NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations…

RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #87, “Repeal ‘Legalize Prostitution’” argues that it is “a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing”;

NOTING that each nation has individual health considerations that may or may not include sexually transmitted disease epidemics, which may render the legalization of prostitution very dangerous to the health of many citizens;

FURTHER NOTING that not all nations have the technological developments necessary to prevent the mass spread of sexually transmitted diseases or diagnose their presence in a person through proper regulations;

CONSIDERING that the morality of prostitution is often a concern for the peoples of the world, and that the UN is not a source of moral authority, nor is it an appropriate mechanism for enforcing moral choices;

FURTHER CONSIDERING that in nations where prostitution is considered highly immoral, those who choose to be prostitutes may experience serious social consequences, such as the defacto removal of rights by their social group, or even acts of violence, as a result of the legalization of prostitution;

CONCLUDING that matters with deep moral, social and health implications are often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions, and that prostitution is such a matter;

BELIEVING as a consequence that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so,

REPEALS UN Resolution #91, “The Sex Industry Worker Act,” implemented February 6, 2005.

Co-authored by Texan Hotrodders

I have submitted a repeal of UN Resolution #91, “The Sex Industry Worker Act.” This resolution forces every nation to legalize prostitution. Although Tarmsden has legal prostitution, we believe this is a decision that should be left to every nation given their social, economic and health status.

Please approve of the repeal here:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=industry

The original resolution can be found here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=90

I am very much in agreement with the representative from Tarmsden. You have my full support in this initiative.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Thank you for your support. Hopefully, when coupled with the repeal for "Sexual Freedom", the UN will get a nice house-cleaning.

As it stands, I can't see this repeal passing the test of the national sovereignty argument rule.

And again: Ban Trafficking in Persons.

As it stands, I can't see this repeal passing the test of the national sovereignty argument rule.

I can. Care to elaborate?

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

If I can yank out all the NatSov arguments and still have a valid Repeal, then it should be okay. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10526377&postcount=68)
So
The United Nations…

RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #87, “Repeal ‘Legalize Prostitution’” argues that it is “a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing”;

BELIEVING that matters with deep moral, social and health implications are often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions;

and ALSO BELIEVING that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so,

REPEALS UN Resolution #91, “The Sex Industry Worker Act,” implemented February 6, 2005.
would become
The United Nations…

RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #87, “Repeal ‘Legalize Prostitution’” argues that it is “a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing”;

REPEALS UN Resolution #91, “The Sex Industry Worker Act,” implemented February 6, 2005.
which has no argument.

So

would become

which has no argument.

I haven't seen one mention of national sovereignty in any of those. It's hard for me to see it as a sovereignty argument if the word isn't used and the conclusion of the points isn't "we should have national sovereignty". Looks more like an argument to keep the UN out of controversial moral and health issues to me. Which is a part of national sovereignty, but actually a much smaller concern in comparison to the broad implications of national sovereignty.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I haven't seen one mention of national sovereignty in any of those. It's hard for me to see it as a sovereignty argument if the word isn't used and the conclusion of the points isn't "we should have national sovereignty". Looks more like an argument to keep the UN out of controversial moral and health issues to me. Which is a part of national sovereignty, but actually a much smaller concern in comparison to the broad implications of national sovereignty.
If the repeal made the argument "we should be able to ban prostitution because it spread disease, and the women are all niggers and their pimps are in the pay of kikes", this would not be a racist argument. Why not? Because I didn't use the word "racist". Therefore, I should be allowed to make this argument in a repeal - after all, it doesn't fall foul of the "grossly offensive" rule, using as it does neither the word "grossly" nor "offensive". Furthermore, the "point" of the argument is about disease, not about race - so it is not reaching the conclusion "we should be racist". Can I click Submit yet?

If the repeal made the argument "we should be able to ban prostitution because it spread disease, and the women are all niggers and their pimps are in the pay of kikes", this would not be a racist argument. Why not? Because I didn't use the word "racist". Therefore, I should be allowed to make this argument in a repeal - after all, it doesn't fall foul of the "grossly offensive" rule, using as it does neither the word "grossly" nor "offensive". Furthermore, the "point" of the argument is about disease, not about race - so it is not reaching the conclusion "we should be racist". Can I click Submit yet?

And if you take only one of two points from an argument and make it look absurd, then clearly you've successfully defeated the entire argument.

Our sarcasm notwithstanding, your claim that the point of the argument is about disease is hardly the entire truth. There are actually two points, one about disease and the other about the race/ethinicity of those in the prostitution industry. The reason we can conclude it is partially a racist argument is because of the racist terminology used, in this case racial slurs.

Let's contrast that with the text of Tarmsden's proposal, which doesn't have sovereigntist terminology, and certainly doesn't have sovereigntist slurs, which I'm not even sure exist. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, the set of purely sovereigntist terminology is rather small compared to the set of purely racist terminology.

Keep in mind that the claim that the "moral, social, and health considerations" should be relegated to the national level is not necessarily a national sovereignty argument, whereas the claim that the "women are all niggers and their pimps are in the pay of kikes" is necessarily racist. I'm really not sure why you think it's necessary to be a sovereigntist to think that some things are better handled at a national level. Hell, even Forgottenlord, one of the most vocal advocates of international federalism, admitted that some things were better handled at a national level.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I don't follow. Though, to judge by the quote box, you missed my edit.

I don't follow. Though, to judge by the quote box, you missed my edit.

OOC: I did miss it. Fixed.

And if you take only one of two points from an argument and make it look absurd, then clearly you've successfully defeated the entire argument.
If an argument uses logic that can lead to being reduced to absurdity, it's probably kicking the bucket to start with.

Our sarcasm notwithstanding, your claim that the point of the argument is about disease is hardly the entire truth. There are actually two points, one about disease and the other about the race/ethinicity of those in the prostitution industry. The reason we can conclude it is partially a racist argument is because of the racist terminology used, in this case racial slurs.

Let's contrast that with the text of Tarmsden's proposal, which doesn't have sovereigntist terminology, and certainly doesn't have sovereigntist slurs, which I'm not even sure exist. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, the set of purely sovereigntist terminology is rather small compared to the set of purely racist terminology.
Then by this very same process, we can see that "and ALSO BELIEVING that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so," is very definitely a sovereigntist argument - yet earlier you claimed that was not the point of the repeal. Furthermore, look at that "or ban": #91 doesn't ban prostitution. So this line isn't a textual criticism: it's a statement of principle - the principle of national sovereignty.

Keep in mind that the claim that the "moral, social, and health considerations" should be relegated to the national level is not necessarily a national sovereignty argument, whereas the claim that the "women are all niggers and their pimps are in the pay of kikes" is necessarily racist.
But in this context it is a national sovereignty argument, when considered by its qualifying "often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions". This is clearly national sovereignty - the idea that nations have the right to preserve their culture.

