NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the Universal right to privacy for sexual relations;

COMMENDING the intent of Sexual Freedom to protect such privacy;

MINDFUL of various important reasons, for example, criminal investigations and public safety, where the government has a legitimate right to protect its citizens;

CONCERNED that the limitation of UNR #7 to the "home" does not allow for non "home" private settings, such as rental properties, hotel rooms, etc.;

FEARFUL that the resolution, as written may result in unreported epidemics, unsolved murders, and a number of other problems which can have a dramatic impact on the population at large;

WISHING to curtail continued omissions;

ENCOURAGING a more detailed replacement;

Hereby repeals UNR#7 Sexual Freedom

Just a little reminder for everyone. Take notes. Prepare yourselves.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I voted against the last Repeal because I was concerned that something of an ALC would get passed instead. Sexual Freedom may suck, but it at least kept the UN from passing anything to the opposite effect, if it didn't individual nations.

Now though, I know there is a replacement worth adopting. It is substantially better. And I know that Sexual Freedoms is doing more harm than good being where it is.

Norderia supports the repeal, and the subsequent replacement that we witnessed the drafting of. We're convinced that it is of a highly superior quality, and hope this repeal and replace works out.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Good luck with the repeal. We're all for it. Oh, and here, have a flower.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/environment/opium23904.jpg

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

Thank you for the flower, Sheik Larebil. I thank you for your support as well.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I opposed the previous repeal as well. However, this one has earned my support. The more I read the previous debate thread, the more I realized that the potential for confusion for law enforcement (and the like), who need to act decisively and quickly was not worth what little protection #7 offered. It needs to go; best of luck.

Norderia's paranoia is amusing.

As with the last attempt to repeal this legislative piece of trash, the Federal Republic voices its concern over our limited ability to investigate crime and assure the safety of our people, deriving from the overly broad and vague language in UNR #7. We applaud Karmicaria's tireless efforts to strike this resolution from the books.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

A vote for Repeal is not a vote for the new replacement resolution is it? I will vote against a repeal until I see a replacement for the current resolution. Getting rid of the resolution all together because of a few issues that have to be resolved is not viable if there is going to be a time period between that the resolution will be absent. I will vote against a repeal of this resolution until a viable replacement resolution is in place to replace the one that is being repealed.

I will vote against a repeal of this resolution until a viable replacement resolution is in place to replace the one that is being repealed.
Then you might as well just register your No vote for all repeals, since game rules prohibit a replacement UNTIL the repeal passes.

A vote for Repeal is not a vote for the new replacement resolution is it? I will vote against a repeal until I see a replacement for the current resolution. Getting rid of the resolution all together because of a few issues that have to be resolved is not viable if there is going to be a time period between that the resolution will be absent. I will vote against a repeal of this resolution until a viable replacement resolution is in place to replace the one that is being repealed.

The old resolution has to be repealed before a replacement can be passed. Otherwise any new proposal on this subject would just be contridicting the old one, and fall foul of the proposal rule against that. A replacement has been written, and is a vast improvement on the original, but for it to see the light of day this repeal needs to pass.

Witchcliff stands in support of this repeal.

Please then post the replacment resolution on this forum so that we can decide if the repeal of the resolution will be needed or not. I would hate for a resolution that has been passed by this fair group of folks to be repealed and have a worse resolution put up for a vote and be voted down. So if the assembly pleases Laborland would like to preview the replacement resolution before we vote to repeal the current one. Im sure the country that has proposed this resolution repeal has a copy of the new resolution that htey would not object to others reviewing before repeal of a passed resolution from this body.

As previously mentioned, a replacement has been drafted. However, we are going to refrain from showing it so the debate about the repeal does not turn into a debate of the replacement.

If you have anything else to say, please feel free to do so, but please drop the subject of the replacement.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Besides, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to come up with something worse than the original.

How do you debate a repeal of a resolution without any knowledge what the replacement resolution will look like. Im sorry my country will stay on this subject until we get a clear copy of the replacment resolution. We do not have to debate the replacment but the replacment resolution should be known before we vote to repeal the old one. We are voting to change a law and yet we have no idea what the new law is going to say when the majority voted and passed the origanal. I will be voicing this opinion throughout this debate until we get a copy of the resolution sent to our country by telegraming them if there is weak knees on the oposition side about showing the voters what the new resolution will be. Laborland doesn't like the idea of repealing, (Disbanding laws passed by the UN majority body) without knowing what we are getting in return. I will make this a subject that my region delegate and others in our region will also wish to know what will be replacing this resolution before we repeal anything. This is like saying these are the laws on gun control right now but we think they are not good enough and wish to repeal them oh and by the way we have a new set of laws that we are not going to show you before we repeal these. Trust us they are better. Let the body decide if the new resolution is better by placing a copy here for all to veiw and decide if the changes in this so called new resolution warrent a repeal of the current law. If the resolution doesnt fix the problems with the current resolution then the No vote will be warrented, if they do then a Yes vote is warrented. However a vote to change the laws without any example of the changes to me is foolish and should not be passed. The hesitation on the part of the repealers to show us the new resolution should be enough to give members of this body pause.

Please then post the replacment resolution on this forum so that we can decide if the repeal of the resolution will be needed or not.

NO!

Sorry to shout that "no" out, but you see, a repeal must be weighed on the strength of the repeal alone. After all, even if a replacement was posted it is no guarentee that the replacement would either make quorum or be approved if the repeal failed.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Posting a replacement would only cause the argument to shift from the repeal to the replacement, and being imperfect would simply cause people who would otherwise vote for the repeal to vote against it because the replacement wasn't "perfect."

I think that the fact that there is a replacement in the works is important. I would certanly be strongly in favor of a proper replacement. But for today, let's talk about how the current resolution is horrid, and I mean absolutely so, not how any future resolution is imperfect. Unlike the person I quote in my sig, I would rather repeal a horrid resolution knowing that it would only be a matter of time before a reasonable resolution would be accepted by a majority of people.

Because sometimes a good resolution is worth the wait. But you can't have a good resolution until you repeal the horrid one!

Im sorry my country will stay on this subject until we get a clear copy of the replacment resolution.
No, you won't. Topic hijacking is against site rules.

The topic of this thread refers to the repeal, not the replacement. If you want to propose a variant replacement, start your own thread. If somebody else wants to do the same, they can. In the meantime, your question has been asked and answered. Rephrasing it eleven ways from Sunday will not make anyone post a replacement, and you're starting to push the limits of civlized discourse here.

This is an official ruling. Drop the subject, or start your own replacement thread. End of discussion.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Topic of this Forum is on the repealing of the current resolution. And my arguements for not repealing a law without first having a viable replacement is a very viable argument. This does frighten me that ones such as yourselves are afraid to inform the voters on what exactly they are voting on. We of the UN body should not be so free with the repeal pen as to cancel voted on laws without a reason to do so. These laws have already been voted on and passed. Before they are repealed they should have a replacement put up in order to inform the voters of where they were wrong the first time and how it will be changed. Votes are votes yet I know no one that votes for a blank sheet which this is. Once the Law is repealed the issuers of this repeal can put forth any resolution they desire in relation to these laws and we have no one to blame but ourselves when they come to us with a worse one then the one in place now. I petition all in the UN to be very careful when voting for a blank slate. Because people can fill in that blank with anything later on. Then we may be stuck with no laws to protect your right to privacy when it comes to your sexuallity.

Norderia's paranoia is amusing.

As with the last attempt to repeal this legislative piece of trash, the Federal Republic voices its concern over our limited ability to investigate crime and assure the safety of our people, deriving from the overly broad and vague language in UNR #7. We applaud Karmicaria's tireless efforts to strike this resolution from the books.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Did you even read past the first paragraph I wrote?

Topic of this Forum is on the repealing of the current resolution. And my arguements for not repealing a law without first having a viable replacement is a very viable argument. This does frighten me that ones such as yourselves are afraid to inform the voters on what exactly they are voting on. We of the UN body should not be so free with the repeal pen as to cancel voted on laws without a reason to do so. These laws have already been voted on and passed. Before they are repealed they should have a replacement put up in order to inform the voters of where they were wrong the first time and how it will be changed. Votes are votes yet I know no one that votes for a blank sheet which this is. Once the Law is repealed the issuers of this repeal can put forth any resolution they desire in relation to these laws and we have no one to blame but ourselves when they come to us with a worse one then the one in place now. I petition all in the UN to be very careful when voting for a blank slate. Because people can fill in that blank with anything later on. Then we may be stuck with no laws to protect your right to privacy when it comes to your sexuallity.

Then start your own thread where they can post the replacement and keep it out of this thread. Fis gave you a ruling now stick with that ruling.

Fris gave you a ruling now stick with that ruling.
Final warning, Laborland. Your next outburst about a replacement in this thread will result in a 3 day forumban. Don't say you weren't warned.

Is this not the thread that is debating the current resolution repeal before the UN? If so then Im arguing against the Repeal for the above stated reasons.

Ok what are the reasons for the repeal? Please be specific. Thanks

You're making demands that somebody post a replacement. They said no. Now it's your turn, and you'll do that in a new "Replacement for <whatever>" thread, or it won't happen.

The end.

ok then I would like them to make the arguement against the already voted on resolution and why we should repeal it and please be specific.

ok then I would like them to make the arguement against the already voted on resolution and why we should repeal it and please be specific.

..... Did you read anything but the title?

ok then I would like them to make the arguement against the already voted on resolution and why we should repeal it and please be specific.

How about reading the proposed repeal. Go back to the first post in this thread and do that. Please.

Ok what are the reasons for the repeal?

I have a ton of them. Let's start off by citing a link to the stupid resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029591&postcount=8). It's such a simple resolution, but it's all wrong. So wrong, in so many ways.

"What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults ..." Ever notice how this resolution although called sexual freedom doesn't mention sex? What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults could be anything from drug use, to ploting the overthrow of the government to cooking. Please see my sig. This may be called sexual freedom but it's really a "my home is my own catle" resolution.

"... in the privacy of their homes ..." obviously only includes the "home." It doesn't include rental property, either monthly rent, or the hotel you rented on your stay in town. You mean you can enforce draconian sex regulations on hotels? Under this resolution you certanly can.

"... should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons ..." doesn't concern the natural reasons for governments to investigate things; murders, epidemics, what have you.

Based on this simple analysis of the resolution, it is intitutively obvious to the casual observer that this resolution does not do what its title says it does. It allows bizare things to happen in the privacy of ones own "home" yet at the same time allows nations to brutally oppress the sexual freedoms of all those who cannot afford the sanctuary of the "home." It provides a haven for terroritsts, criminals and priests. It needs to be abolished. Think of the homeless! Repeal this resolution today! (Or tomorrow, but repeal it before the voting expires.)

*sigh*

I can't say I feel comfortable voting for this, but having a law which, at present, prevents the State from interfering in anything that "goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes" except for medical reasons is clearly open to tremendous abuse.

Ariddia... sorry, ESAT (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT)... supports the repeal.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This may be called sexual freedom but it's really a "my home is my own catle" resolution.

"... in the privacy of their homes ..." obviously only includes the "home." It doesn't include rental property, either monthly rent, or the hotel you rented on your stay in town. You mean you can enforce draconian sex regulations on hotels? Under this resolution you certanly can.

Which pretty much sums up why the Republic of Steenhuffel will be voting for this resolution.

As previously mentioned, a replacement has been drafted. However, we are going to refrain from showing it so the debate about the repeal does not turn into a debate of the replacement.

If you have anything else to say, please feel free to do so, but please drop the subject of the replacement.Com'on, baby, don't be a tease. Show us your operative clauses!

Manuelo Fernanda
President of the Federal Republic

As the proposal in question leaves entirely too much open to question, and does not go in-depth enough, Altanar will support this repeal. We look forward to seeing the replacement (once this vote is done, that is).

Jinella Agaranth
Deputy Ambassador, Kingdom of Altanar

Com'on, baby, don't be a tease. Show us your operative clauses!

Manuelo Fernanda
President of the Federal Republic

Not here President Fernanda. They wouldn't be protected.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Community Property must oppose.

