define fair, define just.
No. Nations are perfectly competent to work out what these mean for themselves, without the UN holding their hand the whole time.

god damnit when the hell is someone smart gonna right a resolution?!
Dunno. Why don't you try?

so, in other words you can follow this stuff that i am saying if you follow it and don't have to follow the crap that i'm saying if you dont.
Pretty much.

so if i chop my procescution's heads off and i call it fair and just is it okay?
That wouldn't be a legal process, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

oh god, at least Gruenberg let me decide what sentences i make for the guilty! how about, hmmm... three weeks in the locks for stealing a candy bar!
If you want, yes.

wow, just wow, who's gonna pay for this again?
That's up to you. If you want, no one: don't set it up in the first place.

guess what?
You're a retard?

I am talking about the idiots (your word not mine) who are using personal definitions that disagree with the dictionary.
If you are one of them, then by all means consider yourself an idiot (again, your word, not mine)
I'm glad I'm not an idiot, because the dictionary says "calls for" means "requests". Phew!

1.We do not understand the bit about "independent" bodies for revising trials. Independent, from whom? Independent from executive power? From other judges? From the state prosecutor? From the state authorities? The formulation is unclear and misleading.
How is it misleading? What is it leading you to?

In context, though, "independent" means primarily that the bodies would be independent from those they were reviewing, to avoid coercion or collusion.

2.There is no word about the right to defence against accusations. If a person is charged with some crime, he must have the right to defence, else the trial won't be just.
That's because it's not an issue for this proposal. It's rather like complaining a free trade agreement doesn't include a clause about free speech.

3.It would be a good idea to introduce a "innocent until proven guilty" clause.
Again, irrelevant to this proposal, which as a reminder (because the title clearly isn't clue enough) is about sentencing, not the trial leading up to that.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

1.Impossible? So what's this forum - a total waste of time? Your answer implies that.
This forum is for:
- drafting (amendable) proposals
- discussing finalised (unamendable) proposals that come to vote
- mocking people like you

Of course the trial procedure isn't IRRILEVANT (not "irrilevent" like you wrote, and you dare to tell me "go get a dictionary"? Hilarious, given that I'm no native english speaker).
The word is "irrelevant"...

It appears that the people who are against the bill and use reasonable and appropriate language to disagree are bombarded with invective, insults and completly degrading and frankly embarassing behavior.
If this is damaging to our cause, then we'll lose the vote.

I see no such behavior from the people for the most part who disagree with this bill.
Equally, if this vindicates your stance, you'll win the vote.

Why do i have to be subjected to being called a moron and told to fuck off for simply argueing for my own opinion?
Because your opinion is interminably stupid, maybe?

The UN of the real world
is irrelevant.

the delegates are treated with at least a small amount of respect and modesty despite disagreements.
Respect is earned.

Im frankly dissapointed with the level of discourse here.
Hmm, maybe you should leave then.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

First of all you have finally adressed some interesting points. No first of all once again i object to your demeaning tone and level of insults thrown at myself as i have at no time called you any negative name nor referred to you in any way negativly and expect the same in return always. I come here for fun and creative and interesting political debate, not to be insulted. If you cant at least make an attempt to behave civilly against someone who hasnt attacked you in ANY way then you need to go take some time off or something.

On to the issues. The first thing i would say is thanks for clearing up some questions i had regarding the issues i brought up. The only problem i have with it is NONE OF IT IS ACTUALLY in the bill. Im deleriously HAPPY that nations get to decide to do XYZ and have all XYZ rights but huh..where does it SAY this? Like in writing, on the bill, where i can SEE that the nations get to make all these decisions, and that the group is a domestic group and not an international UN group or that it doesnt have all sorts of powers that can be EASILY read into them? Writing a book afterwards telling me what you were or wernt thinking when you wrote it and what i actually have to AGREE to in front of me and in writing arnt always the same thing. If the bill was written more thoroughly to reflect these vague phrases to more clearly show your true intent then i would support it. Just insufficiently written to show what you really had in mind i think.

Has anyone besides myself noticed a trend in the tone of this entire thread? It appears that the people who are against the bill and use reasonable and appropriate language to disagree are bombarded with invective, insults and completly degrading and frankly embarassing behavior. /snip/

Yes, we have noticed that trend, and we find it unfortunate. We believe in maintaining civil discourse in this Assembly. But it might be instructive to see where the trend started.

In our eyes, the trend started when the representative of Intestinal Fluids made the pompous announcement that "While you may or may not be under the impression of things, when i read a bill i read the actual words not how i guess or hope they might be used or intended." This arrogant dismissal of the comments of the distinguished representative of Mikitivity apparently raised the hackles of some, including our delegation. When you set yourself up on a pedestal of superiority, you make yourself a target. That's especially true when you go on to grossly misstate the effect of the proposal ("This bill creates an independent council, which has the unbelievable power of overruling my ENTIRE justice system") and then contradict yourself in the very same sentence. That makes you an easy target.

Then you chose to include in a later post your clever but snide comments about pencils and suggestion boxes.

To quote an old saying from the mythical land of RL, "Ask and ye shall receive." Display arrogance, disrespectfully dismiss the views of others, and post supercillious sneers all you want. But don't complain to us when you're found offensive and reacted to inappropriately.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I see, i have prolly 5 pages of discourse and thats what you can come up with? A fairly mild phrase that only happens ONCE and a suggestion box? Ive been told to fuck off without cause at least 4 times maybe more, called an idiot and a moron, stupid at least 15 or 20 times plus any number of other invectives."That's especially true when you go on to grossly misstate the effect of the proposal..." I see, so if you disagree with me on the interpretation of a phrase THEN its ok to insult me? Are you serious?


Dammit i DEMAND a "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" RIGHT NOW!! ;)

I see, i have prolly 5 pages of discourse and thats what you can come up with? A fairly mild phrase that only happens ONCE and a suggestion box? Ive been told to fuck off without cause at least 4 times maybe more,

Fuck off. Make it at least five times now.

called an idiot and a moron, stupid at least 15 or 20 times plus any number of other invectives.

You're a stupid, idiotic moron. I'm not sure how many times that makes now, window licker. Oh, hey! I think you can add another invective to the list!

"That's especially true when you go on to grossly misstate the effect of the proposal..." I see, so if you disagree with me on the interpretation of a phrase THEN its ok to insult me? Are you serious?

Yes, it is, when your interpretation is bloody retarded.

And stop calling me serious. My name is Nadnerb.

Dammit i DEMAND a "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" RIGHT NOW!! ;)

Fuck off. Whoops, make it at least six times now.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Submitted to moderater

I hardly call spending the rest of one's life rotting in a jail cell "making a future for themselves".
Perhaps you do a disservice to human willpower. There are numerous documented cases of the incarcerated improving themselves through learning, contributing to projects of benefit to the community, and so on.

Why not? If you're sentencing someone to life without parole, you are taking away their liberty. Is that not the same logic on which your opposition to capital punishment is presupposed?
Actually, no. Existence, not liberty is the primary consideration. If one believes in no God, then existence is all there is.

No. I come from a theocracy, and the godless's views are irrelevant to our sentencing laws.
At last, a meaningful rebuttal. Naturally I disagree, but this statement makes a lot more of your position comprehensible.