I'm really not sure why you think it's necessary to be a sovereigntist to think that some things are better handled at a national level.
I don't.

If an argument uses logic that can lead to being reduced to absurdity, it's probably kicking the bucket to start with.

Not necessarily. I've reduced plenty of arguments to absurdity, but somehow they keep coming back, lively as ever.

Then by this very same process, we can see that "and ALSO BELIEVING that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so," is very definitely a sovereigntist argument - yet earlier you claimed that was not the point of the repeal. Furthermore, look at that "or ban": #91 doesn't ban prostitution. So this line isn't a textual criticism: it's a statement of principle - the principle of national sovereignty.

Let's make a very simple distinction. The point/intent of the proposal/repeal is not necessarily the same as the point of a given argument it contains. You have to know that, given some of the fluffy content of legislation you've written to keep the fluffies from interfering in our nations' sovereignty. So let's not go around assuming that an argument is sovereigntist just because it's in a repeal text written by a sovereigntist who has stated that he is trying to acheive a sovereigntist aim with it.

Also, I'm still very curious as to why you think the referenced clause is a national sovereignty argument. When I say that no nation should be forced to adopt position X or Y on issue Z, that's hardly an automatic national sovereignty argument. Is it necessarily a national sovereignty argument to say that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban the use of wristwatches? Of course not. The argument may just be that the issue is too trivial, or too subject to a particular cultural context, and thus much too complicated for the UN to legislate on effectively. The statement that no nation should be forced to do something is just that, a statement. It's not really supported by any argument within itself, and is certainly not a valid argument by itself, any more than if I made a statement that no person should be forced to either allow or disallow flammable materials in their home. There's simply no argument there, just a proposition that is certainly not self-proving.

But in this context it is a national sovereignty argument, when considered by its qualifying "often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions". This is clearly national sovereignty - the idea that nations have the right to preserve their culture.

Actually, that's the idea called cultural preservationism, commonly found in national socialist movements. It's a fascinating analog to the idea some folks have about preserving species of flora and fauna, commonly found in environmental conservationist movements.

I don't.

Funny. Sure looks like it. But then, it sure looks to you like those arguments are national sovereignty arguments, and they aren't. Maybe we both need our vision checked, eh?

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Not necessarily. I've reduced plenty of arguments to absurdity, but somehow they keep coming back, lively as ever.
Repetition is not a measure of merit. But, anyway.

Let's make a very simple distinction. The point/intent of the proposal/repeal is not necessarily the same as the point of a given argument it contains. You have to know that, given some of the fluffy content of legislation you've written to keep the fluffies from interfering in our nations' sovereignty. So let's not go around assuming that an argument is sovereigntist just because it's in a repeal text written by a sovereigntist who has stated that he is trying to acheive a sovereigntist aim with it.
I'm not assuming that. I'm reading those two clauses, and saying they seem to me to be national sovereignty arguments.

Also, I'm still very curious as to why you think the referenced clause is a national sovereignty argument. When I say that no nation should be forced to adopt position X or Y on issue Z, that's hardly an automatic national sovereignty argument. Is it necessarily a national sovereignty argument to say that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban the use of wristwatches? Of course not. The argument may just be that the issue is too trivial, or too subject to a particular cultural context, and thus much too complicated for the UN to legislate on effectively. The statement that no nation should be forced to do something is just that, a statement. It's not really supported by any argument within itself, and is certainly not a valid argument by itself, any more than if I made a statement that no person should be forced to either allow or disallow flammable materials in their home. There's simply no argument there, just a proposition that is certainly not self-proving.
That's my point: there is no argument there, and it thereby simply reads as a statement of sovereignty. Had he said "...because it's too trivial for the UN to waste its time on" or "...because prostitution is wrong", then sure, it wouldn't be a problem. He didn't.

Nonetheless, you have conceded that it is not an argument, so we can strike that from consideration, meaning the "BELIEVING" clause is the only active argument (and this puts the repeal on shaky ground already, given the explanation here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10521411&postcount=63)).

Actually, that's the idea called cultural preservationism, commonly found in national socialist movements. It's a fascinating analog to the idea some folks have about preserving species of flora and fauna, commonly found in environmental conservationist movements.
No, it's not. Cultural conservationism is to do with a specific culture - it has no specific national context. So it would be about preserving, for example, white values: that could be in one country, could be in several. The distinction being that it identifies with culture, rather than specifically with the nation.

This clause isn't employing a subsidiarity argument, because it's not saying the decision should be delegated to the most appropriate level. It's not taking a devolutionary stance, because it's not saying it should be made at the most local level. It's talking solely about nations.

Funny. Sure looks like it. But then, it sure looks to you like those arguments are national sovereignty arguments, and they aren't. Maybe we both need our vision checked, eh?
Hurr hurr lol :) :D :p :fluffle: :eek: :cool: ;)

I haven't seen one mention of national sovereignty in any of those. It's hard for me to see it as a sovereignty argument if the word isn't used and the conclusion of the points isn't "we should have national sovereignty". Looks more like an argument to keep the UN out of controversial moral and health issues to me. Which is a part of national sovereignty, but actually a much smaller concern in comparison to the broad implications of national sovereignty.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

That is the point. Gruenberg pointed to a UN Secretariat ruling that repeals need to have a justification beyond the simple opinion that a matter should be left to national sovereignty as the grounds of the repeal. The justification in the repeal is actually another soveriegnty based argument from a repeal (which shouldn't be allowed on its own, because that opinion can't be repealed).

To put this another way, resolution preambulatory clauses may make opinionated statements because they can be repealed. Though repeals are resolutions, their justification can never be overturned, thus their justification (preambles) shouldn't be considered lasting statements of international will.

At this point, I'd like to ask that the UN Secretariat actually add to their discussions coming up with a firm ruling on the legality of using repeal preambulatory clauses in resolutions. My government is of the mind that it is OK to note that a repeal has happened, as it certainly illustrates the flickle nature of international will on a subject, but urges that great care be used when using a justification in one repeal as the quoted justification in another repeal.

Howie T. Katzman

RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #87, “Repeal ‘Legalize Prostitution’” argues that it is “a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing”;Not an argument, just back story. Flavor text. Irrelevent to any ruling.

BELIEVING that matters with deep moral, social and health implications are often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions;Translation: "The UN shouldn't do this because nations should." NatSov argument.

and ALSO BELIEVING that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so,Translation: "The UN shouldn't do this because nations should." NatSov argument.