We're sorry, but repeated statements to the effect that proponents “have a replacement ready” but “can't show it to us” are tantamount to asking us to buy a pig in a poke. In the past, people seeking to replace faulty legislation have posted their intended replacements for others to read, and while supporters of this repeal are by no means obligated to do so, if they want us to seriously believe that they have a better bill ready to go in place of this one, then they would be well advised to let us see it first.

When a well-organized group pushes this body to overturn prior legislation without offering better legislation in its place, if only in draft form, then the rest of us have good reason to be suspicious of that group's motives. Do the supporters of this repeal really want a replacement, or are they just claiming they do to lull us to sleep? Trust, in the end, must be earned, and when you behave like this, you give us good reason to withhold it; by the same token, you have no excuse for being shocked when we fail to do just that.

As for the counterargument that posting the replacement would detract from the current debate by diverting attention from the repeal to said replacement, we fail to see why that would be a problem. If this repeal is a means to an end, let us see that end; if it isn't, then have the honesty to say so.

Finally, for those who claim that the resolution doesn't do what it was intended to do, we gladly and readily concede that point. But that alone does not justify its repeal; the Members must ask themselves if what it does do is worthwhile. We in Community Property believe that it is.

As others have said, the existing legislation is in fact a privacy guarantee, one that protects any activity in the home and not just sex. But is that necessarily a bad thing? If we can not do as we please in the privacy of our homes, then are we truly free?

As for not protecting sexual activity outside the home, is that necessarily a bad thing? There is some basis for claiming that privacy rights need not – and indeed should not – be the same in public accommodations as in the home. While that might not be our preference, it is not an entirely unacceptable position.

To summarize, we believe that the privacy is a fundamental human right, and that there should be some kind of international privacy guarantee. While the privacy guarantee provided by this legislation may be flawed, it is nonetheless real; we are loath to part with it so readily, especially when proponents of its repeal are not willing to prove that they indeed want to see something better in its place by giving us a glimpse of what that something better might be.

In response to Community Property's request to see the replacement.

You're making demands that somebody post a replacement. They said no. Now it's your turn, and you'll do that in a new "Replacement for <whatever>" thread, or it won't happen.

The end.

I would like to point out that the last one to push this issue is enjoying an involuntary vacation from the UN floor.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Community Property must oppose.

We're sorry, but repeated statements to the effect that proponents “have a replacement ready” but “can't show it to us” are tantamount to asking us to buy a pig in a poke. In the past, people seeking to replace faulty legislation have posted their intended replacements for others to read, and while supporters of this repeal are by no means obligated to do so, if they want us to seriously believe that they have a better bill ready to go in place of this one, then they would be well advised to let us see it first.

I helped it during its drafting process. If you don't feel you can take my word for it, then I ask that you make an effort to write a replacement yourself, with the possible help of others on this forum who feel it necessary to see the replacement. The author has decided against posting it now --
As for the counterargument that posting the replacement would detract from the current debate by diverting attention from the repeal to said replacement, we fail to see why that would be a problem. If this repeal is a means to an end, let us see that end; if it isn't, then have the honesty to say so.
For that reason. The end of this repeal is the striking of the Resolution, Sexual Freedoms. The author is under no obligation to write a replacement, but she has. She has also been advised to keep the replacement unpublished in this forum for now, and only to post it if it seems to be problematic. Although, the suggestions has been made that she post it on an offsite forum with a link. The counterargument is stronger than you think -- the replacement MUST be a separate matter from the repeal.

Finally, for those who claim that the resolution doesn't do what it was intended to do, we gladly and readily concede that point. But that alone does not justify its repeal; the Members must ask themselves if what it does do is worthwhile. We in Community Property believe that it is.
I'm rather of the opinion that it does justify its repeal. Sexual Freedoms should protect Sexual Freedoms. It doesn't do that? Well then it needs to be gotten rid of. That's all there is to it.

As others have said, the existing legislation is in fact a privacy guarantee, one that protects any activity in the home and not just sex. But is that necessarily a bad thing? If we can not do as we please in the privacy of our homes, then are we truly free?
The trouble with that idea is that it makes the privacy of our own homes entirely exempt from any sort of laws, so long as everyone present consents to it. Run a meth lab, or make bombs while plotting to blow up the local children's hospitals, shoot dogs and laugh about it... Furthermore, it does nothing to protect individuals' sexual freedoms. The Resolution states 2 or more people. So anything one does to entertain oneself is fair game for forbidding. There's just too much wrong with this Resolution to let it stand; the right to privacy, hallowed as it is in nations such as ours, has to have a failsafe.

As for not protecting sexual activity outside the home, is that necessarily a bad thing? There is some basis for claiming that privacy rights need not – and indeed should not – be the same in public accommodations as in the home. While that might not be our preference, it is not an entirely unacceptable position.

A considerably large number of people rent. Since they don't have their "own home", they're SOL, aren't they?

To summarize, we believe that the privacy is a fundamental human right, and that there should be some kind of international privacy guarantee. While the privacy guarantee provided by this legislation may be flawed, it is nonetheless real; we are loath to part with it so readily, especially when proponents of its repeal are not willing to prove that they indeed want to see something better in its place by giving us a glimpse of what that something better might be.
Emphasis is mine.
There, you're just wrong.
What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Show me a binding clause. Show me where any right is guaranteed. All I see is a big fat "Should not be the concern of the state."

I've been in your place before. I voted against the last Repeal of Sexual Freedoms for the same reason -- I was more worried about a blocker on the subject being passed than a replacement. I am not concerned about that anymore. I know there is a replacement, but that doesn't even matter. Because that does not necessarily mean that someone, somewhere, hasn't written a blocker on the matter, and is ready to spring it out. I'm willing to take the risk though -- Sexual Freedoms is doing more harm to sexual freedoms than good.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

I would like to point out that the last one to push this issue is enjoying an involuntary vacation from the UN floor.
Yeah, but he was being a demanding ass. Not the case here.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will be casting their vote FOR this repeal as soon as our voting device dries out.

*Bob looks down at his desk and sees the cookie (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11863539&postcount=96)*

Why is there a cookie with earmuffs on it on my desk?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Community Property must oppose.

We're sorry, but repeated statements to the effect that proponents “have a replacement ready” but “can't show it to us” are tantamount to asking us to buy a pig in a poke. In the past, people seeking to replace faulty legislation have posted their intended replacements for others to read, and while supporters of this repeal are by no means obligated to do so, if they want us to seriously believe that they have a better bill ready to go in place of this one, then they would be well advised to let us see it first.

When a well-organized group pushes this body to overturn prior legislation without offering better legislation in its place, if only in draft form, then the rest of us have good reason to be suspicious of that group's motives. Do the supporters of this repeal really want a replacement, or are they just claiming they do to lull us to sleep? Trust, in the end, must be earned, and when you behave like this, you give us good reason to withhold it; by the same token, you have no excuse for being shocked when we fail to do just that.

As for the counterargument that posting the replacement would detract from the current debate by diverting attention from the repeal to said replacement, we fail to see why that would be a problem. If this repeal is a means to an end, let us see that end; if it isn't, then have the honesty to say so.


The Ausserland delegation has seen the draft replacement proposal and, in fact, has watched it through its long process of drafting. We will state unequivocally that it is a sound, solid piece of legislation, which does what the author of the extant resolution tried but signally failed to do. We will also state that we have complete and unshakable confidence that the drafter of the replacement fully intends to submit it to the proposal list. If the representative of Community Property doubts our word, that's certainly his right.

The representative fails to see why posting the proposed replacement here would be a problem. He is apparently unaware of the instances in which discussion of a repeal has been polluted by nit-picking of a proposed replacement--to the point where the actual question before the Assembly has been almost forgotten.

As for "buying a pig in a poke", we would remind the representative that, every time a member votes for a repeal, he or she is buying that pig. No matter how fine the intended replacement is or how well-intentioned the repeal/replace author might be, there is no guarantee that the replacement proposal will pass.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will be casting their vote FOR this repeal as soon as our voting device dries out.

*Bob looks down at his desk and sees the cookie (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11863539&postcount=96)*

Why is there a cookie with earmuffs on it on my desk?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Maybe the cookie got cold, man.

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

If I may be permitted to be a touch arrogant for a moment, perhaps I can summarize the argument of the opposition as follows: “Oh come on man! We know this resolution is a total piece of manure that doesn’t even remotely do what the title claims it does, so no one in their right minds would be able to defend it. Therefore we must insist, nay strongly demand that we instead debate the replacement instead because I’m sure that we will find at least one thing wrong with the replacement, just as you have found a million things wrong with the resolution. As for the piece of manure, we love it and shall ever defend it. Besides we just don’t like you – yea it’s personal man.”

I would like to ask one question to the honorable opposition. Which resolution do you want replaced? What is the replacement resolution you seek? The title of the resolution is about “sexual freedom” and I can guarantee that any “replacement” is going to probably be written along those lines. The text of the resolution is actually more along the vein of “a person’s home is their castle” (and it even fails to do that) which I have a feeling no one has even vaguely considered so far.

If you want to write a replacement, place it on the forum in a separate thread. No one is stopping you! Please, because we all need a good laugh at your expense.

P.S. I had forgotten about the single man/woman argument. Ah those poor master baiters, all sitting at home baiting their fishing poles for the morning’s fishing session, being arrested, detained, and shipped to torture camps because they baited alone. For the love of those master baiters, we must repeal this lone assault on our freedoms!

Ah...the servant waits, while the master baits.

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

URGENT~ CIVIL RIGHTS THREATENED BY UN PROPOSAL~ VOTE NOW TO PROTECT YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS~

TO ALL UN MEMBER NATIONS:
The current UN Proposal "Repeal Sexual Freedoms" is one that both offends me to the core of my being and goes against every principle of democracy, civil rights and freedom that I hold very dear. If this is passed it will mean that no UN Law exists to protect our privacy in our own homes and that the government can essentially criminilize who we sleep with and who we love all in the name of security.

Sure it's packaged and worded in a nice non threatening way but essentially it is a huge infringement designed to take away a basic civil right and freedom. It is nothing more than a conservative right wing mind set that is seeking to justify a basic freedom by dressing it up to look like having this right will mean eminent danger to citizens.

The bit about defining a home is laughable since no such restrictions on the term exist in the orginal and it is common practice for landlords and hotels to reserve this right anyway.

The epidemic senario is another scare tactic like when the US Supreme Court struck down the sodomy laws and Requist said this would lead to polygomy and beastiality.

As a lesbian and someone who values all of our human rights I very strongly urge all of you to vote NO on this proposal which if passed would be a huge infringement upon EVERYBODY'S civil rights, no matter their sexual preference and would esentially allow the government to have a say in what you do behind closed doors with another consenting adult.

VOTE NO TO PROTECT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE
PLEASE VOTE TODAY.

Voting Ends: Sat Nov 4 2006

Dude, chill out and learn to read. Here, have a flower.

http://www.phytochemicals.info/pictures/plants/opium-poppy.jpg

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

OOC: I don't know what's more amusing: the fact that they didn't read the repeal, or the fact that they incorrectly quoted a Supreme Court Justice. Oh well!

IC:

We shall be supporting this repeal. Finally, someone's making it stick!

Did you even read past the first paragraph I wrote?Why, didn't you read it?

almost everytime I decide to use what could be a great and enjoyable place to have a respectful discussion (this forum) and post, I am then reminded that if I do not agree with the loudest and most domineering folks on the thread in question, then I will be insulted and shot down.. so in line with first time shame on them and second, shame on me, I hearby officially quit the Jolt Forums period.

Hey I tried to express my opinion and hoped for some lively debate.. but I'll leave that to those who shout loudest and insult the most (all I know perfectly legal under NS rules of free speach). Enjoy yourselves by all means but not at my expense ever again.

OVER AND OUT PERMINANTLY FROM NS JOLT FORUM

almost everytime I decide to use what could be a great and enjoyable place to have a respectful discussion (this forum) and post, I am then reminded that if I do not agree with the loudest and most domineering folks on the thread in question, then I will be insulted and shot down.. so in line with first time shame on them and second, shame on me, I hearby officially quit the Jolt Forums period.

Hey I tried to express my opinion and hoped for some lively debate.. but I'll leave that to those who shout loudest and insult the most (all I know perfectly legal under NS rules of free speach). Enjoy yourselves by all means but not at my expense ever again.