Aw, diddums.
I've heard a lot worse. Neither insults nor sympathy will bring loved ones back.

Not true. This resolution cannot override the authority of The Pretenama Panel to investigate and punish acts of genocide.
On the contrary, it would be relatively straightforward to conduct large numbers of state executions without such behaviour falling under the label of genocide.

Earn it.
“Without feelings of respect, what is there to distinguish men from beasts?”

Benedictions

Fuck off. Make it at least five times now.



You're a stupid, idiotic moron. I'm not sure how many times that makes now, window licker. Oh, hey! I think you can add another invective to the list!



Yes, it is, when your interpretation is bloody retarded.

And stop calling me serious. My name is Nadnerb.



Fuck off. Whoops, make it at least six times now.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Reposting to prevent an edit job

Submitted to moderater

OOC: Whew! At least it wasn't submitted to a moderator. :eyeroll:

Somehow i suspect the moderator is going to be focusing on your spelling more then mine.

Erm, why should a moderator give a fuck that a fictional character is insulting another fictional character? That was an in-character post you reported (presumably to the wrong place, since I don't see your report in the right one). IC posts are not necessarily considered trolling, unless the trolling part is obvious.

Now, do you need me to define "in-character" for you? Or can you figure that one out all by yourself?

Saying Fuck you and nothing but that in character or out does nothing to further the game. In essence its spamming the boards. If i sat here and posted Fuck IF 50 times thats acceptable to all on this forum as long as its in character? I would hope not.

Perhaps i posted the moderation complaint in the wrong place im not really sure. never had to post a complaint about a player before as I am unaccustomed to being treated so rudely and have never had the need to do this.

* ooc: Try here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231). I'd like to make it clear that I have no opinion concerning the rights and wrongs of this argument, merely the hope that pointing you in the right direction will prevent this thread from getting further derailed. *

*ooc thank you dash
, i went to the getting help page and submitted it on the form provided there that was for filling out complaints to the Moderators. Was this the correct form and place to submit?

You've already been pointed to the appropriate forum to ask these sorts of questions, so why don't you ask there, and stop spamming this thread?

In essence its spamming the boards. If i sat here and posted Fuck IF 50 times thats acceptable to all on this forum as long as its in character?

OMFG! If there is anyone who could be accused of spamming it's got to be you, repeating the same thing, over and over and over and over and over again when everyone (by the way that includes the mods in case you didn't notice ... they are the ones with graphic icons) telling you that you are wrong. Shit, the irony meter just hit Alpeh one!

And when you're not spamming, you're trolling.

And I'm not an expert on what is and is not acceptable, but this server is, last time I checked in the UK. If I remember correctly the F word is on a lower scale of naughty in the UK than it is in the US.

If you want to not be treated rudely, take some advice I learned in the 80's.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T
(oo) What you want
(oo) Baby, I got
(oo) What you need
(oo) Do you know I got it?
(oo) All I'm askin'
(oo) Is for a little respect ...

Has anyone besides myself noticed a trend in the tone of this entire thread? It appears that the people who are against the bill and use reasonable and appropriate language to disagree are bombarded with invective, insults and completly degrading and frankly embarassing behavior.
No, the people opposing this resolution use ridiclous arguements that the bill does things that it doesn't, and the supporters are getting tired of repeating themselves.

Gao Qiang leans over to the Mestemian delegation.

"Pay no heed to this unnerving display. I wouldn't trust anyone who only wipes once."
Personally, I be less likely to trust someone who can't finish the job the first time.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Ive been told to fuck off without cause at least 4 times maybe more, called an idiot and a moron, stupid at least 15 or 20 times plus any number of other invectives.
*Iron Felix wakes from his stupor.*

Huh? Fuck off you idiotic moron, you're stupid plus any number of other invectives!

*goes back to sleep*

This forum is for:
- mocking people like you
Because your opinion is interminably stupid, maybe?

Ok, then it's also for insulting people like you who continually come up with stupid proposal like this one.

Ok, then it's also for insulting people like you who continually come up with stupid proposal like this one.

Gruenberg continually writes stupid proposals? No, he really doesn't. At least not that I've seen. It takes a certain level of intelligence and knowledge to come up with these proposals. How many have you written, got to quorum and have had passed?

Ok, then it's also for insulting people like you who continually come up with stupid proposal like this one.

Stupid proposal? You should keep in mind that we've got a frickin' Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142)!

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich angrily picks up his telephone and asks to speak with Sheik Nikrat bin Cluich, commander of the Cluichstani Death Star.

Yes, Cousin Nikrat, how are you? I hope you and your wives are well. Please ready the primary laser.

...

Yes, we've got another annoying nation that needs to be obliterated.

...

Well, as soon as the station's sensors can find that irritating speck of a nation called Risottia, please fire at will.

Originally Posted by Excruciata
The Beloved President for Life 1: Judges every case in Excruciatia personally, which guarantees a fair and just verdict 2: Determines for himself by which method to execute the guilty, when, and how long to torture them beforehand 3: Is accountable to his own judgement which has never been wrong in any case brought before him, however he also has the power to change his sentencing decisions if he needs to and 4. and he is the most, no, the only, capable of exercising aforementioned sentencing powers.
That sounds to me like it would contravene Due Process and Definition of 'Fair Trial'. You'll need to at least stick an advisory jury in the mix.


IC:
The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia decrypts a file named "Thoughtcrime_examples.zip.$#!" in his computer, extracts Due Process and Definition of 'Fair Trial' and re-encrypts the file.

The President reads the files, then Gutmann erases them. He sits back amazed at the Anti-Revolutionary filth promoted by the UN and is glad he withdrew from the body a week ago before Excruciatia itself was totally contaminated and corrupted by it's poison.

He then wonders what to do with the small nation his army crushed and renamed "The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation" to deal with UN matters. As the population was now mostly Excruciatian soldiers he would have to rotate his troops so they spent no more than a month or so out of every year under the evil influence of the UN.

He picked up the phone and called The Secretary of Excruci-rUiNation...

OOC:
In other words, yeah, those 2 would be a trickier to twist :headbang: In a short time anyway.... ;) But that again makes me wonder of the use of the new one :)

Well, as soon as the station's sensors can find that irritating speck of a nation called Risottia, please fire at will.

Ah, poor Will. Why is everyone firing on him?

Ok, then it's also for insulting people like you who continually come up with stupid proposal like this one.

Hahahaha. How many proposals have you written and passed?

Huh? Oh, yeah sorry.

Moron.

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs

I see, i have prolly 5 pages of discourse and thats what you can come up with? A fairly mild phrase that only happens ONCE and a suggestion box? Ive been told to fuck off without cause at least 4 times maybe more, called an idiot and a moron, stupid at least 15 or 20 times plus any number of other invectives."That's especially true when you go on to grossly misstate the effect of the proposal..." I see, so if you disagree with me on the interpretation of a phrase THEN its ok to insult me? Are you serious?

We neither excused nor condoned the nature of the responses to your postings. We simply pointed out that your arrogant, snide comments and your completely gratuitous insult to a highly respected member who has contributed much to this Assembly invited the ire of those who believe that respect, when earned, should be accorded.