REPEALS UN Resolution #91, “The Sex Industry Worker Act,” implemented February 6, 2005.Flavor text. Irrelevent.

Removal of the two NatSov arguments leaves us with flavor text. I don't see how this is sufficient. Nor do I see how the two operative clauses could be interpretated as anything but NatSov arguments. Not necessarily the line of the NSO, but clearly NatSov.

Perhaps it should be "natsov" to distinguish between the party and the ideology. Like "democratic" (following the principles of democracy) and "Democratic" (of or belonging to the DNC).

Perhaps it should be "natsov" to distinguish between the party and the ideology. Like "democratic" (following the principles of democracy) and "Democratic" (of or belonging to the DNC).

Actually that is an incredibly good analogy ... and would be a nice convention to adopt, separating the group from the concept.

Now that Hack and Gruen are on the same page, I think the next step is to still talk about other items that can be included in the repeal. IC I still like how Groot Gouda wrote the original, so Katzman is not going to be helpful ... but he'll not obstruct any strong arguments either. OOC I'm just thinking that another approach might be to simply take the position that the repeal is being put to nations for a vote because (as Gruen pointed out) there is another resolution that later protects workers and the repeal vote would be another chance to revisit the *two* issues that exist in the resolution: (1) legalization / control of prostitution, and (2) health standards for prostitutes. "Katzman" and I are both 100% behind the second issue ... and the second one we like, but might be persuaded if a really convincing case of beer and future concession on a UN environmental bill were promised. ;)

OOC: Since this is getting clearly Out-of-Character...

Repetition is not a measure of merit. But, anyway.

It was a joke, playing on the expression you used. Not meant as serious commentary.

I'm not assuming that. I'm reading those two clauses, and saying they seem to me to be national sovereignty arguments.

Hmmm. Maybe I misread your quoted statement, but I'm reviewing it now, and it doesn't look like it.

Then by this very same process, we can see that "and ALSO BELIEVING that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so," is very definitely a sovereigntist argument - yet earlier you claimed that was not the point of the repeal. Furthermore, look at that "or ban": #91 doesn't ban prostitution. So this line isn't a textual criticism: it's a statement of principle - the principle of national sovereignty.

First you quote a line from the repeal, a line that we now both agree isn't even an argument, and say it's the very definition of a sovereigntist argument, then contrast that with my alleged claim that it wasn't the point of the repeal. My claim wasn't that national sovereignty wasn't the point, because I knew damn well what Tarmsden was going for with the repeal, but that national sovereignty wasn't the argument. Hence my explanation of why the point being national sovereignty didn't automatically make the argument national sovereignty.

That's my point: there is no argument there, and it thereby simply reads as a statement of sovereignty. Had he said "...because it's too trivial for the UN to waste its time on" or "...because prostitution is wrong", then sure, it wouldn't be a problem. He didn't.

Really? I remember your point rather differently. And as you can see in the quote above, you did say that it was the very definition of a national sovereignty argument, not that it wasn't an argument. Or are we finally agreeing on the distinction between a point and an argument, and your point was quite different from your argument?

Nonetheless, you have conceded that it is not an argument, so we can strike that from consideration, meaning the "BELIEVING" clause is the only active argument (and this puts the repeal on shaky ground already, given the explanation here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10521411&postcount=63)).

"...you have conceded..." An interesting turn of phrase, given that it seems to be you who is conceding that particular point, and me that made it.

If, as you say, and I agree, the BELIEVING clause is the only active argument, then the debate gets very simple. It's now only a question of whether one clause is a national sovereignty argument, and why don't we address that now?

I've seen plenty of arguments against the UN interfering in a particular area for cultural or social or health reasons by international federalists and people who had never even heard of national sovereignty, so I'm pretty reluctant to say that they are by their nature national sovereignty arguments. When a nation composed of wealthy avian sentients that has no STD problem objects to a resolution because it requires STD testing and that's simply not a health concern for them, it's not automatically a national sovereignty argument. When a nation composed of primitive magic-wielding tribalists objects to a FOD resolution because it would ruin their social heirarchy, that's not automatically a national sovereignty argument. If they say it is, fine. But if they aren't saying that it's national sovereignty they're concerned about in the argument, let's not assume that it is.

Also, I looked over the post you linked to, and found nothing that particularly concerned me with regard to the legality of this repeal.

No, it's not. Cultural conservationism is to do with a specific culture - it has no specific national context. So it would be about preserving, for example, white values: that could be in one country, could be in several. The distinction being that it identifies with culture, rather than specifically with the nation.

Meh. In almost every case Edward has ever seen cultural preservation put forward as an argument in the UN, it has been in a nationalistic context. Hell, OOCly I can think of only a few vaguely remembered cases of folks saying that a particular resolution affected a multinational culture or a subnational culture. The overwhelming majority of objections on cultural grounds are stated in this basic form, "This is against the culture of my nation." This is an example of nationalism, not necessarily a belief in national sovereignty. There are plenty of folks quite willing to foist their own views on other nations but not willing to accept the views of others being foisted on them. Granted, those folks would be a hell of a lot more consistent in their beliefs if they did adopt the principle of national sovereignty, but sadly they often don't.

Hurr hurr lol :) :D :p :fluffle: :eek: :cool: ;)

I'm glad you find my character's rhetorical style so amusing.

Not an argument, just back story. Flavor text. Irrelevent to any ruling.

Agreed.

Translation: "The UN shouldn't do this because nations should." NatSov argument.

Taken from another post...

I've seen plenty of arguments against the UN interfering in a particular area for cultural or social or health reasons by international federalists and people who had never even heard of national sovereignty, so I'm pretty reluctant to say that they are by their nature national sovereignty arguments. When a nation composed of wealthy avian sentients that has no STD problem objects to a resolution because it requires STD testing and that's simply not a health concern for them, it's not automatically a national sovereignty argument. When a nation composed of primitive magic-wielding tribalists objects to a FOD resolution because it would ruin their social heirarchy, that's not automatically a national sovereignty argument. If they say it is, fine. But if they aren't saying that it's national sovereignty they're concerned about in the argument, let's not assume that it is.

Translation: "The UN shouldn't do this because nations should." NatSov argument.

Interesting. I read it as "nations shouldn't be forced to do this". I didn't add things that weren't in the text like "The UN shouldn't do this". When I interpret a text, I don't add things that aren't there in the text.

Flavor text. Irrelevent.

Agreed.

Removal of the two NatSov arguments leaves us with flavor text. I don't see how this is sufficient. Nor do I see how the two operative clauses could be interpretated as anything but NatSov arguments.

I have no trouble seeing how, myself.

Perhaps it should be "natsov" to distinguish between the party and the ideology. Like "democratic" (following the principles of democracy) and "Democratic" (of or belonging to the DNC).