OVER AND OUT PERMINANTLY FROM NS JOLT FORUM

But...dude, I gave you a flower!

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

OOC: No big loss there. Oh, and correct spelling -- "permanently," for instance -- is your friend.

almost everytime I decide to use what could be a great and enjoyable place to have a respectful discussion (this forum) and post, I am then reminded that if I do not agree with the loudest and most domineering folks on the thread in question, then I will be insulted and shot down.. so in line with first time shame on them and second, shame on me, I hearby officially quit the Jolt Forums period.

Hey I tried to express my opinion and hoped for some lively debate.. but I'll leave that to those who shout loudest and insult the most (all I know perfectly legal under NS rules of free speach). Enjoy yourselves by all means but not at my expense ever again.

OVER AND OUT PERMINANTLY FROM NS JOLT FORUM

Waaaaaah.

I'm sorry, but if you can't argue in a logical, calm manner without whining and complaining whenever someone calls you a poopyhead, then you should leave.

Good riddance.

I don't really think dogpiling her shows you up as the valiant heroes here. It would be better to let her misreading of the repeal stand on its own, and simply move on...
...oh, wait, it was Cluichstan posting. Nevermind - I was getting silly ideas about self control for a moment.

Much to the shock of all, Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich marches into the assembly hall, a scimitar in his hand, and flanked by two white-plastoid-armoured troopers. Without a word, he swings the scimitar and decapitates Sheik Larebil bin Cluich. The two troopers drag the headless corpse away, as Nadnerb sheathes the scimitar.

That's right, bitches! I'm back! You want self-control? Find it elsewhere. That stoner Larebil clown was nothing, a temporary bump in the road. You want a valiant hero? Well, here I am, you nameless delegate from Golgothastan! Bring it!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Without a word, he swings the scimitar and decapitates Sheik Larebil bin Cluich.
And there was much rejoicing.

And there was much rejoicing.

OOC: Got tired of those bloody flowers, eh? ;)

OOC: Got tired of those bloody flowers, eh? ;)
OOC: Yes

IC: Your troopers forgot something.

*hands Larebil's head to Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich*

OOC: Yes

IC: Your troopers forgot something.

*hands Larebil's head to Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich*
OOC: So did I. ;)

IC:
Thank you. This will make a nice trophy in my office.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The Kingdom of Anago will vote in favor of the repeal. This vote is based on the following logical conclusion:

Given: The current Sexual Freedom resolution is decidedly malformed. The faults and potential loopholes have been covered in depth on this forum.

Given: The Kingdom of Anago is still a sovereign nation and as such is capable of self-rule.

With a repeal of the current UN resolution, The Kingdom of Anago will be free to enact its own laws concerning sexual freedom and these laws will serve to protect its citizens. If and when a replacement resolution is approved by the UN, such resolution will replace any redundant laws passed in the interim.

To summarize: Any nation capable of self-rule has nothing to lose from this repeal and everything to gain.

The Ausserland delegation has seen the draft replacement proposal and, in fact, has watched it through its long process of drafting. We will state unequivocally that it is a sound, solid piece of legislation, which does what the author of the extant resolution tried but signally failed to do. We will also state that we have complete and unshakable confidence that the drafter of the replacement fully intends to submit it to the proposal list.

"I can confirm this, and urge all representatives here assembled not to worry about the replacement."

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA



Much to the shock of all, Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich marches into the assembly hall, a scimitar in his hand, and flanked by two white-plastoid-armoured troopers. Without a word, he swings the scimitar and decapitates Sheik Larebil bin Cluich. The two troopers drag the headless corpse away, as Nadnerb sheathes the scimitar.

Ambassador Zyryanov stares in shock, then staggers to her feet, gags, and vomits over the unfortunate delegate seated in front of her.

[Happily raises his arm at the Cluichstani delegation.]

It's great to see my boy Nadnerb back at the UN! Almost enough to make me forget I have a job to do here. Um, what were we voting on again?

[Sec. Tehrani passes him a document; he skims it.]

What the fuck is this?! "Repeal Sexual Freedom"?! By Karmicaria?! You guys suck!! First you take away my treasury secretary (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=197), then you take away my CPESL playmates, and now you wanna take away sexual freedom?! Who the fuck you guys think you are? KOP-a-FEEL (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/KOP-a-FEEL)? I'll tell you one thing: I'll have sex with whoever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, and there's nothing you fascist Nazi sexy sexy sluts can do about it! I mean, it's pretty fucking obvious you guys are only doing this to justify your stupid Outlaw Necrophilia resolution! I don't need no UN law to tell me that screwing dead people is nasty! Come on, people!

My government is voting no--

[Tehrani urgently whispers in his ear.]

What the fuck?! We're voting FOR?! Alright, Alex, how much did KCUF (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=33) buy you out for?

[Whispering.]

I know our administration sells itself to the highest bidder all the time ... [whispers] ... and that I've had no problem with it before, but I thought for once we could stand on principle!

["And what principle is that, Mr. President?"]

That Karmicaria sucks!

Manuelo Fernanda
President of the Federal Republic

Ausserland has voted FOR this repeal. "Sexual Freedom" is a grotesquely vague and ineffectual piece of legislative trash that is a disgrace to this organization. We look forward to voting in favor of the sound and sensible replacement resolution which will follow.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And there was much rejoicing.

YAAAY!!!
:)

THe Palentine also votes in favor of this repeal. however unlike some of my estemed collegues..like my comarade from Ausserland...we do not wish to see a replacement resolution. We believe in the most strongest terms that an international organization has no business in the bedrooms of conscenting adults(as long as animals and children aren't involved). We further state that if one wishes to dress up like a Japanese Schoolgirl, place a ball gag in their mouth, and be spanked with a rubber iguana in time to The Stars and Stripes Forever, by John Philip Sousa, then that is their own perogative. I might personally think that you are a deviant, but it's your right to do so...I just don't care to know about it.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

We believe in the most strongest termsd that an international organization has no business in the bedrooms of conscenting adults(as long as animals and children aren't involved). We further state that if one wishes to dress up like a Japanese Schoolgirl, place a ball gag in their mouth, and be spanked with a rubber iguana in time to The Stars and Stripes Forever, by John Philip Sousa, then that is their own perogative. I might personally think that you are a deviant, but it's your right to do so...I just don't care to know about it.


Ambassador Zyryanov, looking very pale, wipes the vomit from her mouth.

"The proposed replacement will allow exactly that. Now excuse me; I need to go and get changed..."

THe Palentine also votes in favor of this repeal. however unlike some of my estemed collegues..like my comarade from Ausserland...we do not wish to see a replacement resolution. We believe in the most strongest termsd that an international organization has no business in the bedrooms of conscenting adults(as long as animals and children aren't involved). We further state that if one wishes to dress up like a Japanese Schoolgirl, place a ball gag in their mouth, and be spanked with a rubber iguana in time to The Stars and Stripes Forever, by John Philip Sousa, then that is their own perogative. I might personally think that you are a deviant, but it's your right to do so...I just don't care to know about it.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

We agree wholeheartedly with our distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Sulla, that an international organization has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. We also believe that national governments have no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. But that's a discussion for a later time, after this repeal is passed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

THe Palentine also votes in favor of this repeal. however unlike some of my estemed collegues..like my comarade from Ausserland...we do not wish to see a replacement resolution. We believe in the most strongest terms that an international organization has no business in the bedrooms of conscenting adults(as long as animals and children aren't involved). We further state that if one wishes to dress up like a Japanese Schoolgirl, place a ball gag in their mouth, and be spanked with a rubber iguana in time to The Stars and Stripes Forever, by John Philip Sousa, then that is their own perogative. I might personally think that you are a deviant, but it's your right to do so...I just don't care to know about it.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Um... doesn't that mean that you would want to see a replacement?

St Jello Biafra;11882601']Um... doesn't that mean that you would want to see a replacement?

Nope. I'm kinda like the late Sen Barry Goldwater on this issue. There is no reason for any Govermental body, or extra-Governmental body to be involved in the bedrooms of citizens. At the very least, this is not something that the UN ought to be involved with.(I'm also an evil Nat-Sov as well).
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

While Ana Koskinen follows Ambassador Zyryanov out of the GA with tears in her eyes and vomit on her chin, Juhani flips open his phone and dials UNBM while walking after the Counselor.

"Hi. Who do we call when ambassadors begin beheading other ambassadors, regardless of their belonging to the same delegation?"

Tommo the Stout, disgusted but unmoved, rises to his feet.

"I've registered my vote FOR this repeal.

"Sheik Nadnerb, is there any particular reason why you had to do that in the GA?"

Nope. I'm kinda like the late Sen Barry Goldwater on this issue. There is no reason for any Govermental body, or extra-Governmental body to be involved in the bedrooms of citizens. At the very least, this is not something that the UN ought to be involved with.(I'm also an evil Nat-Sov as well).
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Ah, that would mean you are actually for the replacement. For you see, all the replacement would do is to expand on the original ideas of the first proposal.

For instance, it says "in their own home" in the original, however the problem arises about hotels, motels, a friends home, apartments, etc. What the intention of the repeal would be is to allow an expansion on the original, to include these things, as well as others.

That being said, The Holy Republic of Seangoli whole-heartedly supports this repeal, however for very different reasons than most. Support for the repeal is granted.

Ambassador Mikhail Cordon
The Holy Republic of Seangoli

Umdiroplach and Pendankr stare at the headless body of Larebil bin Cluich, then stare at each other for a moment before rising to their feet and clapping.

"Bravo, bravo! Good show! Excellent motion there, you've got some skill with that thing!" Pendankr exclaims. "Takes me back to my old days as a commando... course, I used my bare hands some of the time. It's good to see you back, Nadnerb."

"Now, on the subject of the repeal, we are very much in support of repealing this peace of trash. Of course, we didn't follow the law to begin with, and it's not like it will make much difference. Really, it's the principle of the thing. The gnomes were getting antsy, always trying to rush into the wormhole and enforce the law when ourdelegation was leaving. A few got through once, but I think they didn't survive long."

He coughs, realizing that he has just admitted to non-compliance with the UN, and implying that UN gnomes were killed. Suddenly, he realized that it didn't really matter- hell, that Kennyite woman was snorting lines off the ass of some delegate in the back, that Sheikh bin Cluich had just killed a man, and that Intestinal Fluids-delegate was leaking HCL and stomach juices all over everywhere. This was the fucking UN! No one gives a shit at all!

"We really don't give a damn about any replacement, either. Sexual rights have been a part of the Empire's laws for six thousand years, and we don't need to UN to tell us that it's okay for consenting adults to get freaky, and that they don't need our permission. Shit, Imperial courtesans have been higly respected since the First Empire!"

"We have voted in favor, to repeal this garbage. It could prevent our government from investigating threats to our security and domestic tranquility, and it is unnecessary for us."

He settles down, then pulls out a phone and dials the number of the Cluichstani delegation. "Yeah, this is Landaman Pendankr. Tell Nadnerb he's got some real cojones...No, I don't know what it means either. I thought you would. Okay. Yeah... well, tell him that if he ever wants to work off some steam, there's a wonderful sporting club on the Imperial Prison World of Humyana. He'll know where i'm going with this."

Just a little reminder for everyone. Take notes. Prepare yourselves.

As The Gardian of Unmoderable Freedom Concept noticed into its transposition of the UN resolution #7 to Our nation, we have some difficulties with the concept of "privacy of their homes", which seems to be your case too.

Our basic problem is that we have no private goods, so the worlds "privacy" and "their", has no sense for us. On another side, we are for Sexual freedom for everyone.

Can you give us some clues of your idea for a replacement, to decide if we agree or not with your proposal?

Regards,

Mr Black, Lotus
Unmoderable Representative @UN
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Unmoderable_people

The Government of Slaybackia does support civil rights but we care about the safety of the people more (kinda like the US Gov). We don't want a person to get away with murder just because that woman does not want the judge to hear what twisted little things that she and that man do together.

Slaybackia is for "Repeal Sexual Freedom"
President Zachary T Slayback
Slaybackia

As The Gardian of Unmoderable Freedom Concept noticed into its transposition of the UN resolution #7 to Our nation, we have some difficulties with the concept of "privacy of their homes", which seems to be your case too.