We didn't disagree with your "interpretation". We pointed out that you had completely misstated a provision of the resolution. That is not an issue of interpretation; it's an issue of fact. And if you resent our pointing out that you misspelled a word three times (in two different ways) and couldn't be bothered using apostrophes when necessary, so be it. We think this is just one more indication of your arrogant disrespect for those who might read and try to understand your comments.

If you want to be treated respectfully by our delegation, we'll be happy to do so. Just leave your superior attitude, your snide little comments, and your insulting remarks at home.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Despite your Barbaric behavior and harsh invectives i shall remain above it and be the better person because of it.

More than happy to help better an idiot. I'll keep up the assistance until you have reached a level more suitable for a UN ambassador.

Instead i will take advantage of someone who appears to want to directly address issues. Glad to hear it.

I love to address the issues. So far, your problem has been that you are addressing spectres. Non-entities that exist only in your mind.

Can i ask you some questions that will help me clear up this troublesome phrase "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions". If im Leader of country X and me and my croonies hand down judicial decisions as we see fit, does the independent board that we have appointed that consists of my mom dad and uncle vito fufil the UNs suggestion of an independent board for sentencing?

Entirely up to your nation to decide. It wouldn't really flow with the spirit or intent of the bill, but as long as they are independant and accountable, why not?

My Uncle Bob likes to hang crooks by thier testicals even more then i do so im sure he will make a FINE independent boardmember for sentencing. Does this satisfy the UNs suggestion?

He can enjoy it as much as he likes, as can you. End Barbaric Punishments might have something to say about that, though.

Are there any qualifications as to who this independent board is or who it contains?

Again, independant (not dependant upon other stuff), accountable (they have to answer to someone(s)), and capable of overseeing (paying close attention to) and reviewing (doublechecking, or analysing) sentecing decisions.

Or can Leader X just stuff it with puppets?

If they meet the criteria given, yes. Not in the sprit or intent of the bill, but yes.

Who defines and decides exactly what independent and accountable bodies are?

Individual nations can work it out for themselves.

Your definition of independent and accountable body is simply an independent and accounatble body without addressing what that really means.

Quite simply, independant means, most precisely, independant. Accountable means, to be exact, accountable. I got through grade 4 english class a long time ago, and have no difficulty in understanding that the words mean exactly what they always means.

Accountable to whom?

Up to individual nations to decide.

The UN?

If you wish.

The soverign leader?

Why not?

It doesnt say.

No, it doesn't.

It should.

Why?

One persons independent board is anothers hangmans jury.

Which is why there is also the line that guarantees nations the right to decide upon their own sentences.

How do you address the the qualifications of establishing the independence of this board?

Up to individual nations to decide.

Who decides?

Individual nations.

Does the UN make the final decision on if a board can fairly be considered independent or not?

No.

NO?

No.

YES?

No.

Where does it make this clear either way?

It doesn't.
Thank you for explaining me how much this resolution sucks.

You're quite welcome. Always so ingratiating to see people so appreciative of all the help that is being offered.

1.Impossible? So what's this forum - a total waste of time? Your answer implies that.

Had you been here during the drafting of the proposal, you could have gotten your two cents in about what needs to be changed. It has been submitted. Now, it is too late for you. Morning after quarterbacks piss me off.

So I'm voting against, and will urge all nations to do the same.

Looks like you're losing anyways.

See what happens when you are not diplomatic enough?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!11!!1!!<shift+1>

You think this has anything to do with diplomacy? That's one of the fuinniest things I've heard in ages! Diplomacy took a hike the moment people began making claims about this resolution that were so phenomenally, so butt-thrustingly stupid, that the General Assembly could physically feel its collective IQ drop by 10%.

2.And, speaking of democracy, you may stick your dictionary up the your own body hole of your choice, and your sarcasm too.

What was it you were saying about diplomacy? Now you're a hypocritical idiot, instead of a simple idiot.

If you cannot understand the difference between "independent from executive power" and "independent from judiciary power", you're clearly lacking the wits political power requests.

Either that, or he leaves the lawyering to lawyers, and sticks to defending his nations best interests in the General Assembly against the assaults of dim-witted boobs.

Go read Montesquieu.

No. You go read Nietzche. Follow it up with Machiavelli. Maybe some Kant. Or better yet, take your head out of the books and see what's right in front of you.

Or even Winnie the Pooh would be enough to better your cultural level.

Winnie the Pooh is fascism for kids.

3.If you ever were to try sending a rocket to orbit, you would hit your neighbour's house.

Considering we are headquartered on the DeathStar, it is entirely possible to hit our neighbour's house while quite accurately putting the rocket into orbit.

This happens when you're inaccurate like you are when you're discussing UN proposals.

Dr. Leary is more than a little familiar with UN proposals of all varieties.

Of course the trial procedure isn't IRRILEVANT (not "irrilevent" like you wrote, and you dare to tell me "go get a dictionary"? Hilarious, given that I'm no native english speaker). An unjust debate will lead to unfair sentences.

The justness of this debate will have no effect on the text of the proposal. It is written. It is submitted. I cannot be altered. These are things that you would know had you taken the time to familiarize yourself with the rules regarding such things before openning your fool mouth on the subject.

But maybe you're answering "it's up to your country to decide". Then this resolution is TOTALLY USELESS.:headbang:

Hardly. This proposal guarantees nations the right to decide upon their own sentences for criminal acts. It also puts forward the UN's belief in, and support of, fair and equitable judicial systems.

Has anyone besides myself noticed a trend in the tone of this entire thread?

Yes.

It appears that the people who are against the bill

Are idiots?

and use reasonable and appropriate language

To convey their idiotic and misguided notions?

to disagree are bombarded with

Blunt and unadulterated facts?

invective, insults and

The truth?

completly degrading and frankly embarassing behavior.

Oh. That. Didn't really notice. That's not a trend to this debate, but more of an overarching reaction to fools in the General Assembly.

I see no such behavior from the people for the most part who disagree with this bill.

Thankfully, there are few who are in vocal opposition. Even amongst those, many are capable of rational arguments and proper decorum and respect. They are generally treated in kind. Those who produce ludicrous claim after ludicrous claim and completely ignore basic logic are treated as the fools they are. Get used to it.

Surley people can disagree without reducing arguements to the playground level?

They can, and some do. When the target in question demonstates the rough intellect of an average 4 year old, we feel it most appropriate to converse with them in a language they might understand. That said, you're an idiot.

Why is this happening?

When a duck walks in, that is very obviously a duck, has feathers and wings like a duck, has a duck's bill and duck's feet, and quacks out that he is not a duck and attempts to act as though he were not a duck, a great many of us are compelled to speak the truth of the matter to said duck. Why should we allow such ignorant denial of the truth to continue? If you act a fool, you will be called a fool. Simple.

Do the moderaters have some control over this forum?