An interesting idea.

HotRodia,

You're right, this has really become OOC territory.

I think the point that Gruen made and essentially what Hack responded to is that at present, the preamble of this repeal is largely saying, "That resolution we passed ... well, we shouldn't have because nations should decide for themselves." While I personally feel that recent votes hint that the majority of UN nations might agree with that sort of justification, it would be preferred in the case of *all* repeals if other arguments in favour of a repeal could also be used. In this particular case, Gruenberg has been advocating for a repeal of The Sex Worker Industry Act, but his additional point is that part of the resolution has been made redundant by the Workplace Safety Act (? -- could be getting the name wrong on that one).

The "nation" most likely to not support any repeal on this subject is mine, but I think we all are trying to find a way to make future repeal justifications meaty <-- which is often what makes for an interesting debate or for a more streamlined debate.

Now I'm not sure what Gruen's point on Ban Trafficking in Persons is, but I suspect it is another rudancy that he is hinting at.

-M

I've seen plenty of arguments against the UN interfering in a particular area for cultural or social or health reasons by international federalists and people who had never even heard of national sovereignty, so I'm pretty reluctant to say that they are by their nature national sovereignty arguments. When a nation composed of wealthy avian sentients that has no STD problem objects to a resolution because it requires STD testing and that's simply not a health concern for them, it's not automatically a national sovereignty argument. When a nation composed of primitive magic-wielding tribalists objects to a FOD resolution because it would ruin their social heirarchy, that's not automatically a national sovereignty argument. If they say it is, fine. But if they aren't saying that it's national sovereignty they're concerned about in the argument, let's not assume that it is.
I don't really care what arguments you've seen elsewhere. The argument here is what matters.

And of course, just because they don't mention the magic words, let's not assume that isn't what their argument concerns. Let's also not be a condescending prick.

Meh. In almost every case Edward has ever seen cultural preservation put forward as an argument in the UN, it has been in a nationalistic context. Hell, OOCly I can think of only a few vaguely remembered cases of folks saying that a particular resolution affected a multinational culture or a subnational culture. The overwhelming majority of objections on cultural grounds are stated in this basic form, "This is against the culture of my nation." This is an example of nationalism, not necessarily a belief in national sovereignty. There are plenty of folks quite willing to foist their own views on other nations but not willing to accept the views of others being foisted on them. Granted, those folks would be a hell of a lot more consistent in their beliefs if they did adopt the principle of national sovereignty, but sadly they often don't.
I care about as much what sort of cultural conservationist arguments you've seen many moons ago as I do what colour your shit is. Cultural conservationism is not necessarily nationalistic, in the sense of "nation" as a state as within the NSUN. It might very well be associated with nationalist ideology - ok. Needn't be so. In the context of this repeal, were cultural conservation the aim, there would be no need to reference national governments in this clause.

Anyway, Tarmsden, seeing as Hack has now spoken, and regardless, I think you need to beef the repeal up a bit. I can't think of many arguments: at the heart of it, I think you need to dismiss the assumption that legalised prostitution will always turn out best. It may do quite often, perhaps very often - but always, really? And if criminalising prostitution does work, then it seems silly to prevent nations from doing so "in their own interests". I suppose you could also mention that regulation is only like to work where there is experience of such anyway.

Now I'm not sure what Gruen's point on Ban Trafficking in Persons is, but I suspect it is another rudancy that he is hinting at.
Ban Trafficking in Persons contains the line "[d]ecriminalize the women in prostitution". To me, that seems like a mandate to legalise prostitution, if only for women. I don't think, if TSIWA is repealed, that legalised prostitution therefore does return to the national level.

HotRodia,

You're right, this has really become OOC territory.

I think the point that Gruen made and essentially what Hack responded to is that at present, the preamble of this repeal is largely saying, "That resolution we passed ... well, we shouldn't have because nations should decide for themselves." While I personally feel that recent votes hint that the majority of UN nations might agree with that sort of justification, it would be preferred in the case of *all* repeals if other arguments in favour of a repeal could also be used. In this particular case, Gruenberg has been advocating for a repeal of The Sex Worker Industry Act, but his additional point is that part of the resolution has been made redundant by the Workplace Safety Act (? -- could be getting the name wrong on that one).

The "nation" most likely to not support any repeal on this subject is mine, but I think we all are trying to find a way to make future repeal justifications meaty <-- which is often what makes for an interesting debate or for a more streamlined debate.

Now I'm not sure what Gruen's point on Ban Trafficking in Persons is, but I suspect it is another rudancy that he is hinting at.

-M

Thanks for reminding me of the thing about Ban Trafficking in Persons. I was wondering about that too, but lost track of it in the debate. :)

A few points...

I completely agree about "meaty" repeal justifications. OOCly, I do heavily favor very well-argued repeals, though ICly my nation is willing to vote disregarding their quality.

The problem I see here isn't that we disagree that better arguments make for better repeals, but that folks are assuming a national sovereignty argument in a text that never mentions it.

We all know it's a pro-sovereignty proposal, because we know the author has said it is.

But so far, the only way folks seem to be able to justify it containing an actual natsov argument is to interpret it to read things it does not say. I would not want Gruen's proposals interpreted to read things they did not say, likewise for yours, Mik. Same goes for Witchcliff, Safalra, etc. I think it sets a very bad precedent, both for our community's customs and our ruleset.

If y'all want a more well-argued repeal, let's go ahead and help Tarmsden write it. I already see a few ways to do it. But please don't call it illegal just because it mentions nations being free to do their own thing, any more than you would call a proposal liberal just because it mentioned human rights.

I don't really care what arguments you've seen elsewhere. The argument here is what matters.

And of course, just because they don't mention the magic words, let's not assume that isn't what their argument concerns.

I wasn't assuming that the argument didn't concern national sovereignty. I know full well it does, because the author already stated that it was his intent, and I can read between the lines well enough. We both can. But that's not the point. The point is that folks are interepreting a text to read things it does not say, and using that as a basis for judging its legality.

Let's also not be a condescending prick.

*shrug* You're the one resorting to an ad hominem here. If you don't like my tone or manner, that's fine. I just don't see it as any worse than the tone or manner you were using.

You'll notice that I responded to Mik in a much more friendly manner. That's not because I like him better, it's because it fit with the tone of his post.

I care about as much what sort of cultural conservationist arguments you've seen many moons ago as I do what colour your shit is. Cultural conservationism is not necessarily nationalistic, in the sense of "nation" as a state as within the NSUN. It might very well be associated with nationalist ideology - ok. Needn't be so.