Our basic problem is that we have no private goods, so the worlds "privacy" and "their", has no sense for us. On another side, we are for Sexual freedom for everyone.

Can you give us some clues of your idea for a replacement, to decide if we agree or not with your proposal?

Regards,

Mr Black, Lotus
Unmoderable Representative @UN
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Unmoderable_people

Okay. Big clue about the drafted sexual freedoms replacement.


Everyone, GET READY.






It grants people Sexual Freedom!

WOWSERS!

Warm Ponds's vote against Repeal "Sexual Freedom" has been noted.

( A half loaf is better than no loaf at all )

Warm Ponds's vote against Repeal "Sexual Freedom" has been noted.

( A half loaf is better than no loaf at all )

Show me even half a loaf.

HOME:

A place where one lives; a residence.
The physical structure within which one lives, such as a house or apartment.
A dwelling place together with the family or social unit that occupies it; a household.

An environment offering security and happiness.
A valued place regarded as a refuge or place of origin.
The place, such as a country or town, where one was born or has lived for a long period.
The native habitat, as of a plant or animal.
The place where something is discovered, founded, developed, or promoted; a source.
A headquarters; a home base.

A repeal of the Sexual Freedom resolution is not the equivalent of a team of government inspectors suddenly installing webcams in your shower. In fact, astute nations will already have federal laws in place mirroring the current resolution. This will allow participating nations to maintain the status quo during the interim period between the repeal of the old resolution and the proposal, debate and (hopefully) enactment of the replacement. So if you're fearful of surrendering your 'half loaf', simply bake your own bread.

All seem agreeable to the fact that the current resolution is inadequate. According to the bylaws of the UN, this resolution cannot be changed, only repealed and replaced. Therefore it is only prudent that nations take the proper steps to reduce the disruption resulting from the repeal of the resolution while working together to draft the replacement.

Honestly, there is nothing to lose in repealing this resolution.

Lord Regent Theobald Grimwold III
Voice of the High King of Anago
Defender of The Protectors of the Land

Why trade-in the old wife or car ( which still work ) for something I have not seen yet. Have you ever loaned someone money and when it is time to pay, they can't be found?

Why trade-in the old wife or car ( which still work ) for something I have not seen yet. Have you ever loaned someone money and when it is time to pay, they can't be found?

So untrusting. Why is that?

Look, there are numerous reasons that we do not want to show people a replacement. If you want one so damn badly, then write one up.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Pray tell, what is the difference between this...?What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).And this...?ASSERTING that what goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.),

THE UNITED NATIONS

URGES Member nations to alter their laws to conform with this assertion.It's not like we haven't passed “soft” legislation before, especially in difficult or controversial areas. Given that the apparent tension here is between privacy in the home and the ability of law enforcement to enter homes and halt activities that endanger society as a whole, it can be argued that a normative “should not” is better than a more forceful “must not”. Or is there some reason why it is a good idea to offer flexibility to member nations in such areas as marriage or agriculture and not privacy? We would like to hear if this is the case, because - unlike so many who do complain about the measures put before this body, we are in the process of drafting privacy legislation.

Which we can always make stronger, if that's what people want.

As for the insistance that UNR #7 does not protect renters, well, that's just ridiculous. The term “home” is usually interpreted in mean one's domicile; to interprete it as applying only to “detached single family dwellings wholly owned without lein by the occupants” is gratefully uncommon as it is asinine. Renters have “homes” just like homeowners do, and - regardless of who holds the deed - such “homes” are usually thought of as “theirs”, rather than their landlords'.

This brings us to the hysterical notion that UNR #7 prevents action by the police on behalf of public safety. There is nothing in UNR #7 to prevent the execution of search warrants in people's “homes” and the cocommitant siezure of contraband or fugitives; there is nothing to protect homeowners from being arrested and prosecuted for possessing such contraband, since “possession” doesn't “go on between” anybody - it just is. Ditto for harboring fugitives, lettings one's home be used as a bomb factory, or any of the other participants in the parade of horribles supporters of this repeal have dredged up: statutes criminalizing the use of one's home for illicit purposes can always be written in such a way as to make not reference to third parties, thereby circumventing the argument that such activities are protected by virtue of their “go(ing) on between two (or more) people”; if the crime would be a crime when the house is empty, it's still a crime when the house is full.

If you find UNR #7 hampering your law enforcement efforts, then we recommend being more creative in the wording of your laws.

This is not to say that UNR #7 is not without its faults: but we would prefer that it be replaced, if it must be replaced, with something whose purpose is to preserve the sanctity of the domocile rather than aiming to protect, say, adultery in public accomodations or whatnot.Honestly, there is nothing to lose in repealing this resolution.Sure there is; someone could easily slip in a blocker (or worse) once this piece of legislation is out of the way.So untrusting. Why is that?<Looks around the floor of the General Assembly, taking in the panalopy of two-bit dictators, warmongers, homicidal maniacs, religious kooks, neo-conservative bible-thumping moralistic hypocrites, Stalinist wannabees, police-state advocates, drunks, drug addicts, perverts, derelicts, and assorted riff-raff>

You're kidding, right?If you want one so damn badly, then write one up. We have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11532649), and we've been fine-tuning it. Time constraints have kept us from pressing forward with it more aggressively.

So don't tell us to put up or shut up; we have, so now how about you and yours?

We suspect that the replacement supporters of this repeal offer us - when they finally get aroudn to it - will focus on the freedom to engage in whatever kind of sex one wishes - within limits - but we don't expect it to protect privacy in the home - or even address the issue. Since - as Tzorland is so fond of pointing out - it's the letter of the law that matters more than the title, we prefer to defend UNR #7 for what it actually says - “governments should keep out of our homes” - rather than what people mistakenly think it does - or what they think it ought to do - until such time as we are convinced that we can move on something better.

I don't know why everyone has their knickers in a twist anyway. Looks to me like the repeal is well on its way to losing.

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero was not physically present in the general Assembly for the debate, for personal matters, but he took part to some parts of the debate through his hologram. His hologram asked for speech, stood up and begins to talk:

"My nation recognizes the limits of the resolution #7 and vote for this repeal with the hope for a better future resolution.

But I would like to say that if some ambassadors don't want to post their "already drafted replacement" on this forum, no problem, but then what is the point for these ambassadors to mention this "already drafted replacement" and use it as an argument? This is pure PROVOCATION which deteriorates the debate and we would like to state our disapprobation to this damageable attitude.

Thank you"

The replacement was not mentioned until it was brought up that certain individuals would not vote for the repeal unless a proper replacement had been drafted and posted. At which point Ms. Black explained her reasoning for not posting the replacement at this time. It would simply serve to derail the debate over the REPEAL. A repeal which should be voted upon based on its own merits, regardless of the replacement.

The coalition government of Nimsakharō Kunchī sees no problem with the repeal, given the already cited weak points of the initial resolution. In a recent speech addressed to the parliament, Kunchī noted:

"So often we disagree with each other on the principle that we have always disagreed with each other. That logic is flawed, and always has been. We agree that there must be a change--does it matter who instigates the change, so long as a change is instigated?"

Dhāna supports the repeal.

Chabhyomī Jhewerthō
United Nations Ambassador
Dhāna

While Ana Koskinen follows Ambassador Zyryanov out of the GA with tears in her eyes and vomit on her chin, Juhani flips open his phone and dials UNBM while walking after the Counselor.

"Hi. Who do we call when ambassadors begin beheading other ambassadors, regardless of their belonging to the same delegation?"

That would probably be the Maintence of Order Department, but considering how much they're cheering over the death of, as they put it, that "damn Cluichistani hippie," I doubt that they're going to do anything about it. On the other hand Sheik Nadnerb might want to steer clear of the head janitor, Pamela Richards, she's a little pissed about the mess he made and the last time I saw her that pissed off she threw a delegate through a wall.

Frankly, my fellow delegates, I am astounded by some of the arguments being put forward here.

"Um, this motion is undoubtably rubbish, but we don't want to repeal it, because then we might not get a motion that isn't rubbish".

I believe there is a logical fallacy at play here.

"Doing something is better than doing nothing.
This resolution is doing something.
Therefore this resolution is better than nothing".

I am reminded of a similar argument.

"Cats have four legs.
My dog has four legs.
Therefore my dog is a cat".

I could be being unfair here, but I don't think so. The arguments against this repeal are genuinely that ridiculous. Not one of you has tried to claim that the current resolution is a good one. Indeed, I haven't even seen anybody trying to claim that this resolution has any redeeming qualities other than simply existing. It seems very simple to me. If this resolution is a badly written, ill-thought out one (and it is) then it needs repealing. There is nothing to be gained by having bad resolutions in the UN's books. It merely damages the UN. The question of what, if any, the replacement should be can be left to a later date. The important thing is to get this colossal embarassment to the UN's name repealed NOW.

A repeal which should be voted upon based on its own merits, regardless of the replacement.

Well that's asinine. Why the hell would you vote on something without understanding its consequences? Surely there are going to be unforeseeable consequences with every piece of legislation, but in this case one of those consequences (the replacement resolution) is pre-existing, and I for one cannot see why certain representatives are so adamantly opposed to informed voting.

Yes, this repeal should be "voted upon" based on its own merits... I'd argue, however, that those include the potential replacement.

St Jello Biafra would like to thank the representative from Community Property for sharing our sentiments in pushing for an informed debate and vote. As such, we are withdrawing our vote for this repeal and will be abstaining until further information on the replacement resolution is provided.

"Doing something is better than doing nothing.
This resolution is doing something.
Therefore this resolution is better than nothing".
OOC: Actually, that does deductively follow, doesn't it? Granted, the truth of the premises is arguable, but it is deductively valid and therefore not a fallacy.

St Jello Biafra;11884924']Well that's asinine. Why the hell would you vote on something without understanding its consequences? Surely there are going to be unforeseeable consequences with every piece of legislation, but in this case one of those consequences (the replacement resolution) is pre-existing, and I for one cannot see why certain representatives are so adamantly opposed to informed voting.

Yes, this repeal should be "voted upon" based on its own merits... I'd argue, however, that those include the potential replacement.

St Jello Biafra would like to thank the representative from Community Property for sharing our sentiments in pushing for an informed debate and vote. As such, we are withdrawing our vote for this repeal and will be abstaining until further information on the replacement resolution is provided.

I'm not going to post the wording, because I don't have the author's permission. I will say a few things though.

It forbids governments from outlawing any form of sexual activity. That's the big thing. There are some exemptions and such reservations for extenuating circumstances, but it does what the current Resolution does not.

Ladies and gentleman, what we have in the books now is quite simply a blocker. It says something about Sexual Freedoms and prevents anything from going on in the UN regarding the subject. And that seems to be the only reason anyone is opposing this repeal. There is concern that a blocker might get passed (how ironic). Let me assure this Assembly -- the UN voters on the whole will not pass anything that restricts sexual freedoms. It just won't. The only thing getting through the UN will be something securing Sexual Freedoms.

Look at UNR 7. Give it a good thorough reading. Look at Tzorland's post from earlier in this thread that highlights three of the major points against it. Look at the Repeal itself. Then answer the following question.

Do you want a UN Resolution that protects sexual freedoms?

If your answer is yes, then UNR 7 must be repealed. Until it is, there's not a thing in the UN stopping governments from stepping on those freedoms.

Don't be so afraid of some anti-sex law that you never give the UN a chance to prevent it unilaterally.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

St Jello Biafra;11884932']OOC: Actually, that does deductively follow, doesn't it? Granted, the truth of the premises is arguable, but it is deductively valid and therefore not a fallacy.

OOC: No, I don't think so. Because it assumes that the something that is being discussed is better than doing nothing. Whereas the original premise is merely a general one. It doesn't therefore logically follow that doing anything is better than doing nothing.

HOME:


A place where one lives; a residence; The physical structure within which one lives, such as a house or apartment.., in our nation, you can live everywhere,we call that freedom...
A dwelling place together with the family or social unit that occupies it; a household., we do not have such concept. Our great leader defined one social unit: our whole society
An environment offering security and happiness; A valued place regarded as a refuge or place of origin[...]: it's our definition of a nation
A headquarters; a home base: what's this, do you mean that private people can have "headquarters" in your nation!


the more we listen to this debate, the more we think that we will vote for the repealing: we had enough problems trying to transpose this UN resolution to our corpus of laws, repealling it will simplify all this. We will garantee sexual freedom on our own in our nation, and we do not need all your capitalists concept that for...