OOC: They do. They also allow for in character responses to go a bit further than out of character responses. When Mr. Feldstein speaks, he speaks his mind. When I speak, I tend to be much more patient and tolerant of foolish behaviour and argument. When a character insults another character, it's part of roleplaying your nation. When a player insults a player, it's flaming. The mods will step in when someone has gone too far either in or out of character. When such happens, only the foolish continue with their behaviour. Friendly piece of advice: The mods are capable of being very impartial, but calling them out in such a fashion is not the best way to get the desired response. Ask them nicely, in the approprite forum, and await response. Demanding action, implying that they are powerless, whining about the snipes taken at you, are all great ways to bias them against you. They will not do so intentionally. They will endeavor to look at the facts without bias. Subconsiously, they may not take the complaints of one who has irritated them as seriously as they might others. Just a suggestion.

Ive been told to fuck off for no reason

You were told to do so by a character who is commonly known to be quite vitriolic. You have failed to meet his criteria for granting respect. As such, he is dismissing you from his presence, in no uncertain terms.

and have been subjected to in my own opinion unjustified abuse.

Much like the abuse you have heaped upon the proposal? Let's see.... You make up unintelligible interpretations about simple clauses, assert that things are a way that they very obviously are not, when redirected towards the truth, you either completely ignore the facts or twist everything back to your own messed up paradigm about how you are afraid things are (when, in all reality, what you fear doesn't even exist), and then cry like a baby because people are telling you that you are being foolish and they don't want to deal with you anymore. Cry. Maybe some compassionate fluffy in the GA will care. Don't count on it, though. </OOC>

Why do i have to be subjected to being repeatedly called a moron and an idiot

Because you are being moronic and idiotic.

and told to fuck off for simply argueing for my own opinion?

Because your foolish opinions don't include the facts, and you refuse to see the truth, and it's beginning to really irritate an awful lot of people.

The UN of the real world the delegates are treated with at least a small amount of respect and modesty despite disagreements.

grrrrrOOC: This is not the RLUN. The real world UN has no bearing on how things occur here. Even if it did, however, I am reminded of a moment in the RLUN that occured not long ago, when the ambassador from I believe it was Brazil stood at the podium, leaned into the microphone, and said something to the effect of:

The President Of the United States of America stood in this very spot, right here, yesterday. Satnding here, I can still smell the sulphur and brimstone today"

While it is much more poetic than "Fuck Off", it no less undiplomatic to call your opponent the devil.</OOC>

Im frankly dissapointed with the level of discourse here.

What were you expecting? Did you think that your half-assed, futile attempts at pretension and arrogance would go unmolested? Did you honestly believe that you would be allowed to say any old thing, no matter how incomprehensibly assinine or arse-faced it was, and no one would call you on being a fool? Seriously, is that what you thought? What do you take us for that you did not expect us to stand up against the hordes of moronicism with whatever tools are available?

Realistically, simple reading comprehension failed, or this discussion would not even be taking place as you would have understood the text of the bill in the first place and not been so foolish as to start in about wildly innaccurate claims. Basic logic failed when you completely refused to see the veracity of simple words redirecting you towards what the actual effect of the bill would be.

We come now to what you claim is unjustified abuse: For me, I realized before even starting to debate with you that there would be way that you would see reason, so I dropped that line of attack right off. I'm not a diplomatic person, I just like to argue. I did see the potential for some good to come out of discourse with you, however. It just might serve as a simple FAQ for other fools who might come along with their own hair-brained ideas about what this bill does. They will be able to go over this exchange and see how foolish some of their ideas may have been. They may also take warning from this to see what they will be subjected to if they do decide to open their fool mouths with idiotic notions.

Take that kind of behavior to General and put some level of respect back into the expectation of behavior of delegates.

Whose expectation? Yours? What makes your expectations any more valid than anyone else's? My expectation is that ambassadors not be complete morons. That expectation has not been met. Nor will it ever, I fear. Respect is not candy at halloween. You need to do more than show up and play the part to get some.

I come here for fun and creative and interesting political debate, not to be insulted.

If you do not wish to be called a fool, stop being a fool.

If you cant at least make an attempt to behave civilly against someone who hasnt attacked you in ANY way

When I see someone being mugged, you can guarantee that I will not be civil to the mugger. He has done me no harm, and has not attacked me in any way, but his existence and what he is doing offends me. When I hear people speaking completely inane horse-puckey and claiming it to be testament, I am equally offended. Your attacks may have been indirect, but your offence was not.

then you need to go take some time off or something.

I did. It helped clear my head so that I would have an easier time dealing with the morons in the general assembly. It is now much easier for me to identify the fools for what they are, and I see no particular need, nor do I feel any compunction, to let them continue on about their day without enlightening them to their own stupidity. Consider it charity. I'm spreading the truth to those too bundled in their own ignorance to figure it out for themselves.

On to the issues. The first thing i would say is thanks for clearing up some questions i had regarding the issues i brought up.

....? When did you actually bring up an issue about anything that was actually even remotely related to the topic at hand.

The only problem i have with it is NONE OF IT IS ACTUALLY in the bill. Im deleriously HAPPY that nations get to decide to do XYZ and have all XYZ rights but huh..where does it SAY this?

Why does it need to? Are you that incompetent that you can't figure these things out for yourself? Is your homeland so devoid of intellect that they are incapable of realizing that they are free to do what they want in areas that the UN has not legislated upon?

Like in writing, on the bill, where i can SEE that the nations get to make all these decisions, and that the group is a domestic group and not an international UN group or that it doesnt have all sorts of powers that can be EASILY read into them?

Again, I must ask, why? What need is there for that level of explicitness within the context of this bill?

Writing a book afterwards telling me what you were or wernt thinking when you wrote it and what i actually have to AGREE to in front of me and in writing arnt always the same thing.

Irrelevant. It's the text of the bill that will have an effect once the bill is passed, not the author's intent.

If the bill was written more thoroughly to reflect these vague phrases to more clearly show your true intent then i would support it.

Are you incapable of deciding what these things should mean for your own nation for yourself? Do you actually need to know what the author thinks about it to decide whether or not you like it? That's sad. That's very very sad.

Just insufficiently written to show what you really had in mind i think.

What he had in mind is as clear as day to those of us who aren't bumbling fools.

I see, i have prolly 5 pages of discourse and thats what you can come up with? A fairly mild phrase that only happens ONCE and a suggestion box?

You asked for the cause. Your question was answered. Now you attack the individual who, very respectfully and with all possible civility, gave you the information you requested. Might I suggest looking in the mirror before you make any accusations about unjustified attacks. It is very much worth mentioning that the delegation from Ausserland is not only one of the most respected within these halls, but they are also one of the most diplomatic. It is almost completely unheard of for any of the individuals from Ausserland to break full decorum. After all of this sputum about how you are being unfairly victimized, practically climbing up onto a cross to prove your point, you show a complete lack of any form of respect for one of the few remaining here willing to grant you any. You disgust me. Minor hypocricy I can deal with. What you're doing is practically without description.

Ive been told to fuck off without cause at least 4 times maybe more,

It's been more. And they were with cause. The fact that you are too feeble minded to suss out the reason is no fault of ours. You've been told a number of times. You simply aren't listening.

called an idiot and a moron, stupid at least 15 or 20 times plus any number of other invectives.

Yeah. Decided to stick to using only a few so that I could be sure you got the message. Stuck with the short and simple wones so that you would actually understand.