Of course. But taking the text and judging its legality without appealing to things that should be irrelevant to a legality claim, such as the author's intent or even our own reading of the intent based on our knowledge of the political context in which the NSUN exists, it's just as reasonable to assume nationalism as national sovereignty.

Anyway, Tarmsden, seeing as Hack has now spoken, and regardless, I think you need to beef the repeal up a bit. I can't think of many arguments: at the heart of it, I think you need to dismiss the assumption that legalised prostitution will always turn out best. It may do quite often, perhaps very often - but always, really? And if criminalising prostitution does work, then it seems silly to prevent nations from doing so "in their own interests". I suppose you could also mention that regulation is only like to work where there is experience of such anyway.

All good suggestions. I hope Tarmsden uses them.

I think you need to beef the repeal up a bit. I can't think of many arguments: at the heart of it, I think you need to dismiss the assumption that legalised prostitution will always turn out best. It may do quite often, perhaps very often - but always, really? And if criminalising prostitution does work, then it seems silly to prevent nations from doing so "in their own interests". I suppose you could also mention that regulation is only like to work where there is experience of such anyway.

Actually, I'll weigh in with both Gruen and HotRodia and say this is a much better way to justify the repeal. I'll go a step further ... ask nations how they've legalised prostitution and what has changed before and after. It would through more roleplaying and give *all* players a chance to run with this idea. If this means it will take a month for the proposal to reach quorum, it just means you've now spent more time exploring this idea.

I had hoped more players would play around with "terrorism" for my resolution ... and actually dictators popped out of the woods to do so. I really got the impression that the players behind those nations knew what was going on and had as much fun with the topic as I did. :)

Now I don't want to just hand you text, because IC I'll be voting against Groot's resolution. I liked it, the category was really great, and finally I think it will make things interesting for a nation that has had legalized, though regulated prostitution for years to actually try to advocate against the natsov position this time.


You'll notice that I responded to Mik in a much more friendly manner. That's not because I like him better, it's because it fit with the tone of his post.

And here I thought it was the Spice Melange at work. ;)

BTW, when you are speaking as a player (as you were here) would *you* rather I call you TH? Earlier I typed Hot Rodia, because you *are* that little transformer to me ... always have been, no matter what puppet comes along and posts for you. Tis a good thing, I still have all of old transformers -- though they are pretty worn.

We all know it's a pro-sovereignty proposal, because we know the author has said it is.That's not the standard I've been using for the past several months of proposal deletions. Many, many repeals have been removed in similar circumstances.

But please don't call it illegal just because it mentions nations being free to do their own thing
I call it illegal not "just because it mentions nations being free to do their own thing", but when it only "mentions nations being free to do their own thing". As Hack pointed out above, this resolution has only flavor text and "nations should control this" arguments. It's just not enough.

Off topic, but I think it needs to be said here.

Allow me to start by thanking HotRodia for posting in this debate as Texan Hotrodders. Since you weren't making final Moderator arbitration, it was comforting to not have that avatar looking back at us.

While I realize that most of us are aware of who some of the Mod Puppets are, as well as who some of the other puppets belong to, it would greatly simplify matters if we could refer to the nation that has actually posted. ie-HotRodia has not made an appearance here. Texan Hotrodders has. Just as I would not refer to Dr. Leary as the voice of a Mod, nor would I refer to a puppet by their home nation.

Not a major issue, just wanted to mention it.

And here I thought it was the Spice Melange at work. ;)

BTW, when you are speaking as a player (as you were here) would *you* rather I call you TH? Earlier I typed Hot Rodia, because you *are* that little transformer to me ... always have been, no matter what puppet comes along and posts for you. Tis a good thing, I still have all of old transformers -- though they are pretty worn.

Heh. I wish it was the spice melange.

Actually, you're free to call me Sam when I'm speaking as a player. :)

We can talk about the Transformers via TG if you want. I'd be interested to hear about how you managed to keep them all these years. :eek:

That's not the standard I've been using for the past several months of proposal deletions. Many, many repeals have been removed in similar circumstances.

I call it illegal not "just because it mentions nations being free to do their own thing", but when it only "mentions nations being free to do their own thing". As Hack pointed out above, this resolution has only flavor text and "nations should control this" arguments. It's just not enough.

Hack actually pointed out a bit more than that. He called two of the clauses natsov arguments. I'll give an example of why I think this is dangerous as a precedent. Let's look at the Tsunami Warning resolution. We all know that this proposal was in reaction to the recent RL tsunami disaster, because the author made it known and (even if he hadn't) because we can read between the lines. But we wouldn't call it illegal for an RL reference, because there is no reference to the actual disaster in the text itself.

I don't mind you calling the repeal text illegal because it's repetitive, hollow rhetoric, and thus spammy, but when it's called illegal based on things that aren't even in the text, I have no problem calling bullshit on the illegality claim anymore than I would with the Tsunami Warning resolution being called illegal for an RL reference that wasn't in the text.

When we call something a metagaming violation, it's because of what's in the text. When we call something a format violation, we're looking at the text. When we call something an RL violation, it's because of a textual reference. When we say something is illegal for prohibiting future legislation, we do so because it explicitly states in the text that the UN can't do something, and allow blockers to stand despite having a similar effect, because there's nothing in the text that says that future legislation can't be made. When we say something violates the ban on optionality in proposals, we do so because it says in the text something to the effect of "nations don't have to do this", not because it says "ENCOURAGES" and we all know that means it's not really a binding clause.

So with all this ruling based on what is in the text, why would we decide that in the case of the natsov argument in repeals rule, we don't need natsov mentioned in the text? Especially in light of the numerous arguments by non-sovereigntists to the effect that their nation should be able to decide on a particular issue, I don't see sufficient justification for making an exception with this rule and allowing folks to call proposals illegal based on stuff that ain't even in the text.

As a concerned player who likes writing proposals and doesn't want them ruled illegal because of things they never say, I'm very confused as to why this seems fine and dandy to y'all.

Off topic, but I think it needs to be said here.

Allow me to start by thanking HotRodia for posting in this debate as Texan Hotrodders. Since you weren't making final Moderator arbitration, it was comforting to not have that avatar looking back at us.

While I realize that most of us are aware of who some of the Mod Puppets are, as well as who some of the other puppets belong to, it would greatly simplify matters if we could refer to the nation that has actually posted. ie-HotRodia has not made an appearance here. Texan Hotrodders has. Just as I would not refer to Dr. Leary as the voice of a Mod, nor would I refer to a puppet by their home nation.

Not a major issue, just wanted to mention it.

It's a good point. There are actually several entities operating here. There's Edward (a character) Texan Hotrodders (a nation and persona), a player (that's me, Sam :D ) and shortly there'll be HotRodia speaking as a Mod, not as a nation.