Mr Black, Lotus
Unmoderable Representative @UN
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Unmoderable_people

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).
Why the fuck would we want this repealed? This keeps the cops at bay, people! Take a look at this: "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state". Now I'm not a freakin' legal scholar, that's the job of my consigliere, but this sounds like the police can't bust into places where they aren't welcome. Am I right? Am I right? Fortunately, it appears that the good people of the United Nations are rejecting it, but Jesus Christ, why would anyone try to repeal it in the first place?


Antonio "Tony Knuckles" Santocanale
Nephew of Carmine Santocanale, the Capo di tutti capi, who has had the misfortune of being assigned to the fuckin' UN and ain't too happy with it, if you know what I mean.

St Jello Biafra;11884924']Well that's asinine. Why the hell would you vote on something without understanding its consequences? Surely there are going to be unforeseeable consequences with every piece of legislation, but in this case one of those consequences (the replacement resolution) is pre-existing, and I for one cannot see why certain representatives are so adamantly opposed to informed voting.

Yes, this repeal should be "voted upon" based on its own merits... I'd argue, however, that those include the potential replacement.

St Jello Biafra would like to thank the representative from Community Property for sharing our sentiments in pushing for an informed debate and vote. As such, we are withdrawing our vote for this repeal and will be abstaining until further information on the replacement resolution is provided.

We must disagree with our honorable colleague from St Jello Biafra. We voted for this repeal and we did so with full and complete understanding of the consequences.

The consequences of passage of this repeal are simply this: to remove an absurdly vague and completely ineffectual resolution from the books, leaving the way open to the possibility of a better replacement. It opens the possibility of a properly written, effective resolution on the subject.

it doesn't guarantee that the resolution will be replaced by a decent one. People could post 400 drafts of marvelous proposals here and it still would guarantee nothing. But with the current resolution in place, the possibility of a resolution that actually did what this one was supposed to do is precluded. The consequence of passage of this repeal is to open the door. We believe that door badly needs to be opened and we support the repeal 100%.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Why the fuck would we want this repealed? This keeps the cops at bay, people! Take a look at this: "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state". Now I'm not a freakin' legal scholar, that's the job of my consigliere, but this sounds like the police can't bust into places where they aren't welcome. Am I right? Am I right? Fortunately, it appears that the good people of the United Nations are rejecting it, but Jesus Christ, why would anyone try to repeal it in the first place?


Antonio "Tony Knuckles" Santocanale
Nephew of Carmine Santocanale, the Capo di tutti capi, who has had the misfortune of being assigned to the fuckin' UN and ain't too happy with it, if you know what I mean.

You better have the consigliere take a real hard look at the text here, friend. Where does it say it's gonna keep the cops at bay? So it says this stuff "should not be a concern of the state". Big f-ing deal. If somebody says, "you shouldn't smoke", does that make smoking illegal? Not in my precinct it don't. The thing says I shouldn't do something. It doesn't say I shall not or must not or am prohibited from. So I say, "thank you for sharing" and do whatever the hell I please. Youns want a decent resolution that keeps the cops at bay? Vote for the repeal and maybe we'll get one.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann (in Southside Pittsburgh mode) ;)
Ambassador-at-Large

Why the fuck would we want this repealed? This keeps the cops at bay, people! Take a look at this: "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state".
First, it doesn't do a damn thing. The only thing it says is that the government should keep out. So, it doesn't even do what you think it does.

Now I'm not a freakin' legal scholar,
We would never have guessed.

this sounds like the police can't bust into places where they aren't welcome. Am I right? Am I right?
Not can't, but shouldn't. It's a suggestion. And one that is liable to be widely ignored. Furthermore, if it isn't ignored, it leaves the door open to all sorts of abuse. One could have a methlab in their basement, a chop shop for stolen cars in their garage, a slew of guns with filed off serial numbers being sold to gang members, tanks of napalm being made, with blueprints to a structure of national importance on the table next to said tanks, along with plans to put the two together (the building, not the blue prints). And according to UNR 7, ain't a damn thing the government can do about it -- if they follow the suggestions.

Simply put, UNR 7 doesn't do anything. And if it DOES do something, it does all the wrong things.

Fortunately, it appears that the good people of the United Nations are rejecting it, but Jesus Christ, why would anyone try to repeal it in the first place?
Because some of us actually want a Resolution to protect sexual freedoms. That's why.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

You better have the consigliere take a real hard look at the text here, friend. Where does it say it's gonna keep the cops at bay? So it says this stuff "should not be a concern of the state". Big f-ing deal. If somebody says, "you shouldn't smoke", does that make smoking illegal? Not in my precinct it don't. The thing says I shouldn't do something. It doesn't say I shall not or must not or am prohibited from. So I say, "thank you for sharing" and do whatever the hell I please. Youns want a decent resolution that keeps the cops at bay? Vote for the repeal and maybe we'll get one.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann (in Southside Pittsburgh mode) ;)
Ambassador-at-Large

Whoa! Whoa! Settle down babe. I stand corrected. Like I said, I ain't a lawyer.

South Pittsburgh, huh? Nice area, I got cousins there. They tell me it's a "favorable business environment".

One could have a methlab in their basement, a chop shop for stolen cars in their garage, a slew of guns with filed off serial numbers being sold to gang members, tanks of napalm being made, with blueprints to a structure of national importance on the table next to said tanks, along with plans to put the two together (the building, not the blue prints). And according to UNR 7, ain't a damn thing the government can do about it -- if they follow the suggestions.
Yeah, so? What's your point?
Because some of us actually want a Resolution to protect sexual freedoms. That's why.
Vaffanculo a Lei, la sua moglie, e' la sua madre. There's some sexual freedom for ya. Vada via in culo!

Antonio "Tony Knuckles" Santocanale
Nephew of Carmine Santocanale, the Capo di tutti capi, who has had the misfortune of being assigned to the fuckin' UN and ain't too happy with it, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, so? What's your point?
You might see no problem with it, but it is certainly unbecoming of the UN to endorse such an idea, don't you think?

Vaffanculo a Lei, la sua moglie, e' la sua madre. There's some sexual freedom for ya. Vada via in culo!
Once more, this time in English or French, please. I can't even make sense of that with a translator. I don't see much of a reason to insult someone in a language they don't know unless one is worried about the repercussions of such an act. So if you're concerned that I might take offense to a reference to my mother (to whom references are generally insulting), you may as well keep it in your own tongue.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Hi, we are new, we are from the region of Spitaki in the SE Mediterranean. We are the first in the region to get into the UN! :)

We understand that the current resolution has certain problems, but we believe that the UN should not regulate every fine detail in our land. We became part of the UN to make the world better and not put ourselves under the command of a faceless world government assembly. In this light, we believe that the vagueness of the resolution is good.

As far as crime is concerned, we do not believe that the police should have the right to terrorise the population of our country and check in on their sexual activities. The police should find other means to prove or disprove crimes of such nature.

Hi, we are new, we are from the region of Spitaki in the SE Mediterranean. We are the first in the region to get into the UN! :)

We understand that the current resolution has certain problems, but we believe that the UN should not regulate every fine detail in our land. We became part of the UN to make the world better and not put ourselves under the command of a faceless world government assembly. In this light, we believe that the vagueness of the resolution is good.

As far as crime is concerned, we do not believe that the police should have the right to terrorise the population of our country and check in on their sexual activities. The police should find other means to prove or disprove crimes of such nature.

Welcome to the UN. I'm interested in seeing how you plan to reconcile the fact that you want to make the world better, but not be subjected to the UNs rulings.

You seem both pleased that the Resolution up for Repeal is vague, and that that is good, but you feel like it should actually do things to protect the privacy of sexual participants. How are you voting on this Repeal? It seems you've stated support both for the Resolution, and for the repeal.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

(OOC: 3 AM. Got class in the morning. Ta)

The fifth aide-de-camp to the Military Tribunal for Gender, advising the UN delegate for Guangdongstan, with the power vested by the Ruling Council of the Incorporated States of Guangdongstan, has prepared the following statement:

Considering of the current sub-standard debate regarding the repeal of NSUN #7, assessing the wording of NSUN #7 to be vague and requiring better definition to reinforce the meanings of "sexual freedom", while being committed to the individual positive rights of Guandongians, trusting that the states that have stated that a new resolution is being drafted that will address this core issue, and hoping that this new resolution will address the issue of sexual freedom and reinforce it better, the Incorporated States of Guangdongstan provides its assent.

Ju Che
5th ADC - Military Tribunal for Gender

The Head of the Ruling Council has the following words:

---

I think that this issue has been ground down into the semantics of what it means to have sexual freedom. There is definitely a large majority support for sexual freedoms to be enforced by NSUN. The question has then either descended into two areas:

What is the role of the NSUN to enforce such a position?; and

What is the alternative?

The first issue is essentially one that are the variety of arguments that have been sent around dealing with the semantics of the wording of NSUN Resolution #7. The fact that it has created such a wide amount of discussion is a demonstration of the probblematic nature that the resolution itself has created. I feel that because of its ambiguity, it has caused even more of these hypothetical issues to be brought up as arguments in favour or opposing the repeal.

In reality, it can go either way you wish to pose it. While there are benefits in ambiguity, in terms of such a resolution, I think that the ambiguous nature of the it has actually caused more problems than it was intending to solve. In reality, the discussion about this aspect has descended more into a general freedoms debate rather than a specific sexual freedoms debate.

The second issue is twofold. The first is about an actual alternative. The second is about trust within the NSUN.

What would be an actual alternative beyond something that in principle is correct, but lacks a definitive framework that would ensure sexual freedoms are protected, if the process involves a repeal to create a new resolution, then it may be the hoop that one needs to jump through. A more definite resolution with some more specific definitions would assist in the overall development of a stance that would ensure sexual freedoms are more well protected.

The second issue is something that is, in reality, probably asking a lot of people by the draftees of the revised resolution. While I admire the concept of trust, I think that its a little idealistic to ask NSUN members to trust the proposee of the resolution, even though I have placed my trust in them to do the right thing by us. Political reality must have effect here and I think that in reality, more information would have had the positive affect to garner more swinging votes to effect the repeal.

I don't know why everyone has their knickers in a twist anyway. Looks to me like the repeal is well on its way to losing.

If this repeal fails by a large margin I will take Tzorsland out of the United Nations. That will probably screw over my region because we only got three UN members in my region in the first place, but I don't care. I would then probably lead the King in a revolt against that Prime Minister we got who keeps turning the opposition into Barbie Dolls.

(By the way, for the record, I'm considering a 2/3 vote against a wide margin, if for some reason the repeal fails by a few hundred votes I definitely won't leave the UN, but if it's 12,000 to 6,000 I will be heading out the door and never looking back.)

Bye the way, I like the UN, I just hate the morons who are flooding the voting booths and the forums lately.

((OOC: :rolleyes: Oh boohoohoo.))

IC:

It would be a shame if Tzorsland were to leave us as a result of its' growing impatience towards the members of the organization. Now more than ever we should need the presence of its' sound minded representatives to further educate the nations who need guidance towards proper understanding of world politics.

These are difficult times, yes, but do not be tested and vanquished by them.

The repeal is FAILING!!!!

:fluffle:

[Happily raises his arm at the Cluichstani delegation.]

It's great to see my boy Nadnerb back at the UN! Almost enough to make me forget I have a job to do here. Um, what were we voting on again?


Hey, Alex! Great to be back! Shots in my office after the debate! Oh, and bring along that VP of yours, too. I've missed checking out that ass!

THe Palentine also votes in favor of this repeal. however unlike some of my estemed collegues..like my comarade from Ausserland...we do not wish to see a replacement resolution. We believe in the most strongest terms that an international organization has no business in the bedrooms of conscenting adults(as long as animals and children aren't involved). We further state that if one wishes to dress up like a Japanese Schoolgirl, place a ball gag in their mouth, and be spanked with a rubber iguana in time to The Stars and Stripes Forever, by John Philip Sousa, then that is their own perogative. I might personally think that you are a deviant, but it's your right to do so...I just don't care to know about it.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

If that's what you want, I'm sure I can have my deputy ambassador, Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg), arrange it for you.