"That's especially true when you go on to grossly misstate the effect of the proposal..." I see, so if you disagree with me on the interpretation of a phrase THEN its ok to insult me? Are you serious?

No. It's ok to tell people that they are being fooling when they are being foolish. If you say something idiotic, I will call you an idiot.

Dammit i DEMAND a "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" RIGHT NOW!! ;)

Demand it all you want. There are no sentences being passed here. Nor are you on trial. You're simply an idiot who doesn't like it when people tell him that he's an idiot.

Saying Fuck you and nothing but that in character or out does nothing to further the game.

He said more than Fuck you. Taking a single statement completely out of context to make it seem as though that is all he said will not convince anyone of your case. It will only show that you are not only an hypocritical idiot, but a conniving liar as well. Not helping yourself gain any respect with it, either.

In essence its spamming the boards.

OOC: Nope. He continued with a long standing tradition of roleplaying his character. Sheik Nadnerb Bin Cluich is a trigger happy, arrogant, womanizing, vitriolic asshole. We all love him ever so much :p. He is also incredibly intelligent and capable of extended reasoned discourse with those he feels are worth his time. He does not feel you are worth his time. Him popping in with a fuck off is akin to the Fonz throwing the thumbs up with an Ayyyyyyy.</OOC>

If i sat here and posted Fuck IF 50 times thats acceptable to all on this forum as long as its in character? I would hope not.

There would have to be some pretty unusual circumstances to justify doing something like that. Even the Sheik will get an involuntary vacation from the forum were he to pull something like that.

Perhaps i posted the moderation complaint in the wrong place im not really sure. never had to post a complaint about a player before as I am unaccustomed to being treated so rudely and have never had the need to do this.

Now you know.

Ok, then it's also for insulting people like you who continually come up with stupid proposal like this one.

A proposal that declares the UN's desire to have fair and just judicial practices within its member nations is stupid? What about one that prohibits child pornography? How about one that enshrines a nation's right to decide their own stance on abortion? Or one that assists nations with clearing landmies out of their territory? Maybe one that assist nations institute proper recycling techniques? Or one that assists with education throughout the UN? Perhaps you'd prefer one that allows citizens the right to negotiate their own rights in the workplace?

Hmph. Seven (soon to be eight) different proposals that deal with a number of different areas, all insanely well-written, that the majority of UN members felt were worthy of adding to the books. All of them written or co-written by the legislative team from Gruenberg. And, aside from inane commentary and uninformed insults, your contribution to this body as a whole would be.....?

The Honourable Duke Stoughton sits back and has a hearty laugh as the international community bickers and tears itself apart. Then he becomes concerned, and wonders what happened to decency.

Juhani Viljakainen quietly takes a sip from his waterglass, wiping his fingers dry of the condensation on the cocktail napkin the drink was resting on. He leans over to an aide who was sitting in while Tommo the Stout was on the 34th floor touching up the Chemical Transport Standards.

"Let this be the biggest lesson you have to learn in the GA. You will never disagree or agree with the same people consistently. The Gruenbergers, Kivistoans, Kennyites, Ausserlanders, Cluichstanis -- so far as I'm aware, are all voting for this, while we are not. But tell me, who in this discussion of etiquette and diplomacy is more agreeable to us?"

The aide simply nods, knowing he needn't even answer.

Do the moderaters have some control over this forum?Why, yes. Yes we do.


And frankly, I'm a little surprized at this debate. This is a Proposal about sentencing! We didn't have this sort of hysterical hyperbole and general pig-headedness in the topic for "Repeal "Gay Rights"", how the Hell does this rate?

Sheej.

Okay, look IF... the comments made by ambassadors to your (as yet) unnamed delegation were in character. The UN Forum is part of the "Sound and Fury" subheading, which is where the role-playing forums go. Threads of this nature, are generally assumed to be in character unless otherwise designated. Furthermore, most nations sign their in character posts with the name of their ambassador, making it quite clear what is in character and what is out of character.

Characters are allowed to insult each other. Doctor Leary has told the Cluichistani delegation to "fuck off" on numerous occasions. Cluichistan's player, however, knows that it's simply an acerbic character speaking, and not the player.

Just because you haven't named your ambassador doesn't mean that you are shielded from the other delegations. You are clearly speaking in the voice of your nation, and they are responding in kind. Thus operate the mores of this particular subforum (The main reason why I still think players should lurk for at least a month...).

However, I will ask the players to tone it down a notch. This isn't a mandate, but if the only reason for the post is so your ambassador can tell someone to "fuck off" again, it would probably be better served on one of the off site forums. One in particular leaps to mind as being specifically created for this sort of thing.


-The Most Glorious Hack
NationState Game Moderator

Why do we need to strengthen the beliefs that argument is all that takes place between politician, this is a good issue. I mean, we are talking about sentencing here people. I'm astonished that people consider to fight over a trivial thing as this.

This cooperation will trip over itself if it doesn't stop fighting.


Arno Van Vlierberghe,
Pictures Forum President.

Fine this is the clause word for word. "3. Calls for the creation of independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions;"

Who are these people that sit on these nonexistent "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" What does "independent and accountable bodies capable of overseeing and reviewing sentencing decisions" mean exactly? What powers do they have to change anything? If the answer is none then why ask for them?

Though the questions that were not so diplomatically put forth by the representative from Intestinal fluids have been answered several times, I figured I'd explain how Mikitivity plans to address compliance with this resolution and its third operative clause. [OOC: Here is a big hint ... nations can come and go from the UN, so they've always had a free hand to interpet resolutions as they see fit ... if this bothers you, NationStates is honestly not a game you should invest much time in, because *all* aspects of the game hand players darn near full control / authority over their nations' domestic soil.]

At present Mikitivity is a confederation of cantons, each with its own unique system of law, with a possible exception of Aslan canton, which incorporates a large amount of Miervatia cantonal law as the basis for its own laws. Though to people from outside the International Democratic Union, Mikitivity might seem as one large unified nation, the truth is the cantons are highly independent. In the case of granting citizens the right for a body or individual to function as a sort of sentence appeals panel, some cantons, such as Nolanstadt and Thoris both have had a long standing tradition of such a guarentee, while other cantons such as Valitz and Nickenstein do not have independent bodies responsible for this (though they both have appeals processes). So, as a UN member, my office (the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs) will send a compliation of UN compliance requests to the Mikitivity Council of Mayors and each canton at the end of the next quarter. For resolutions such as this one, where some cantons exceed the requests of the resolution and where other cantonal laws are not yet up to speed with the UN suggestions, my office makes initial compliance notes and in non-compliance cases offers quick summaries of what other cantons are doing for this particular issue. Days to months will pass, but no later than the end of the next quarter, the cantonal governments will send my staff and the entire Council of Mayors updates of actions they've taken to address these resolutions, though sometimes their update could be a "work in progress".

In this particular case I foresee Valitz and Nickenstein simply having their mayors appoint a number of magistrates whom will review appeals on sentences. The total cost of compliance is honestly negligible.

That said, if any nation is ever interested in Mikitivity's implementation of UN resolutions, you should always simply contact my office, and we'll prepare a statement on the status of compliance for your nation. This also applies to NGOs. :)

Howie T. Katzman

Hahahaha. How many proposals have you written and passed?