----------

I'll just register my official Mod opinion now.

As a Mod, I think allowing proposals to be ruled illegal based on things that aren't in the text is inconsistent with the way the ruleset has generally been applied and should be applied, and sets a dangerous precedent for rulings on UN proposals.

The Game Mods can of course give this whatever weight they deem appropriate in making the final decision.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Is the final ruling in favor of or against this proposal's legality? If it has been found to be illegal, then why is it still up?

I can make two non-natsov arguments in favor of a repeal:

1) Health issues- in nations with severe STD epidemics, legal prostitution can be a total bombshell as far as containing the spread.

2) Cultural preservation- If the "Marriage Protection Act" is legal here, then so too should my repeal. After all, who is the UN to say that nations against commercialism must institute a system of paying for sex? If a culture is anti-commercialist, then they shouldn't be forced to accept paying for sex, just like no UN resolution can make a nation accept land ownership if they do not choose to.

As far as the assumption that prostitution is always going to be a positive thing, I certainly disagree. Our own nation only recently legalized prostitution as an experiment. Certainly some nations would greatly suffer from legal prostitution. I am really tired, but is there something in the wording of my proposal that infers that prostitution is an automatic good?

the Empire of Kirisubo has always had legalised prostitution so we were ready for this issue when we joined the NSUN.

Our historical records for 'tea houses' date back to well before the founding of the Empire and we believe the first tea houses were around in the time of kirisuban Federation in 1000 AD.

I would be against a repeal because the existing resolution has loopholes that a nation can exploit if they want to limit prostitution.

just look at points 2 & 3 of UNR #91.

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation, just like any other profession,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

Point 2 is particularly relevant since a government has to be proactive about the spread of STD's and the like. So a government can limit the number of places of work and numbers of 'legal' prostitutes if it wants to.

Any nation with a 'creative solutions agency' can bend the resolution any which way they want to suit their domestic policies and still be in compliance.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Deputy Kirisuban Ambassador to the NSUN

So, because a nation can abuse this resolution if they disagree with it, it's UN-quality?

Its fair to say that most UN resolutions can be abused in this manner if your thinking is creative enough.

However that didn't stop those proposals becoming resolutions.

Ms Yukiko Uehara
Deputy Kirisuban ambassador

OK, but that doesn't mean it's a resolution worth keeping on the books. If anything, it makes it even less palatable to everyone involved, no?

Hack actually pointed out a bit more than that. He called two of the clauses natsov arguments. I'll give an example of why I think this is dangerous as a precedent. Let's look at the Tsunami Warning resolution. We all know that this proposal was in reaction to the recent RL tsunami disaster, because the author made it known and (even if he hadn't) because we can read between the lines. But we wouldn't call it illegal for an RL reference, because there is no reference to the actual disaster in the text itself.I used shorthand, Sam. Come on now. "Natsov" is faster than "This is just another clause that doesn't actually state that there's a problem with the resolution itself, but rather it simply says that the resolution should be repealed because this is an issue that is best handled by individual nations; an argument that isn't sufficient."

Furthermore, what, exactly, is the difference between "this should be left to individual nations" and "natsov"? I don't mean the specific platform put out by the NSO, but the general concept of national sovereignty.

but when it's called illegal based on things that aren't even in the textI'm sorry, but you're just splitting hairs here.

So with all this ruling based on what is in the text, why would we decide that in the case of the natsov argument in repeals rule, we don't need natsov mentioned in the text?We don't need the specific word, no. Otherwise, you're saying something like this isn't a natsov argument:

"STATES that this issue is completely outside the purview of the United Nations and should only be handled on the national level."

If that's not a natsov argument, what is it?

OK, but that doesn't mean it's a resolution worth keeping on the books. If anything, it makes it even less palatable to everyone involved, no?

No, not to me it doesn't.

Every resolution can be abused and loopholed around, more or less. That is not the fault of the authors most of the time, but more because of the limitations imposed by the character restrictions. It is pretty much impossible to write a totally bullet proof proposal in 3,500 characters.

I don't agree with the nat sov arguement being used against this resolution, or repealing it under any arguement because, as I've already said on UNOG, this is a matter of womens rights, which have already taken a beating under ALC. It is also well written and does not force anyone to be or use a prostitute.

I used shorthand, Sam. Come on now. "Natsov" is faster than "This is just another clause that doesn't actually state that there's a problem with the resolution itself, but rather it simply says that the resolution should be repealed because this is an issue that is best handled by individual nations; an argument that isn't sufficient."

Furthermore, what, exactly, is the difference between "this should be left to individual nations" and "natsov"? I don't mean the specific platform put out by the NSO, but the general concept of national sovereignty.

A simple illustration:

"We should have national sovereignty, and thus the UN needs to stay out of this." --natsov

"This is a decision better made by national governments." --subsidiarity/practicality/devolutionary(maybe)

"I want ful control of my nation and Im sick of teh UN trying tell me what to do, so screw you UN." --natsov

"Individual member states should be addressing this." --neutral, could be intfed, natsov, subsidiarity, anticapitalist, neoliberal, etc.

I'm sorry, but you're just splitting hairs here.

I'm sorry, but you should know by now that I don't waste my time debating unless there's an actual point to it.

We don't need the specific word, no. Otherwise, you're saying something like this isn't a natsov argument:

"STATES that this issue is completely outside the purview of the United Nations and should only be handled on the national level."

If that's not a natsov argument, what is it?

I'd actually call that a subsidiarity or "scope of authority" argument (albeit not as well-supported as I would like), which I've used to support a natsov position, but is not a natsov argument itself.

I use a lot of types of arguments to support a natsov position; pragmatics, subsidiarity, etc. But just because I use them to support a natsov position, it doesn't mean that they are natsov arguments by themselves.

Let's say I used a socialist argument to support a conservative position in my campaign for a congressional election. Is the socialist argument suddenly a conservative argument because a conservative used it?

Let's get even more basic and say that I am a liberal, and I use a toothbrush. Is that toothbrush a liberal toothbrush just because I used it? Granted, Ann Coulter might say so, but I don't put much stock in her bullshit anyway.

Not every argument I use magically takes on the quality of my political ideology. I'm not the National Sovereignty Fairy, spreading natsov with a touch of my wand.

I received the following telegram today and look forward to a final decision as soon as it is available. Thank you to all who made this effort as much of a success as it was, and I look forward to continuing this discussion and initiative as soon as it is relevant to do so.