While Ana Koskinen follows Ambassador Zyryanov out of the GA with tears in her eyes and vomit on her chin, Juhani flips open his phone and dials UNBM while walking after the Counselor.

"Hi. Who do we call when ambassadors begin beheading other ambassadors, regardless of their belonging to the same delegation?"

Tommo the Stout, disgusted but unmoved, rises to his feet.

"I've registered my vote FOR this repeal.

"Sheik Nadnerb, is there any particular reason why you had to do that in the GA?"

Yeah, the guy was pissing me off.

Oh, and I'm just an asshole like that.

Umdiroplach and Pendankr stare at the headless body of Larebil bin Cluich, then stare at each other for a moment before rising to their feet and clapping.

"Bravo, bravo! Good show! Excellent motion there, you've got some skill with that thing!" Pendankr exclaims. "Takes me back to my old days as a commando... course, I used my bare hands some of the time. It's good to see you back, Nadnerb."

Good to be back, my friend.

He settles down, then pulls out a phone and dials the number of the Cluichstani delegation. "Yeah, this is Landaman Pendankr. Tell Nadnerb he's got some real cojones...No, I don't know what it means either. I thought you would. Okay. Yeah... well, tell him that if he ever wants to work off some steam, there's a wonderful sporting club on the Imperial Prison World of Humyana. He'll know where i'm going with this."

One of Sheik Nadnerb's aides whispers something in his ear.

Tell him I may have to take him up on that offer sometime soon -- probably right after this ignorance that passes for debate around here.

That would probably be the Maintence of Order Department, but considering how much they're cheering over the death of, as they put it, that "damn Cluichistani hippie," I doubt that they're going to do anything about it. On the other hand Sheik Nadnerb might want to steer clear of the head janitor, Pamela Richards, she's a little pissed about the mess he made and the last time I saw her that pissed off she threw a delegate through a wall.

Duly noted. I try to steer clear of women employed to clean out toilets and the like anyway.

St Jello Biafra;11884932']OOC: Actually, that does deductively follow, doesn't it? Granted, the truth of the premises is arguable, but it is deductively valid and therefore not a fallacy.

The trouble is that it was based on a faulty premise: "Doing something is better than doing nothing." Say we've got a problem with a disease running rampant among the populations of the world. In response, I kill a hippie. I just did something, but did it have any effect whatsoever on the issue of the disease? No.

The repeal is FAILING!!!!

:fluffle:

Get your fucking fluffles outta here. You might be the next to feel the bite of my scimitar.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Hey, Alex!OOC: Actually, that was the president. :p

OOC: Actually, that was the president. :p

OOC: I got confused. It seemed to me like both were speaking in that post. Chalk it up to early-morning idiocy -- and trying to me trying to wade through the sewage that people have been posting in this thread.

*Antonio Santocanale walks in, carrying a pitcher of reddish liquid and some glasses*

Good morning, paisans! Who wants a bloody mary? I just made 'em.


You might see no problem with it, but it is certainly unbecoming of the UN to endorse such an idea, don't you think?
What, what! You're still goin' on about this crap? Stop breakin' my balls already.

Once more, this time in English or French, please. I can't even make sense of that with a translator. I don't see much of a reason to insult someone in a language they don't know unless one is worried about the repercussions of such an act. So if you're concerned that I might take offense to a reference to my mother (to whom references are generally insulting), you may as well keep it in your own tongue.
Nah. Nah. I was complimenting your mother. The woman is a saint. Translated it says "Tommo is fortunate to have a mother of such astonishing beauty and virtue".

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador
Tommo "The Stout"...what? Tommo "The Stout" Ambassador? What's your last name?

St Jello Biafra;11884924']Well that's asinine.

Let's not degrade to namecalling and insults, if you don't mind.

Why the hell would you vote on something without understanding its consequences?

I'm fully aware of the consequences of eveything that we vote for. In this case, it will result in the repeal of Sexual Freedom. End of story. There are no further consequences that will result from this vote, should it pass. Nations will be free to legislate on the matter as they please. Should a replacement be submitted for our approval, that will be judged on its own merits and/or flaws and we will vote accordingly. The consequences of that will depend on the content of the replacement. As for this vote, however, the real result will be that we would remove useless drivel from the pages of UN law.

Surely there are going to be unforeseeable consequences with every piece of legislation, but in this case one of those consequences (the replacement resolution) is pre-existing, and I for one cannot see why certain representatives are so adamantly opposed to informed voting.

Because the repeal is sound. The arguments against Sexual Freedom are sound. The replacement may never get passed by the General Assembly, no matter how well written it is, so why bother cluttering up this debate with arguments over that. The only information necessary to voting for (or against) the repeal is the text of the original resolution, and the arguments within the repeal. Anything else is mere distraction.

Yes, this repeal should be "voted upon" based on its own merits... I'd argue, however, that those include the potential replacement.

Why? The arguments of the repeal are sound enough to stand on their own. The replacement is future consideration that would only become relevant should the repeal pass.

St Jello Biafra would like to thank the representative from Community Property for sharing our sentiments in pushing for an informed debate and vote. As such, we are withdrawing our vote for this repeal and will be abstaining until further information on the replacement resolution is provided.

It is very unfortunate that you feel this way. I understand the desire to test drive a car before you buy it, but shouldn't you decide that you will be buying a car first?

Nah. Nah. I was complimenting your mother. The woman is a saint. Translated it says "Tommo is fortunate to have a mother of such astonishing beauty and virtue".


My italian may be a little rusty, but that is NOT what you said about his mother or any other member of his family.

I think the current resolution is complete rubbish.

The only thing that is holding back this repeal is the public fear that nothing better or agreeable would come along to replace it.

I'd be thrilled to write a draft of a resolution that would address the noted issues and others that I don't think have been addressed publicly, but obviously at this point quite a few people have either written drafts or have solid ideas in their mind about what they would like to see, so it would probably be impractical to fight for my ideas on that many fronts.

I think what is needed is a bit of courage, to sweep away a useless, powerless resolution, so that a stronger more deserving replacement can fill the void.

I think the current resolution is complete rubbish.

The only thing that is holding back this repeal is the public fear that nothing better or agreeable would come along to replace it.

I'd be thrilled to write a draft of a resolution that would address the noted issues and others that I don't think have been addressed publicly, but obviously at this point quite a few people have either written drafts or have solid ideas in their mind about what they would like to see, so it would probably be impractical to fight for my ideas on that many fronts.

I think what is needed is a bit of courage, to sweep away a useless, powerless resolution, so that a stronger more deserving replacement can fill the void.

HERE HERE!

*applauds*

I think the current resolution is complete rubbish.

The only thing that is holding back this repeal is the public fear that nothing better or agreeable would come along to replace it.


Finally a voice of sanity. Well said.Hell I don't even want a replacement and I voted for the repeal. As previously stated, I don't see the international need for such a resolution. However, being somewhat familiar with the ways of fluffie thinking, one will be neede because heven forfend we make our own decisions without the UN telling us how high to jump. I'm almost ready to pass out teddy bears for those delegates who seem to have a pathological urge to cuddle a toothless and useless object. Oh well, as General William T.Sherman once said, "Vox populi,vox humbug!"
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

BTW I wish to give the delegate from Greebo Matlock, a Klondike Bar(TM). They deserve it.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/klondike.jpg

Welcome to the UN. I'm interested in seeing how you plan to reconcile the fact that you want to make the world better, but not be subjected to the UNs rulings.

You seem both pleased that the Resolution up for Repeal is vague, and that that is good, but you feel like it should actually do things to protect the privacy of sexual participants. How are you voting on this Repeal? It seems you've stated support both for the Resolution, and for the repeal.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador


I do not believe that any resolution should micromanage how a country is run. I did not say that we won't adhere to the UN rulings. I said, that we are against the UN trying to micromanage how the country is run. There is a difference. :)

Also, I believe the resolution is intentionally vague in order for each country to gauge how they want to proceed with drawing the line between privacy and erm, policing people. The current resolution is brief and makes a point. Anything beyond that point should be left up to individual governments and not be enforced by the UN. The UN should not be an attempt to force conformity on its members and govern their states for them. The UN should offer guidelines and enforce the acceptance of generic rights and obligations etc but not micromanage them. The current resolution just does that.

Anything more detailed would mean that the UN would be advocating conformity over polyphony and in a sense it would end up abolishing the freedoms it is entrusted to protect.

Current UN resolution does not prevent you from having a more detailed law that would give more leeway to the sexual partners to do as they please and it does not prevent a state more interested in order and law to observe and regulate sexual lives more, but it does provide a basic limitation that in my eyes it is sufficient. It need not be detailed more, else it becomes a burden.

In other words, we are voting against the repeal :)

Have a nice day :)

Ice Cream sex....Kool!!!! The old wife ( which still works ) slams the door in your face. :fluffle:

Ice Cream sex....Kool!!!! The old wife ( which still works ) slams the door in your face. :fluffle:

The old wife only works in certain, easily avoidable situations. And for that matter, so does the door.

The more I think about it, the more I support this repeal. So that's my vote.

-Ferroque

The only thing that is holding back this repeal is the public fear that nothing better or agreeable would come along to replace it.

I'd be thrilled to write a draft of a resolution that would address the noted issues and others that I don't think have been addressed publicly, but obviously at this point quite a few people have either written drafts or have solid ideas in their mind about what they would like to see, so it would probably be impractical to fight for my ideas on that many fronts.

I think what is needed is a bit of courage, to sweep away a useless, powerless resolution, so that a stronger more deserving replacement can fill the void.And this is precisely why it was so important to post the replacement.

Yes, on a theoretical level, it could be argued that the repeal should stand or fall on its own. But politics is not about theory; it's about feelings and concerns, and it's especially about fear.

We understand the argument that the current resolution does nothing, and that there is consequently nothing to fear in a repeal. We don't agree, but that's irrelevant; what is important is that many people want a guarantee that government won't intrude into people's sex lives. If you want them to give up their current guarantee, however ineffectual you may declare it to be, you have got to give them something better, and you have to give it in writing.

You can stand on principle, or theory, or whatever, but in politics, theory be d_mn_d, it's all about promises and expectations. Ignore that and you will fail.I think the current resolution is complete rubbish.Let's be honest with ourselves: the early resolutions are the product of a different era, and judging them by current standards is unjustifiable.

If this repeal were to succeed and someone were then to resubmit UNR #7 verbatim, politics aside, it would never make quorum; it would be declared illegal and be struck from consideration before it ever made the floor. But that's not a measure of the quality of UNR #7; it's a reflection of how the rules have changed since the early days of the United Nations.

The early resolutions were simple and direct; they spoke in generalities, and must be understood this way. Today's resolutions are turgid and legalistic, which may well be why people don't read them. We should pause to consider that among the great works of human liberalism - the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to name a few - not a one of these would be acceptable as a UN Resolution under current standards.

It's a triumph of the lawyers, at the expense of political philosophers, and it comes from all the legalists out there who trumpet about how “we're not affected by your stupid resolution”. Well, Gruenberg, Kenny, and all the rest of you be d_mn_d, you are affected, because your stats (or those of your U.N. puppet) are affected, like it or not. Call that “metagaming” if you want; I'll respond by calling you a charlatan and a fool.

UNR #7 is clear as a bell; it speaks in the language of its day. Its title, “Sexual Freedom”, it's category (“Human Rights”) and its strength (Strong) tell us what it deals with and how forceful it is far more that any infernal hair-splitting and word-lawyering.

As for the language, in those days there was no distinction between “perambulatory” and “operative” clauses; you said what you wanted to say, and that was that. Take that into consideration, and consider the (RL) context within which it was framed: how many times have (RL) politicians proclaimed that “what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of the government”. How much clearer do you want to get, for crying out loud?

The “privacy of their own homes” is a code phrase, like “fighting terror” (ever try to fight a noun?), “family values” (that depends on your family, doesn't it?), “affirmative action” (as opposed to “negative inaction”?), “political correctness” (that one's just too easy), and the “right to choose” or the “right to life” (self-evident obscuration). I'm not neglecting our overseas brethren; its just that terms like “immigration”, “harmonization”, and “Turkish ascension” don't have the same obvious potential for mayhem.