Huh? Oh, yeah sorry.

Moron.

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs

None. I don't like turn private idiocies into public waste of time like you and your fellows do.
Also, you might learn to show respect to people with different ideas. Oops, sorry, I'm asking too much from that lonely neural cell in your head.

Stupid proposal? You should keep in mind that we've got a frickin' Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142)!

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich angrily picks up his telephone and asks to speak with Sheik Nikrat bin Cluich, commander of the Cluichstani Death Star.

Yes, Cousin Nikrat, how are you? I hope you and your wives are well. Please ready the primary laser.

...

Yes, we've got another annoying nation that needs to be obliterated.

...

Well, as soon as the station's sensors can find that irritating speck of a nation called Risottia, please fire at will.

See? This is the difference between democratic countries like Risottia and crazy militaristic dominions like this... Cluichstan? We're appalled that the UN allows such attitude towards member nations.

Perhaps you do a disservice to human willpower. There are numerous documented cases of the incarcerated improving themselves through learning, contributing to projects of benefit to the community, and so on.
And there are numerous documented cases of prison suicides. Sorry, but "some of them make the most of it" doesn't justify the inhumanity inflicted on the rest - it'd be like saying forcing people into a ghetto was ok, so long as them some of them mustered up some community spirit.

Actually, no. Existence, not liberty is the primary consideration. If one believes in no God, then existence is all there is.
Yes, liberty isn't a consideration for you because you have it. What a stunning revelation. I can't help but feel that those caged up, unable to exercise so many of their basic rights, liberty becomes a more attractive proposition. If existence is all there is, then there is no need to waste our time allotting our citizens civil rights - no need for freedom of speech, so long as we don't kill them for it, for example.

At last, a meaningful rebuttal. Naturally I disagree, but this statement makes a lot more of your position comprehensible.
Are you allergic to argument or something? I don't care whether you claim to now understand my position - I want you to respond to it. Simply saying "ah yes" and solemnly stroking your beard just makes you look like you have nothing to come back with.

On the contrary, it would be relatively straightforward to conduct large numbers of state executions without such behaviour falling under the label of genocide.
Right - and you still haven't demonstrated why a) that would be significantly worse than large numbers of state floggings/imprisonments/etc (indeed, if "existence is all that matters", I think I'll write a proposal mandating gang rape of adulterers if FSA is repealed) and b) that would be so bad in a society in which existence is not all that matters.

“Without feelings of respect, what is there to distinguish men from beasts?”
I tend to eat the latter, but aside from that, I don't really care about pretty little aphorisms.

Oops, sorry, I'm asking too much from that lonely neural cell in your head.
Yep, we're the insulting ones.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

In accordance with a poll of the nations of England (2 for, 6 against, 1 abstention), The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra will be voting against this resolution.

Yes, based on the following astounding reasoning:

I'm against it.

Gruenberg is just trying to be difficult .:rolleyes:

I also believe that these things shouldn't be handled by the UN.

The UN sticking its nose in where it's neither needed nor wanted. Remarkably realistic, this game.

Though I do quite like

Typical gruenburg legislation, says one thing but means another

Ambassador Zyryanov leaned back in her chair, sipped at her hot grapefruit tea, and shook her head.

Amazing... It's like a school playground in here. She could barely hear herself think above the bickering and snide remarks whizzing back and forth.

"Oh, my country abstains," she spoke up into the din, not really expecting anyone to even hear her. "After due consideration and all that... Don't let me interrupt this delightful squabble, though."

She took another sip of her tea, before it could cool down.

Why, yes. Yes we do.


And frankly, I'm a little surprized at this debate. This is a Proposal about sentencing! We didn't have this sort of hysterical hyperbole and general pig-headedness in the topic for "Repeal "Gay Rights"", how the Hell does this rate?

Sheej.

Okay, look IF... the comments made by ambassadors to your (as yet) unnamed delegation were in character. The UN Forum is part of the "Sound and Fury" subheading, which is where the role-playing forums go. Threads of this nature, are generally assumed to be in character unless otherwise designated. Furthermore, most nations sign their in character posts with the name of their ambassador, making it quite clear what is in character and what is out of character.

Characters are allowed to insult each other. Doctor Leary has told the Cluichistani delegation to "fuck off" on numerous occasions. Cluichistan's player, however, knows that it's simply an acerbic character speaking, and not the player.

Just because you haven't named your ambassador doesn't mean that you are shielded from the other delegations. You are clearly speaking in the voice of your nation, and they are responding in kind. Thus operate the mores of this particular subforum (The main reason why I still think players should lurk for at least a month...).

However, I will ask the players to tone it down a notch. This isn't a mandate, but if the only reason for the post is so your ambassador can tell someone to "fuck off" again, it would probably be better served on one of the off site forums. One in particular leaps to mind as being specifically created for this sort of thing.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationState Game Moderator

Thank you for informing me of the nature of this forum. I must say im slightly dissapointed that this type of behavior is allowed in this forum. Even the rabble in General treat each other with FAR FAR more respect then ive seen on this board. I would like to be able to go to a forum where i can deliberate over a part of the game that has unquestioanble control over my gameplay without haveing people just say fuck you out of hand with no other additional information and this is considered proper. Im FORCED to participate in this part of the game if i am to have a UN nation and yet if this is the case then im also being forced into a potentailly abusive situation. Im all for a game thats fun and interesting and challenging, im not interested in having fuck you yell fests. Is there a forum available that i can discuss the pros and cons of an issue where out of hand abuse isnt tolerated and moderators moderate? Thank you for your time.

Yes, based on the following astounding reasoning:

[snip quotes]
I'm democratically bound to vote based on the results of the poll (minus votes from outsiders), not on the arguments put forward.

*snip*

Characters are allowed to insult each other. Doctor Leary has told the Cluichistani delegation to "fuck off" on numerous occasions. Cluichistan's player, however, knows that it's simply an acerbic character speaking, and not the player.

*snip*

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationState Game Moderator

OOC: (Note: Hack's sig was left in so people know I'm quoting one of his OOC posts.) Part of the fun of this game is being able to insult each other in character, knowing that it's nothing personal. And yes, Doctor Leary has told Sheik Nadnerb (who, yes, can be a total prick) to fuck off plenty of times ( :D ), as have many, many other characters. Of course, I don't take it as an attack on me personally, because it's not: it's an attack on a character. I'm perfectly capable of separating the two. Besides, I know -- or at least, hope -- that those who've had dealings with me directly, not just with my primary character here, have found that I, the player, am not a complete prick, even those with whom I've had several in-character brawls here in the NSUN.

Even the rabble in General treat each other with FAR FAR more respect then ive seen on this board.

OOC:
Consider this ... by calling the people who post in General "rabble" you are now disrespecting them. Furthermore, several days ago you accused me (IC) of not reading something that was obvious that you read neither IC or OC -- again disrespecting another player -- this time me. My point is you are *not* above this sort of behavior, so I think it is just important to remember to see this from all sides.

edit: I hope you realize that when I replied IC to you last night, that I'm not really upset ... but I do believe it would be better to focus on the resolution.