From: The NS Moderator Team

"Repeal "The Sex Industry Worker Act"" was deleted pending final decision as to its legality. No warning was added. Here's the list of approvals at the time it was deleted:

Approvals: 60 (Tarmsden, Celtic christians, WZ Forums, Camera Altera, Tyler Towers, Discussion, Ddrygioni, Sheenagh, Hensby, Paradica, The Extremes, Coolguyistan, Gruenberg, Asmori, Coolinheim, Crautia, Sacaen Somoa, The Great Boucher, Nevadar, The Greek City States, South Adair, Himple, Havl, Flibbleites, Kalendale, Rabid Dik Diks, Compulsoria, All Things Halo, Kiloria, Iron Felix, Aqua-Sulis, Veerle-Heide, Icaro, Krithmire, Jaarm, The former Welsh State, The Benevolent Jedi, Yasashiku, Black beans, Dra IIs, NewTexas, Phenixica, Futuristic America, E-Xtremia, Prince Port, Jamoney, Lord of Hosts, United Waterfowl, Esperantania, Leg-ends, Player Killers, Tinis, Pro-Sovereignty Babes, Zitilovingitalians, Monochromatica, Flaumboden, Uzbekistann, Peterkin Country, Oblivion-Oathkeeper, Fat sackville)

Tarmsden, don't wait for a legality decision: make sure the repeal is legal, by adding in new arguments. Once you do that, there'll be no objection on the national sovereignty rule anyway.

How's the new draft?

How's the new draft?

It's a bit better, but I wrote up a draft to give you some ideas on how to make it better. Feel free to incorporate whatever you like from it.

The United Nations…

RECOGNIZING that UN Resolution #87, “Repeal ‘Legalize Prostitution’” argues that it is “a member nation’s right to allow or disallow prostitution independently, based upon that member nation’s independent medical need and standing”;

NOTING that each nation has individual health considerations that may or may not include sexually transmitted disease epidemics, which may render the legalization of prostitution very dangerous to the health of many citizens;

FURTHER NOTING that not all nations have the technological developments necessary to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases or determine their presence in a person, and thus the appropriate regulation of prostitution in those nations is not practical in those nations,

CONSIDERING that the morality of prostitution is often a concern for the peoples of the world, and that the UN is not a source of moral authority, nor is it an appropriate mechanism for enforcing moral choices,

FURTHER CONSIDERING that in nations where prostitution is considered highly immoral, those who choose to be prostitutes may experience serious social consequences, such as the defacto removal of rights by their social group, or even acts of verbal and physical assualt, as a result of the legalization of prostitution;

CONCLUDING that matters with deep moral, social and health implications are often best resolved within individual nations through a careful examination of national customs, traditions and health conditions, and that prostitution is such a matter;

BELIEVING as a consequence that no nation should be forced to legalize or ban prostitution if it does not choose to do so,

REPEALS UN Resolution #91, “The Sex Industry Worker Act,” implemented February 6, 2005.

From: The NS Moderator Team

"Repeal "The Sex Industry Worker Act"" was deleted pending final decision as to its legality. No warning was added. Here's the list of approvals at the time it was deleted:

Approvals: 60 (Tarmsden, Celtic christians, WZ Forums, Camera Altera, Tyler Towers, Discussion, Ddrygioni, Sheenagh, Hensby, Paradica, The Extremes, Coolguyistan, Gruenberg, Asmori, Coolinheim, Crautia, Sacaen Somoa, The Great Boucher, Nevadar, The Greek City States, South Adair, Himple, Havl, Flibbleites, Kalendale, Rabid Dik Diks, Compulsoria, All Things Halo, Kiloria, Iron Felix, Aqua-Sulis, Veerle-Heide, Icaro, Krithmire, Jaarm, The former Welsh State, The Benevolent Jedi, Yasashiku, Black beans, Dra IIs, NewTexas, Phenixica, Futuristic America, E-Xtremia, Prince Port, Jamoney, Lord of Hosts, United Waterfowl, Esperantania, Leg-ends, Player Killers, Tinis, Pro-Sovereignty Babes, Zitilovingitalians, Monochromatica, Flaumboden, Uzbekistann, Peterkin Country, Oblivion-Oathkeeper, Fat sackville)

Wow!

That is incredibly nice and hence cool.

Years ago the moderators would have been much less likely to do that. To the mods behind that, thanks!

-Michael

You're welcome.

Don't always do it, but...

DEEPLY CONCERNED about the possibility of local epidemics (particularly STD epidemics) spreading rapidly due to prostitution;

This section kind of bites the whole thing in the ass as government regulated prostitution(you know health regulations and all) make it far less of a problem than when it's illegal.

FURTHER NOTING that not all nations have the technological developments necessary to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases or determine their presence in a person, and thus the appropriate regulation of prostitution in those nations is not practical in those nations,

And this is just funny. How hard is it to mandate that they have to use rubbers?

This section kind of bites the whole thing in the ass as government regulated prostitution(you know health regulations and all) make it far less of a problem than when it's illegal.
Prove it.

No, not to me it doesn't.

Every resolution can be abused and loopholed around, more or less. That is not the fault of the authors most of the time, but more because of the limitations imposed by the character restrictions. It is pretty much impossible to write a totally bullet proof proposal in 3,500 characters.

I don't agree with the nat sov arguement being used against this resolution, or repealing it under any arguement because, as I've already said on UNOG, this is a matter of womens rights, which have already taken a beating under ALC. It is also well written and does not force anyone to be or use a prostitute.

:rolleyes:

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

Although we would agree in principle with a repeal of the resolution in question, for (purely selfish) reasons that are most likely obvious to many of you, Cluichstan will never vote for a repeal.

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*snip*

Hurr hurr lol :) :D :p :fluffle: :eek: :cool: ;)

OOC: History is made! Gruen fluffled! :D

I can honestly say that this is the death of the short resolution. Thank you to Texan Hotrodders for your edits. I've updated the draft with a major set of additions, made some edits on existing and new material and added Texan Hotrodders as a co-author. Does this clear up any lingering questions about legality and clarify the argument?

It has more than just natsov and flavor. Looks fine to me.

This section kind of bites the whole thing in the ass as government regulated prostitution(you know health regulations and all) make it far less of a problem than when it's illegal.

And this is just funny. How hard is it to mandate that they have to use rubbers?

It's pretty damn hard when you don't have the technology to process the materials necessary to make the condoms, or you don't have the medical tech to test for STDs. Not all nations have the same technology. The Fuel-Injected Federation, for example, has never developed that technology. Largely because we don't need it, because folks are generally very responsible about their sexual activity to begin with.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I can honestly say that this is the death of the short resolution. Thank you to Texan Hotrodders for your edits. I've updated the draft with a major set of additions, made some edits on existing and new material and added Texan Hotrodders as a co-author. Does this clear up any lingering questions about legality and clarify the argument?