Or, to put it differently, saying that government has “no place in the bedroom” (another catch-phrase in the “morals” debate) doesn't mean the living room, bathroom, and kitchen table are all O.K.

We're willing to be that the Gnomes didn't hesitate to act on that normative “should” when UNR #7 became law, and we're pretty sure that removing it won't be harmless everywhere, they way the resolution's opponents claim it will.

Anyway, this is all moot; the repeal is going to fail, and so any words we utter at this point are for the future. This is not the first time UNR #7 has faced repeal; it won't be the last. Next time, folks, try a different tack than the one that's failed on two occasions.

Finally, to Tzorland: we urge you not to leave. If people don't read the resolutions, leading to brain-dead debate, perhaps we need to make resolutions easier to read. We believe that if resolution writers were to do this, the level of discourse would rise considerably; at the very least, people would understand the measures they were being asked to vote on.

(Well, that and the mods enforcing some kind of rules of decorum in these chambers. Every legislature has rules to keep debate from breaking down into name-calling; maybe it would be a good thing if we had some, too. Just a thought, but one I'm sure will be met with a tidal wave of obscenties, proving my point far better than I ever could.)

if we repeal this reselution then we would have to replace it with somthing similar that covers the issues that you noted

In order to calm some of the concerns, we have decided to reveal the replacement. It can be found here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11887561#post11887561)


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

In order to calm some of the concerns, we have decided to reveal the replacement. It can be found here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11887561#post11887561)


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of KarmicariaOur thanks. We will reconsider our vote.

What, what! You're still goin' on about this crap? Stop breakin' my balls already.
If they weren't as fragile as your grasp on legal writing, perhaps we wouldn't be having this problem.

Nah. Nah. I was complimenting your mother. The woman is a saint. Translated it says "Tommo is fortunate to have a mother of such astonishing beauty and virtue".

My italian may be a little rusty, but that is NOT what you said about his mother or any other member of his family.

My thoughts exactly. You were better off swallowing your tongue, Mr. Santocanale, than trying to backpedal.

Tommo "The Stout"...what? Tommo "The Stout" Ambassador? What's your last name?
The Stout is a title, Mr. Santocanale. It replaced my last name when I earned it, winning the Norderian version of the Olympics [OOC: The name of which I forgot and will have to look up] twenty-four years ago. The games only occur every decade. In fact, I still hold the national record in the axe throwing competition for accuracy. My last name is of no consequence to you.

I do not believe that any resolution should micromanage how a country is run. I did not say that we won't adhere to the UN rulings. I said, that we are against the UN trying to micromanage how the country is run. There is a difference. :)

Also, I believe the resolution is intentionally vague in order for each country to gauge how they want to proceed with drawing the line between privacy and erm, policing people. The current resolution is brief and makes a point. Anything beyond that point should be left up to individual governments and not be enforced by the UN. The UN should not be an attempt to force conformity on its members and govern their states for them. The UN should offer guidelines and enforce the acceptance of generic rights and obligations etc but not micromanage them. The current resolution just does that.

Anything more detailed would mean that the UN would be advocating conformity over polyphony and in a sense it would end up abolishing the freedoms it is entrusted to protect.

Current UN resolution does not prevent you from having a more detailed law that would give more leeway to the sexual partners to do as they please and it does not prevent a state more interested in order and law to observe and regulate sexual lives more, but it does provide a basic limitation that in my eyes it is sufficient. It need not be detailed more, else it becomes a burden.

In other words, we are voting against the repeal :)

Have a nice day :)

It wasn't intentionally vague. It's accidentally vague.

You're a sovereigntist. I'm an internationalist on human rights causes. You're right not to want micromanagement. I don't want micromanagement either. Our difference, though, is in where we see an end to UN power. There are some things that I'll not allow the UN to be actionless in. Sexual Freedoms is one. Thus -- I'm tired of UNR 7. It is nothing but a blocker at this point.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

And this is precisely why it was so important to post the replacement.

No. Did you actually read what was written? What they were claiming is that people should put their fears aside.

Yes, on a theoretical level, it could be argued that the repeal should stand or fall on its own. But politics is not about theory; it's about feelings and concerns, and it's especially about fear.

Good politics are not based on emotion at all, especially fear. Good politics are based on the desire to make sound governing decisions that will benefit the masses.

We understand the argument that the current resolution does nothing, and that there is consequently nothing to fear in a repeal.

Showing that you haven't even read the repeal. The argument that you state has been made was not made by the repeal. The repeal argues that the current resolution is widely open to abuse, not that it does nothing.

We don't agree, but that's irrelevant; what is important is that many people want a guarantee that government won't intrude into people's sex lives.

So grant them that guarantee. There is absolutely nothing stopping nations from covering this legislative area on their own.

If you want them to give up their current guarantee, however ineffectual you may declare it to be, you have got to give them something better, and you have to give it in writing.

Why? Why can't nations cover the gap for themselves in the meantime. For that matter, it would have been assumed that nations that have this protection in place did so at the behest of the UN instead of simply leaving the UN resolution fill the void for them, so all they need do is not strike the law from their own books when the UN does. Are there national governments out there that are actually that incompetent?

You can stand on principle, or theory, or whatever, but in politics, theory be d_mn_d, it's all about promises and expectations.

Only in a corrupt system. You're right - theory be damned. Let politicians step forward and simply do what is right, without being given promises of a brighter tomorrow. Let them correct the follies of the past so that the future will be able to benefit from our actions, instead of hiding behind our fear of what may never come to pass.

Ignore that and you will fail.

Ignoring emotional response to attempt to achieve a rational conclusion is hardly failure. Foregoing reason to follow fear is a complete failure of legislation.

Let's be honest with ourselves: the early resolutions are the product of a different era, and judging them by current standards is unjustifiable.

That doesn't follow at all. In ages past, there were laws (products of a different era) that mandated the burning of red-headed women. These laws are ridiculous when judged by the current standards, and so there are none on the UN law books. It is entirely justifiable to judge any currently extant law by the current standards.

If this repeal were to succeed and someone were then to resubmit UNR #7 verbatim, politics aside, it would never make quorum; it would be declared illegal and be struck from consideration before it ever made the floor. But that's not a measure of the quality of UNR #7; it's a reflection of how the rules have changed since the early days of the United Nations.

That hardly justifies leaving that tripe on the books.

The early resolutions were simple and direct;

And poorly written, and filled with loopholes, and generally were just bad law.

they spoke in generalities, and must be understood this way.

As generally bad.

Today's resolutions are turgid and legalistic, which may well be why people don't read them.

We write laws that seem legalistic? I wonder why that might be. People don't read them because they don't place such things high enough on their priority list to warrant attention. They can't be bothered to try to understand what it really means, so they vote off knee-jerk reaction without really taking the time to realize what they're doing.

We should pause to consider that among the great works of human liberalism - the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to name a few - not a one of these would be acceptable as a UN Resolution under current standards.

OOC: Let's try to keep the RL references to a minimum shall we. RL=/=NS. As is, there is a Universal Bill of Rights on the NSUN books, as well a number of resolutions dealing with human rights in general, the rights and duties of UN member nations.

It's a triumph of the lawyers,

That they get to make law? That's like saying that is a triumph of neurosurgeons that they get to perform brain surgery. They're the ones who must work with it, and are, generally, most qualified to write it. Why the hell wouldn't we let the legalist deal with legal matters?

at the expense of political philosophers,

Political philosophers are fine for coming up with ideas, but philosophers are not the ones to go to for application of ideas.

and it comes from all the legalists out there who trumpet about how “we're not affected by your stupid resolution”.

That just means that their lawyers are better than the lawyers who wrote the bill.

Well, Gruenberg, Kenny, and all the rest of you be d_mn_d, you are affected, because your stats (or those of your U.N. puppet) are affected, like it or not. Call that “metagaming” if you want; I'll respond by calling you a charlatan and a fool.

OOC:It isn't metagaming. It's you, as a player, attacking other players. It isn't generally smiled upon, and it will stop. I have no modly powers, nor do I feel like being a snitch, but we prefer to keep flaming and flame-baiting to a minimum on these forums. you may wish to clearly delineate which sections of your posts are OOC for such things as referencing stat wanking, which Gruen, Kenny, and most of the rest of us, don't do IC. Metagaming gets into OOC areas. To even bring it up is an OOC thing. Call it what you want, it's an unprovoked attack on the player, and unnacceptable.

UNR #7 is clear as a bell; it speaks in the language of its day. Its title, “Sexual Freedom”, it's category (“Human Rights”) and its strength (Strong) tell us what it deals with and how forceful it is far more that any infernal hair-splitting and word-lawyering.

By that logic, I could submit a proposal entitled Environmental Protection, category of Environmental, affecting All Industries, and it should be able to pass with no text at all within the law because its meaning is clear by those standards. The language acceptable way back in the day may have allowed for these things, but they are not acceptable today.

As for the language, in those days there was no distinction between “perambulatory” and “operative” clauses; you said what you wanted to say, and that was that.

But today the distinction is there, and there is no reason why we should keep laws on the books that do not meet today's higher standards of legislation. We are not a society for preservation of crap. We are a union of nations interested in the betterment of the world. If some archaic piece of legislation steps in the way, it needs to be removed.

And it's PREambulatory. As in stuff that goes into the PREamble. There is no section of a resolution called a peramble.

Take that into consideration, and consider the (RL) context within which it was framed: how many times have (RL) politicians proclaimed that “what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of the government”. How much clearer do you want to get, for crying out loud?

OOC:Clear enough that it transcends the boundary between RL and NS. The two do not equate, nor should equations between the two be attempted. As for RL politicians, they proclaim all kinds of things that they never follow through on. They make laws that they then proceed to ignore. What we proclaim in law is just that - law. What is written comes to pass and nations are held in compliance. RL=/=NS.

The “privacy of their own homes” is a code phrase, like “fighting terror” (ever try to fight a noun?), “family values” (that depends on your family, doesn't it?), “affirmative action” (as opposed to “negative inaction”?), “political correctness” (that one's just too easy), and the “right to choose” or the “right to life” (self-evident obscuration). I'm not neglecting our overseas brethren; its just that terms like “immigration”, “harmonization”, and “Turkish ascension” don't have the same obvious potential for mayhem.

OOC: More RL referencing. All of it completely irrelevant. One would be well-informed to note that these are phrases that we do not use in NS legislature. Nor, for that matter, are they really used in RL legislature. These are simply buzz-words that politicians use to appease the masses of the voting populace.

Or, to put it differently, saying that government has “no place in the bedroom” (another catch-phrase in the “morals” debate) doesn't mean the living room, bathroom, and kitchen table are all O.K.

The law means what the law says. All it takes is a semi-competent laywer to interpret the law to say that the government has every right to do whatever it wants to anyone who does not meet every single letter of the law requirement put in place to protect them. That's why we let the lawyers write the laws.

We're willing to be that the Gnomes didn't hesitate to act on that normative “should” when UNR #7 became law,

I'd be willing to bet they did when they came face to face with some nation's crack legal team that threatened them with various federal level charges ranging from unlawful trespassing to treason to international terrorism.

and we're pretty sure that removing it won't be harmless everywhere, they way the resolution's opponents claim it will.

Didn't say it would be harmless. Said that nations who wish to can cover this gap all on their own, without the UN holding their hand.

Anyway, this is all moot; the repeal is going to fail, and so any words we utter at this point are for the future. This is not the first time UNR #7 has faced repeal; it won't be the last. Next time, folks, try a different tack than the one that's failed on two occasions.

You really haven't read the repeal, have you? This repeal uses an almost completely different text than the previous attempt. Nearly every line has been rewritten, with some arguments dropped and others added. You've been arguing on and on this whole time without ever once actually targetting the substance of the actual repeal, you're just so terrified of actually moving forward with anything until you know exactly what the next step is that your grinding your mental processes to a complete halt. Go do that in the corner until you sort yourself out. There's business that needs to be discussed by those of us willing to actually make a difference.

Finally, to Tzorland: we urge you not to leave. If people don't read the resolutions, leading to brain-dead debate, perhaps we need to make resolutions easier to read.