OOC: Personally, I get a kick out of some of the arguing that goes on around here. In this forum, we're RPing ambassadors who are trying to sway others to our point of view. Like RL politicos, we might use rhetoric, we might stray from the truth, and we might pound on the table like Khruchev's famous speech.

On one occasion, one of the representives threatened to nuke my country. Unfortunately, a meeting interrupted me before my representitive could properly express his outrage, but I got an OOC chuckle out of it.

OOC: *snip*
On one occasion, one of the representives threatened to nuke my country. Unfortunately, a meeting interrupted me before my representitive could properly express his outrage, but I got an OOC chuckle out of it.

OOC: That was probably either Kenny or me -- more likely me, though, I think. :cool:

OOC: That was probably either Kenny or me -- more likely me, though, I think. :cool:

OOC: I don't remember who it was, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was you. I'd probably threaten an attack, but you have a fking Death Star. :D

OOC: I don't remember who it was, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was you. I'd probably threaten an attack, but you have a fking Death Star. :D

OOC: LOL! And here I was trying to avoid bringing that up for the 4,781st time. :D

Human Rights, okay, but not FOD. I don't like it and I don't think it really fits into that category. Political Stability would work. At least that's the way it looks to me.


I agree, political stability seems to fit it, but this proposal doesnt seem complete to me it seems like they started then stopped and submited it! I still voted for it but I would still like to see more detail.

I still voted for it but I would still like to see more detail.
I won't provide more detail. That's for national governments to do.

Also, you might learn to show respect to people with different ideas. Oops, sorry, I'm asking too much from that lonely neural cell in your head.Pot, meet kettle.

See? This is the difference between democratic countries like Risottia and crazy militaristic dominions like this... Cluichstan? We're appalled that the UN allows such attitude towards member nations.If you don't like it, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thank you for informing me of the nature of this forum. I must say im slightly dissapointed that this type of behavior is allowed in this forum. Even the rabble in General treat each other with FAR FAR more respect then ive seen on this board. I would like to be able to go to a forum where i can deliberate over a part of the game that has unquestioanble control over my gameplay without haveing people just say fuck you out of hand with no other additional information and this is considered proper. Im FORCED to participate in this part of the game if i am to have a UN nation and yet if this is the case then im also being forced into a potentailly abusive situation. Im all for a game thats fun and interesting and challenging, im not interested in having fuck you yell fests. Is there a forum available that i can discuss the pros and cons of an issue where out of hand abuse isnt tolerated and moderators moderate? Thank you for your time.OOC: You know, if you actually had decent arguements, people wouldn't be telling you to fuck off. But no, you keep beating the same dead horse using the same arguements that have been proven wrong multiple times, so yeah people's characters are going to get pissed and tell you to fuck off. If you don't like it well, that's too damn bad.

Pot, meet kettle.

If you don't like it, there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: You know, if you actually had decent arguements, people wouldn't be telling you to fuck off. But no, you keep beating the same dead horse using the same arguements that have been proven wrong multiple times, so yeah people's characters are going to get pissed and tell you to fuck off. If you don't like it well, that's too damn bad.



LMAO i see, so the rules are, #1: its ok to violate rules of reasonable discourse when you unilaterally have decided when enough explanation is enough. Remarkable how my opinion was proven wrong, gosh by SEVERAL people even, as though it was a math problem. Well DONE! Im glad your ok with justifying abuse after your clear and stunning victory in your agruement.


Another interesting thing of note, despite the fact that the bill is going to pass, since i began advocating my position strongly yesterday the vote ratio has dropped from 2.6 supporting the bill (citing Excruciatia post #135) to 2.36. A diference of over 10% of the voters in ONE day. Direct evidence of my position maybe, maybe not but take it for what you will ;)

LMAO i see, so the rules are, #1: its ok to violate rules of reasonable discourse when you unilaterally have decided when enough explanation is enough. Remarkable how my opinion was proven wrong, gosh by SEVERAL people even, as though it was a math problem. Well DONE! Im glad your ok with justifying abuse after your clear and stunning victory in your agruement.

OOC: All of my previous posts were IC, I hope you understand. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now you're just trolling here.

Do not expect any reasonable discourse at this point in the debate, because whatever wiggle-room you had has just disappeared.

Here's a hint: do not take this too seriously. You keep on and on about the rules of dicourse and the RL UN, but you forget that this is all a huge game that people play to have fun.

On the debate: You really need to learn some debate techniques yourself, because it is really starting to get on everyone's nerves. You HAVE been proven wrong, you just choose not to see it. I'm done responding to you, IC or OOC, because you just don't get it.

Seriously, take the advice given, read the FAQ, and lurk a bit before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

*snip*

Seriously, take the advice given, read the FAQ, and lurk a bit before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

OOC: Is that even possible? ;)

Fair Sentencing Act was passed 9,597 votes to 4,066

Great job Gruen! :)

Is there a forum available that i can discuss the pros and cons of an issue where out of hand abuse isnt tolerated and moderators moderate? Thank you for your time.

OOC:
Moderators do moderate here, but In Character insults are permitted. If you don't understand the difference between IC and OOC, I'm sure we'll be glad to explain it to you.

LMAO i see, so the rules are, #1: its ok to violate rules of reasonable discourse when you unilaterally have decided when enough explanation is enough. Remarkable how my opinion was proven wrong, gosh by SEVERAL people even, as though it was a math problem. Well DONE! Im glad your ok with justifying abuse after your clear and stunning victory in your agruement.
You continue to exhibit exactly the same sort of passive-agressive abusive behavior that started this whole mess. True, you're far from the only one, but you somehow seem to think that your abuse is excusable because you don't say 'fuck'. Sorry, that's not how it works.

My colleague has been an active participant in the debate, and may have been reluctant to put his foot down. I am under no such contraints. The time has come for a knock it off to all the participants of this abuse fest, as the line between IC and OOC has thinned to invisibility.

The following players are one smidgen of a hair from an official warning for continuing this bitchfest beyond Hack's warning (and at least one of you will not survive a warning with your nation intact. You know who you are.)
Allech-Atreus, Cluichstan, Flibbleites , Intestinal fluids, Risottia

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Direct evidence of my position maybe, maybe not but take it for what you will ;)
Given that less than 1% of all UN nations even bother reading this forum, I think it's safe to discount the effect of your arguments on the overall vote total.

Given that less than 1% of all UN nations even bother reading this forum, I think it's safe to discount the effect of your arguments on the overall vote total.

First, congrats to Gruenberg on having this resolution pass.

Second, I've finished *some* of the NSWiki article:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fair_Sentencing_Act

Third, the arguments in this thread are most certainly not impacting the voting results. During the last day of voting, many regions, including the feeders and my own region, cast their vote. While the smaller regions such as mine tend to support UN resolutions, the feeders have become increasingly conservative in the past 6 months. The surge in no votes came from the feeders using a democratic process to collect votes, and then casting their votes towards the end of debate. Few feeder nations are bringing points raised here back to their forum debates.

This resolution did slightly better than the Freedom of Assembly resolution (its NSWiki article is waiting for me to get Adobe Illustrator set up either at work or home), suggesting that the split between Yes and No was largely based on the categories of the resolutions. The resolutions themselves were actually fairly different ... one was a nudge in one direction, the other in reality was a blocker (an extremely well written one).