You're quite welcome, and thanks for the co-authorship. :)

Sadly I'm not going to have time for telegramming this week (RL is a bitch), but you might ask around the NSO for help with that if you haven't already.

I'll re-propose soon, maybe this weekend. RL is a nightmare on my end, too, so I'll keep you posted. I appreciate your dragging this bad boy into legality!

the best time to submit a proposal is first thing on Monday morning since theres less people around at the weekend.

People will be more likely to read their TG's as well. :)

I'm not the National Sovereignty Fairy, spreading natsov with a touch of my wand.

My government accepts that the delegate genuinely believes the statement he has made.

However, we feel it would greatly reassure the international community were his government to permit unsupervised inspections by an unbiased team of well-respected scientists under the aegis of the United Nations.

Furthermore, we note that your nation has carefully made no statement whatsoever as to the purpose of The Big Red Button which you are known to possess, its existence having been attested to by nations of irrefutable integrity.

We call upon Texan Hotrodders, and upon the many nations it holds in its shadow, to adopt a policy of openness towards fellow governments who support unequivocally the cause of world peace and international co-operation.

the best time to submit a proposal is first thing on Monday morning since theres less people around at the weekend.
I know this is established as gospel, but I'm not sure it's true. A couple of my proposals picked up sheds of approvals on Saturday/Sunday.

I know this is established as gospel, but I'm not sure it's true. A couple of my proposals picked up sheds of approvals on Saturday/Sunday.

OOC: I've been thinking the same lately, just from watching activity on the proposal list. Many proposals -- especially those on the first page of the list -- seem to be racking up quite a few approvals on the weekends (including Friday night).

My government accepts that the delegate genuinely believes the statement he has made.

However, we feel it would greatly reassure the international community were his government to permit unsupervised inspections by an unbiased team of well-respected scientists under the aegis of the United Nations.

Furthermore, we note that your nation has carefully made no statement whatsoever as to the purpose of The Big Red Button which you are known to possess, its existence having been attested to by nations of irrefutable integrity.

We call upon Texan Hotrodders, and upon the many nations it holds in its shadow, to adopt a policy of openness towards fellow governments who support unequivocally the cause of world peace and international co-operation.

In the interests of world peace and international cooperation, we will allow UN Inspectors access to our magic wand and Big Red Button production facilities. Well, except in the case of this one facility where we're doing entirely innocent things that we don't want you to see. So don't impose sanctions or make war to liberate us. That would just be silly.

Also keep in mind that most of our citizens have the unfortunate habit of killing UN Inspectors on sight. Some of them have actually done it as a profession. We can't guarantee the safety of the inspection team. But we'll try a little.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

people have the right to express them selvs , which may include IMORRAL things , but its freedom of speach or actions.
Many people may also need sexual interaction , mabe he/she feels lonly , and if in case of the prostitute , will need the money!
condom use will be the best thing.

people have the right to express them selvs , which may include IMORRAL things , but its freedom of speach or actions.
Many people may also need sexual interaction , mabe he/she feels lonly , and if in case of the prostitute , will need the money!
condom use will be the best thing.
"Gah! GAAAAGH!!! AAAARGH!!! MY MIND!!!" the holowolf screams and begins running about in a random fashion. The image then "explodes" in a spectacular light display. A few minutes later, Wolfgang himself peeks into the room. "Really, could you at least TRY to communicate in a semi-intelligent way? Those things are expensive!" He picks up the emitter and takes it with him to repair it.

OOC: Ok, I'll admit I've seen worse Octovanyo. But really. Just... slow... down. There's plenty of time, from the game's perspective. If you don't have enough time in Real Life (tm), then, please, don't. All it would've taken to write that post correctly, intelligently, and thus worthwhile, is about five minutes. Just... don't. It's silly, pointless, and actually quite distracting. I apologize if English isn't your first language. If it isn't, then continue, please. I get the vibe that that's not the case, though, so shtoom.

OOC side note: Someone, somewhere here in Jolt, called such a thing a drive-by single post. I like that. Inaccurate, messy, generally a lot of not good. Drive-by posting.

-Your Capitalistic, MAD-loving, grammar-nazi'ing pig-dog,
The Author of Wolfgang

The Wolf Guardians;11821825']OOC side note: Someone, somewhere here in Jolt, called such a thing a drive-by single post. I like that. Inaccurate, messy, generally a lot of not good. Drive-by posting.


OOC: I believe I used the term most recently in this forum, but I can't take credit for coming up with it. I picked it up from others here. It is a very apt description, though, of that sort of post. :)

I know this is established as gospel, but I'm not sure it's true. A couple of my proposals picked up sheds of approvals on Saturday/Sunday.

Freedom of Assembly went through the proposal queue ~7 times. Most of those submission dates were early in the week. But my most intense telegramming was on weekends.

Sorry to hijack your thread Tarmsden - you can have it back in a minute - but hopefully this might prove useful anyway.

I think what it is is there are three groups of players. The chronic NS addicts, all veiny arms and dilated pupils, shooting up on inflatable gandalf every second minute. Then two groups of more normal people: weekday players (probably play from work/school?) and weekend players (probably play mainly at home). Because the first set don't check TGs at the weekend, TGs submitted then don't attract their attention. But if you hit delegates who do log in at the weekend, you'll be fine.

It's not like I'm using this thread for anything, at least until a resubmission has been made. Feel free to share comments on TG tactics, the concept of national sovereignty or great movies until then.

It's not like I'm using this thread for anything, at least until a resubmission has been made. Feel free to share comments on TG tactics, the concept of national sovereignty or great movies until then.

OOC _
Casablanca. The greatest movie yet?

OOC _
Casablanca. The greatest movie yet?

OOC: No, that honour goes to Plan 9 From Outer Space (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052077/). :p

<snip> Well, except in the case of this one facility where we're doing entirely innocent things that we don't want you to see. So don't impose sanctions or make war to liberate us. That would just be silly.<snip>

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Aren't you feeling well, Mr Jones? Would you like a glass of water? You missed a loophole!

It's this bit: "We call upon Texan Hotrodders, and upon the many nations it holds in its shadow, to adopt a policy of openness towards fellow governments who support unequivocally the cause of world peace and international co-operation."

Like, how many of those are left? *Gloom* *Bad day*

Aren't you feeling well, Mr Jones? Would you like a glass of water? You missed a loophole!

It's this bit: "We call upon Texan Hotrodders, and upon the many nations it holds in its shadow, to adopt a policy of openness towards fellow governments who support unequivocally the cause of world peace and international co-operation."

Like, how many of those are left? *Gloom* *Bad day*


What do you mean? We're all about world peace and international cooperation. Here, have a flower, baby!

http://www.brucezimmerman.com/images/OPIUM_POPPY_DBLE_RED.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN