NationStates Jolt Archive

Would someone like to write a preamble for this resolution or prefect its existing language?

The United Nations
MANDATES that member states interpret their legislation by its spirit, not by its exact wording, unless otherwise stated in the text of an individual act.
ALSO MANDATES that all past and future resolutions of the United Nations be interpreted by their spirit, not by their exact wording, unless otherwise stated in the text of an individual resolution.

Embokias

I forget which of the NSUN veteran it is that says this (my apologies to them), but

THE LAW MEANS WHAT THE LAW SAYS


Laws aren't meant to be open to interpretation (language means that this isn't practically possible, but we do our best). I'm sorry, but I don't think that this will work, and some of the other members are probably going to be nasty to you :(.

No way in hell.

And I won't help you write a preamble.

Pazirbashan Umdiroplach
Chief of Office Affairs
Allech-Atreus Delegation

New Ixion;11851179']I forget which of the NSUN veteran it is that says this (my apologies to them), but

THE LAW MEANS WHAT THE LAW SAYS


Laws aren't meant to be open to interpretation (language means that this isn't practically possible, but we do our best). I'm sorry, but I don't think that this will work, and some of the other members are probably going to be nasty to you :(.

The line quoted is from a speech by Prince Leonhard of Ausserland. No apologies necessary, however. ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

How exactly are you going to determine that a nation is not complying with the "spirit" of a law (as up for debate as that can be)? And how do you propose to punish a nation for not complying with the "spirit" of a law? This makes as much sense as eating soup with a knife.

The way to address nations trying to find loopholes to avoid complying with the "spirit" of a law is to make sure that the laws the UN enacts don't have easily exploited loopholes. I'm fairly new here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what we do when we review drafts (or shoot down badly written proposals). This "spirit" thing is not only unneeded, it's counterproductive and unenforceable.

There is nothing you can add or subtract to this that will make it legal. This would be metagaming / amendments / game mechanics / etc. violations, according to the letter of the Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

The WORDS are the letter of the law. If you can't define the spirit of the law in the words that are chosen, then you have a faulty proposal. You might want to work on repealing any that fall into that classification, and write some new, clear laws.

Here, how about this?

"RECOGNISING that the NS UN is full of intelligent and creative, but ornery, characters, many of them suffering from acute defiance-disorder, and

ACKNOWLEDGING that a significant proportion of the delegates are high, drunk or distracted by lust, not to mention the state of mind of the players, and

BELIEVING that they're even worse when they're Out Of Character, and

WISHING to make NS UN interactions even more fun, while

DESIROUS of contributing to the speedier death of the Universe by pushing it even faster towards ultimate chaos,

The United Nations

MANDATES that member states interpret their legislation by its spirit, not by its exact wording, unless otherwise stated in the text of an individual act.

ALSO MANDATES that all past and future resolutions of the United Nations be interpreted by their spirit, not by their exact wording, unless otherwise stated in the text of an individual resolution."

Now, shall we discuss categories?

Here, how about this?

"RECOGNISING that the NS UN is full of intelligent and creative, but ornery, characters, many of them suffering from acute defiance-disorder, and

ACKNOWLEDGING that a significant proportion of the delegates are high, drunk or distracted by lust, not to mention the state of mind of the players, and

BELIEVING that they're even worse when they're Out Of Character, and


I resemble that remark. :eek:

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE ROGUE NATION OF FLIBBLEITES' UN RESOLUTION COMPLIANCE MINISTRY

We determine what the spirt of a UN resolution by what the text of said resolution is. If our determination of what a resolution's intention is different than the author's then that's the fault of the author of the resolution, not us.

How will you make sure that UN members follow the spirit of this resolution rather than the letter?

Now, shall we discuss categories?

Category:Illegal
Strength:Really really strong

I resemble that remark. :eek:

Bugger, so do I. :D

I believe that most of us resemble that remark.....:(

It would probably be hard to legally make a version of the above resolutions... but it's worth trying :)

It's an important debate to have. Shall we be Strict Constructionists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

Textualist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism

or shall we consider the problem the law was meant to solve? The purpose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_theory

If we do limit ourselves to the meaning of the text shall we interpret legilaslation as meaning what it meant when it was ratified?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_meaning

Or shall we go for the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule

How much is wikipedia paying you, man?

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

How much is wikipedia paying you, man?

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

If I expected you to understand all those terms I wouldn't have had to provide all those handy links. Would you mind staying on topic?

If I expected you to understand all those terms I wouldn't have had to provide all those handy links. Would you mind staying on topic?

I'm surprised you didn't include this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_topic) in that statement, man.

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

How much is wikipedia paying you, man?

He is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become so large that it obtained senience and started playing NationStates. No strike that, a sentient Wikipedia would be far more intelligent. :p

He is the sentient version of MySpace that has a crush on the sentient version of Wikipedia and as a result always quotes the ones she loves.

I'm surprised you didn't include this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_topic) in that statement, man.

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

I had hoped you would understand on topic...

We should try and establish the UN's "Judicial Stance."

He is Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become so large that it obtained senience and started playing NationStates. No strike that, a sentient Wikipedia would be far more intelligent. :p

He is the sentient version of MySpace that has a crush on the sentient version of Wikipedia and as a result always quotes the ones she loves.

OOC: http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

I had hoped you would understand on topic...

We should try and establish the UN's "Judicial Stance."

Are you daft? There is only one UN Judicial Stance:

THE LAW MEANS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

So sayeth the Hack. So let it be written, so let it be done. There isn't any other way to interpret UN resolutions as meaning something other than what they say- otherwise, the UN would be three times as pointless and with even less power than it already has.

Hack made that very clear.

OOC: http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/happy175%5B1%5D.gif

OK even I'll admit that was funny.... but seriously, don't either of you have any interest in the topic? It seems like when you can't actually respond to what is being said you just decide to attack the source rather then respond to the argument.

I favor the original meaning of legislation, but a small weight should be given to the intent and purpose of the legislation. If legislation is designed to solve a problem then it should be interpreted in that light.

Mind you, that problem can be solved partly by just adding a detailed description of the purpose of legislation to said legislation. It doesn't have to just be flavor text.

What complicates much legislation is it contains within it text that forces it to be interpreted against the current state of society. If the words Reasonable, Unusual, Cruel, etc. appear then the courts are forced to take into account what society currently considers Reasonable, Unusual and Cruel. Similarly if you involve a jury you will automatically be bringing in society's current take on legislation.

I remember when I first watched "Double Indemnity". I loved it, because I thought it was just going to be a pretty good noir mystery flick, but it turned out to be incredibly funny, too. Chandler and Wilder made an awesome team in terms of witty dialogue.

If you could then take that snappy back-and-forth and make the exact opposite of it, you'd get this thread. Why don't we all just step back slowly, and let it die.

EDIT: His Girl Friday, yes. Bringing Up Baby I never really found that funny. But like I say, let it die.

I remember when I first watched "Double Indemnity". I loved it, because I thought it was just going to be a pretty good noir mystery flick, but it turned out to be incredibly funny, too. Chandler and Wilder made an awesome team in terms of witty dialogue.

If you could then take that snappy back-and-forth and make the exact opposite of it, you'd get this thread. Why don't we all just step back slowly, and let it die.


OOC: If you loved the back-and-forth in Double Indemnity, you must also love His Girl Friday and Bringing Up Baby.

don't either of you have any interest in the topic?

There is no topic. The issue was resolved. The Mods-that-be have made the decree. From an in character standpoint, determining the spirit of legislation is too subjective to be effective. The letter of the law is what must prevail.

There is no topic. The issue was resolved. The Mods-that-be have made the decree. From an in character standpoint, determining the spirit of legislation is too subjective to be effective. The letter of the law is what must prevail.

Fine, which letter? Shall the letter be interpreted according to the meaning of the words at the time they are written? Or shall the letter be interpreted according to the current meaning of the terms?

Establistment of NSUN Army

Category: International Security/Furtherment of Democracy/Fluffy Kittens Forever/etc
Strength: TOTAL!


Acknowledging that despite the best efforts of all the sickening lovey-dovey nations regarding the Holy Word of UN Resolutions, some nations DARE to role-play disregarding them (even though the resolutions and their effects ARE ALREADY put into place in the opposing nations by game mechanics whether they like it or not)

Recognising that NS (so-called) democracies will never stop whinging, complaining, and sulking about evil, sadistic, corrupt, psychotic, anarchic, dictatorial, or other nations with a sense of humour...


1: Be it hereby enacted by the NSUN this day of Sunday the 29th of October in the year 2006 that the NSUN establishes the NSUN "Peace Keeping" army (NSUNPK).

2: Supplying NSUNPK with as many soldiers as possible, as well as equipment etc is of course COMPULSORY for all UN Nations.

3: The NSUNPK shall fight aforementioned nations for their daring to have a sense of humour.

4: Should the NSUNPK be faced with nations such as Excruciatia who will fight against them with terrorist acts, chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry, as well as a "scorched earth" policy within the borders of it's puppets and itself, the NSUNPK shall be trained and equipped to retaliate in kind.

5: After the enemies of NSUN are eradicated, NSUNPK members will then kill every sentient being of every nation/planet in the NS universe, then themselves to protect the NS universe from the dreaded sense of humour disease.

5a: (We suspect that cockroaches will then be the dominate life-form of NS, but how can you kill them? ;))

6: GAME MECHANICS shall then be adjusted so the cockroaches' nations can never become a nation with a sense of humour.

7: Peace and love and happy thoughts and goodness and positive waves and all the usual baloney expressed by a UN Resolution.......



There you go, easy :D

Or, maybe yers can all get a sense of humour? :p :D
Nah, might be easier to do it with this resolution I think :D

Fine, which letter? Shall the letter be interpreted according to the meaning of the words at the time they are written? Or shall the letter be interpreted according to the current meaning of the terms?

Oh, for pity's sake! We're not talking here about a constitution written two hundred years ago. We're talking about contemporary documents.

This is a perfect example of why this thread has evoked so little interest. It's not that people are disinterested in the subject. It's that they know the discussion will be skewed and marred by the irrelevant and logic-free ramblings of the representative of Discoraversalism.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Oh, for pity's sake! We're not talking here about a constitution written two hundred years ago. We're talking about contemporary documents.

This is a perfect example of why this thread has evoked so little interest. It's not that people are disinterested in the subject. It's that they know the discussion will be skewed and marred by the irrelevant and logic-free ramblings of the representative of Discoraversalism.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And we should not discuss now how to handle the effects of time upon legislation?

And we should not discuss now how to handle the effects of time upon legislation?

By your logic, won't the meaning of this very proposal also become skewed over time, therefore rendering it useless as well?

St Jello Biafra;11877641']By your logic, won't the meaning of this very proposal also become skewed over time, therefore rendering it useless as well?

Psst, logic and Disco are like oil and water, they don't mix.

Bob Flibble
UN Represenative