I applaud Gruenberg for the authorship of such a fine piece of legislation, and am happy to see it pass into the books.

I would also like to apologize for the brash nature of my Chief of Office Affairs, standing in for me during the debate. He's a good-hearted man, really, and sometimes doesn't know when to keep his mouth closed. His appearances on the floor will be few and far between. Mostly, he'll be filing papers and bitching to the office staff.

I would also like to express admiration and respect for the cool-headed nature of the representatives from Ausserland and Mikitivity. They set a tone for the debate that my own delegation should have followed, and will follow in the future.

We look forward to future debates that are enlightened and courteous.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Sama
Ambassador to the UN
Allech-Atreus

A pair of white-plastoid-armoured troopers enters the hall of the General Assembly and makes its way to the Cluichstani delegation. One of the troopers, his voice amplified slightly by a transmitter in his helmet says, "Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich, you are to come with us."

Sheik Nadnerb sighs. "I kinda expected this."

The sheik shrugs his shoulders and steps between the two troopers, who then lead him out of the hall.

Suddenly, the room erupts in very loud music -- specifically, the chorus of "Age of Aquarius." A dozen women clad in tye-dyed shirts and bellbottoms come traipsing into the hall tossing flowers all about. After a few moments, the large main doors to the hall burst open, revealing a lone figure standing in the doorway, dressed just like the women, his hair pulled back into a ponytail. He wears sunglasses, even though the room isn't all that bright, tiny circular lenses shielding his eyes from who knows what.

"Hey there, babies!" the man exclaims. "The name's Sheik Larebil. I'll be replacing Sheik Nadnerb. Seems he got waaaaaay uncool for you guys."

Sheik Larebil pulls a joint from his pocket. "Anybody got a light? I think it's time for us to all smoke up, dudes! Let's hang out and get to know one another. Peace and love! Yeah!"

Congratulations on the passing of this resolution http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/content.gif.

It is such a relief for all our citizens that this legislation will prevent anyone poking their noses into our justice system again, well, for the forseeable future at least.

Ambassador Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov) had just been dozing off quietly as the tumult of the disp- debate quieted down, when music burst into her ears, and she was woken by a small bunch of flowers landing on her nose.

She sat up abruptly, took in the cause of the sudden interruption, and blinked.

Well, this is... different.

Hell, after all this, I need a drink...or fifty. The rest of y'all might want to follow my fine example.

One of the drinks will be a toast to the resolution authors. Congratulations on a job well done. HotRodia has been waiting for this for a long time.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

OOC: Thanks for starting the NSwiki article, Mik. If I haven't done so in a week, prod me, because it can be added to: this proposal goes way back, and its original idea was on the Texas regional forums, so I should probably put in a word for NewTexas and HotRodia;.

OOC: Thanks for starting the NSwiki article, Mik. If I haven't done so in a week, prod me, because it can be added to: this proposal goes way back, and its original idea was on the Texas regional forums, so I should probably put in a word for NewTexas and HotRodia;.

I'll be adding more UN debate materials, but I'll prod ya (see I can talk Texan too). ;) But I may sneak a peak on the Texas forums to see what was public. You probably saw how I noted Hack's involvement in Freedom of Assembly.

I'll also be throwing up a vote comparison of your resolution to mine. They were very similar ... and I want to dispell the crazy notion that the few hundred people who lurk in these debates switched their minds / votes. I just don't think that happened. Now if there were some other off-site forums where anybody feels several hundred votes went one way or another, please flag them for the article. :)

Hell, after all this, I need a drink...or fifty. The rest of y'all might want to follow my fine example.

One of the drinks will be a toast to the resolution authors. Congratulations on a job well done. HotRodia has been waiting for this for a long time.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Drinks? Hell, man...just smoke this. *passes a joint to the representative of HotRodia*

I don't want to snear, but I do find this amusing. Remember this in the context of the region that, when my Clothing Supply Pact was verging on passing, authored a complete national self-determination proposal:


The New Cultural Revolution of Dashanzi: On the contrary, Turquoise Days. This is a national sovereignty resolution. Article 1 is fluff there simply to distract the voters; 2 is the meat. I think Gruenberg's played this very well indeed. The UN will no longer be able to ban capital punishment, plus the way is clear to repeal 'End Barbaric Punishments' and others.

The Revolutionary Socialism of Jan Palach: As long as the UN membership majority is between the ages of 12 - 18, Gruenberg will be able to slip stuff like this through.

The Acid Flashback of Fabulousia: Against. I like NASCAR. [a/n: I don't understand this one...]

The Promiscuous Perverts of Heavenly Sex: Yes, it's really nasty... there's probably a typo in the name and it should actually be "Gruelberg".

The People's Republic of Fajwat: Against, agreeing with Dashanzi: #4 sounds like recommended lynchings, #3 gives no obvious authority to the reviewing body, #2 sanctions any human rights abuse (and #1 is fluff). Natsov comes below fundamental human rights in my book.

"Gruelberg"? "Recommended lynchings"? Oh, ACA is priceless!

And speaking of FoA, Mik, you really need to update your sig. :p

I don't want to snear, but I do find this amusing. Remember this in the context of the region that, when my Clothing Supply Pact was verging on passing, authored a complete national self-determination proposal:
Of course you mean to 'snear' [sic]. The ACA did not author 'a complete national self-determination proposal'; that was the act of one nation, with virtually no support expressed for it by other members. Still, why let the facts get in the way of a good non-'snear'?

That said, the comments made by representatives of Fabulousia and Heavenly Sex are confusing/inane. I commend your diligence in bringing them up for the purpose of not 'snearing'.

Benedictions,

OOC: Thanks for starting the NSwiki article, Mik. If I haven't done so in a week, prod me, because it can be added to: this proposal goes way back, and its original idea was on the Texas regional forums, so I should probably put in a word for NewTexas and HotRodia;.

OOC: Thanks! My very first proposal was a blocker on the death penalty, at the urging of NewTexas and partly on my own initiative, but this was prior to blockers being legal, and it was written very differently then. Things have certainly changed over the past few years. :)

OOC: Yeah, I read the blocker you and Eco wrote. It was - and I mean no slight on you by this, because this was early days and long before NSoT/UNSA - astonishingly illegal, in that it seemed to set up a committee to be staffed by the moderators, who could unilaterally repeal the resolution or something.

But your redrafted effort quite a bit later was the main inspiration for it.

IC: Ching Chong, your vague defence is all very well, and I know Zphd's proposal in itself wasn't widely supported - though it picked up your delegate's approval, and words of encouragement from some ACA members - but my point is more generally that the left vascillates alarmingly between screaming national self-determination and claiming it's entirely subservient to human rights, depending on (as the real issue is) whether they agree with it or not. I refuse to be ashamed for pointing out rank hypocrisy where it stands.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

I don't want to snear, but I do find this amusing. Remember this in the context of the region that, when my Clothing Supply Pact was verging on passing, authored a complete national self-determination proposal:

Actually though my nation voted in favour, it is good to see that some nations realized the political ramifications here.