We could make them as easy to read as you please. It will not necessarily lead to improved readership, and it will, most definitely lead to loophole riddled pieces of gibberish that do nothing but clutter up the law books. We would be better off finding some way of convincing nations to stop sending us their stupid to act as ambassadors.

We believe that if resolution writers were to do this, the level of discourse would rise considerably; at the very least, people would understand the measures they were being asked to vote on.

If the people wish to understand what they are voting on, they have but to ask. I have yet to see a single instance where someone has politely asked for clarification and it wasn't granted with all due respect and in a format that the average layman could understand.

(Well, that and the mods enforcing some kind of rules of decorum in these chambers.

This coming from the man who managed to insult more than a couple of people in this single post. Pot, I declare thee black.

Every legislature has rules to keep debate from breaking down into name-calling; maybe it would be a good thing if we had some, too.

And you look like a kettle.

Just a thought, but one I'm sure will be met with a tidal wave of obscenties, proving my point far better than I ever could.)

What would have proved your point much better would be if you were to have said all of this without resorting to insults and the like yourself. I direct you to the delegation from Ausserland. With extremely rare exception, they comport themselves with every ounce of decorum, respect, and dignity that one would traditionally expect of the position of ambassador to the UN. That said, these are not traditional halls, nor are we a traditional group of delegations, so deal with it, and move on.

*Good god, snip!*

Classic first post. :rolleyes:

We too wish to thank the representative from Karmicaria for consenting to an informed debate, and wish it to be noted that our support is once again FOR the repeal.

Now that that's taken care of, can we please move on to discussing the merits of the repeal itself?

Why the fuck would we want this repealed? This keeps the cops at bay, people! Take a look at this: "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state". Now I'm not a freakin' legal scholar, that's the job of my consigliere, but this sounds like the police can't bust into places where they aren't welcome. Am I right? Am I right? Fortunately, it appears that the good people of the United Nations are rejecting it, but Jesus Christ, why would anyone try to repeal it in the first place?


Antonio "Tony Knuckles" Santocanale
Nephew of Carmine Santocanale, the Capo di tutti capi, who has had the misfortune of being assigned to the fuckin' UN and ain't too happy with it, if you know what I mean.

Hey Knuckles, BASTA! Shut'cher piehole, paisan. Relax. Have a cannoli.

Resolution #7 is at worst a deterrent to criminal investigations and at worst a piece of useless tripe with less power to grant or stop anything than one square of wet toilet paper has to hold back a charging rhino.

However, once again, the NSGA is looking squarely at the title of the resolution to be repealed and phreaking out for fear of being arrested because they like beating one another's scrotums with ball-peen hammers while they take turns blowing the cat (or some other outre but perfectly legal between consenting adults sexual practice). For the love of all that's reasonable, repeal this turd of a resolution and let if flush down the toilet of obsolescence.

Replacement or not, #7 is useless. It "protects" with soft and "suggestive" language a vague concept and never even mentions sexual activity within the body of its text. So I beg of those who've not yet voted, stop falling for titles and repeal this damned thing.

Hi, we are new, we are from the region of Spitaki in the SE Mediterranean. We are the first in the region to get into the UN! :)

Congratulations.

We understand that the current resolution has certain problems, but we believe that the UN should not regulate every fine detail in our land. We became part of the UN to make the world better and not put ourselves under the command of a faceless world government assembly. In this light, we believe that the vagueness of the resolution is good.

So...wait. You don't like micromanagement of behavioral issues, but this resolution is okay because it's...vague. See, it's not just vague, it's powerless. It "suggests" that the police not hassle folks in their homes, and doesn't even mention any of the sexual behavior (or even words like sexual behavior) in its text. So the choice is repeal it and the control of sexual law returns to the nations, or keep it, and control of the law -- ready? -- STAYS WITH THE NATIONS because #7 has no gums, let alone teeth. It's so vague that it does nothing.

As far as crime is concerned, we do not believe that the police should have the right to terrorise the population of our country and check in on their sexual activities. The police should find other means to prove or disprove crimes of such nature.

Does your nation have due process and a warrant-for-search policy in place for its police force? If so, then *poof* your police already don't have the right to terrorize the population or check on their sexual activities without probable cause. One more time -- Resolution #7 does NOTHING. It's peeling sunburn skin -- let's remove it and get on with life.

On behalf of the region of Bacardi, we vote for the repeal. The original resolution is a steaming pile.

Good Lord, I woke up for this

UNR #7 is clear as a bell; it speaks in the language of its day.It "speaks in the language of it's day" huh. Well then, maybe it's time to "update" it's language. Oh wait, I forgot I was talking to the delegation whose computers in their offices are still running MSDOS (or so my contact inside the UN Building Management tells me).
Its title, “Sexual Freedom”, it's category (“Human Rights”) and its strength (Strong) tell us what it deals with and how forceful it is far more that any infernal hair-splitting and word-lawyering.Bull shit, if you can't tell exactly what a resolution does without referring to the title then it desperatly needs to be rewritten.

OOC: Didn't we have this arguement with one of the mods once?

As for the language, in those days there was no distinction between “perambulatory” and “operative” clauses; you said what you wanted to say, and that was that. Take that into consideration, and consider the (RL) context within which it was framed: how many times have (RL) politicians proclaimed that “what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of the government”. How much clearer do you want to get, for crying out loud?Well, since the resolution is supposed to be about sexual freedom, how about something saying that those consenting adults can do sexually is no business of the governement. You know, actually get what the resolution's about actually in the text of the resolution.

Anyway, this is all moot; the repeal is going to fail, and so any words we utter at this point are for the future. This is not the first time UNR #7 has faced repeal; it won't be the last. Next time, folks, try a different tack than the one that's failed on two occasions.You know, if your crystal ball's so good, could I get next week's lottery numbers?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You know what I like about old computers!! You can delete the un-wanted new 'cookies' that is not wanted or asked for! DOS ROCKS!!! :fluffle:

You know what I like about old computers!! You can delete the un-wanted new 'cookies' that is not wanted or asked for! DOS ROCKS!!! :fluffle:

Go....



Away.

You know what I like about old computers!! You can delete the un-wanted new 'cookies' that is not wanted or asked for! DOS ROCKS!!! :fluffle:

Yes, that's wonderful. Can we please get back on topic. I don't have time to sit here a talk about computers. I have a wedding to plan.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I Voted against it

I Voted against it

Any gems of insight into why?

Oh wait, I forgot I was talking to the delegation whose computers in their offices are still running MSDOS (or so my contact inside the UN Building Management tells me).We have computers?!?You know, if your crystal ball's so good, could I get next week's lottery numbers?We don't like to further materialism; sorry.And this is precisely why it was so important to post the replacement.No.“No?!?”

Have you looked at the vote count? You're losing by close to a 2:1 margin. Yes, I know, it's because people are stupid and can't or don't read, blah, blah, blah, blah. Boy, that perspective on your utter failure is sure going to help you do better next time 'round.

Or not.

Look, there's an old saying in rehab: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If people are just stupid, lazy, and illiterate, then your side in this debate is permanently scr_w_d, because you'll never overcome those obstacles, and so your next attempt at getting rid of UNR #7 will fail like the last two have.

It must be H_ll to be you, huh?

Or...

You can try to figure out what mistakes you made. we're here to tell you, not posting your replacement here well in advance and building support for it before you tried the repeal was one of the big ones.

And so was the patronizing argument that, “You don't need to know what the replacement is going to look like, this thing's a turkey and should be tossed regardless of whether it gets replaced or not.” You used that same argument last time, too; if it failed you then, why should it do the job now?

This is all politics, but you refuse to approach it that way; it's no surprise that you're getting stomped. If you just want to whine about how rotten this place is, keep doing what you're doing. But if you want to get things done, change your tactics.Did you actually read what was written?Yes, we did – and so did most of the delegates who voted against your repeal. We know because we've been lobbying them. But if you and your peers want to continue to view yourselves as the only intelligent people in the U.N., go ahead. Who are we to mess with a good ego trip?Good politics are not based on emotion at all, especially fear. Good politics are based on the desire to make sound governing decisions that will benefit the masses.<yawn>

Do you want to feel superior, or do you want to win?We don't agree, but that's irrelevant; what is important is that many people want a guarantee that government won't intrude into people's sex lives.So grant them that guarantee. There is absolutely nothing stopping nations from covering this legislative area on their own.It's no surprise you're losing; you don't understand the feelings of the majority.You can stand on principle, or theory, or whatever, but in politics, theory be d_mn_d, it's all about promises and expectations.Only in a corrupt system. You're right - theory be damned. Let politicians step forward and simply do what is right, without being given promises of a brighter tomorrow. Let them correct the follies of the past so that the future will be able to benefit from our actions, instead of hiding behind our fear of what may never come to pass.Ignore that and you will fail.Ignoring emotional response to attempt to achieve a rational conclusion is hardly failure. Foregoing reason to follow fear is a complete failure of legislation.You comfy in that ivory tower of yours?

Seems both sides got what they wanted here; opponents won and proponents got to feel superior. To each, his own.Let's be honest with ourselves: the early resolutions are the product of a different era, and judging them by current standards is unjustifiable.That doesn't follow at all. In ages past, there were laws (products of a different era) that mandated the burning of red-headed women. These laws are ridiculous when judged by the current standards, and so there are none on the UN law books. It is entirely justifiable to judge any currently extant law by the current standards.There were N.S.U.N. Resolutions mandating the burning of red-headed women? Really? Honestly, we never got that memo.Today's resolutions are turgid and legalistic, which may well be why people don't read them.We write laws that seem legalistic? I wonder why that might be. People don't read them because they don't place such things high enough on their priority list to warrant attention. They can't be bothered to try to understand what it really means, so they vote off knee-jerk reaction without really taking the time to realize what they're doing.Always better to gripe than to address the problem; it's easier and makes you feel better besides.We should pause to consider that among the great works of human liberalism - the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to name a few - not a one of these would be acceptable as a UN Resolution under current standards.OOC: Let's try to keep the RL references to a minimum shall we. RL=/=NS. As is, there is a Universal Bill of Rights on the NSUN books, as well a number of resolutions dealing with human rights in general, the rights and duties of UN member nations.It's a triumph of the lawyers,That they get to make law? That's like saying that is a triumph of neurosurgeons that they get to perform brain surgery. They're the ones who must work with it, and are, generally, most qualified to write it. Why the hell wouldn't we let the legalist deal with legal matters?You totally missed the point.

We're sorry, we can't help you. If you don't see the attraction of people being able to write and vote on resolutions that look like the RL documents we've cited, in preference to tangled, turgid imitations of the USC, you're hopeless; we're better off moving along to someone who actually gets it.Take that into consideration, and consider the (RL) context within which it was framed: how many times have (RL) politicians proclaimed that “what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of the government”. How much clearer do you want to get, for crying out loud?OOC:Clear enough that it transcends the boundary between RL and NS. The two do not equate, nor should equations between the two be attempted. As for RL politicians, they proclaim all kinds of things that they never follow through on. They make laws that they then proceed to ignore. What we proclaim in law is just that - law. What is written comes to pass and nations are held in compliance. RL=/=NS.The “privacy of their own homes” is a code phrase, like “fighting terror” (ever try to fight a noun?), “family values” (that depends on your family, doesn't it?), “affirmative action” (as opposed to “negative inaction”?), “political correctness” (that one's just too easy), and the “right to choose” or the “right to life” (self-evident obscuration). I'm not neglecting our overseas brethren; its just that terms like “immigration”, “harmonization”, and “Turkish ascension” don't have the same obvious potential for mayhem.OOC: More RL referencing. All of it completely irrelevant. One would be well-informed to note that these are phrases that we do not use in NS legislature. Nor, for that matter, are they really used in RL legislature. These are simply buzz-words that politicians use to appease the masses of the voting populace.People use terminology to which they are accustomed; they speak in the vernacular of the day. Ignoring that vernacular is only going to lead to frustration and political defeat.

Oh, and since you insist...

OOC: The people who play this game live in RL. Why should we be surprised when they bring the concepts, terminology, reactions, and yes, even catch-phrases they have heard in RL into the game?

Few people are such excellent RP'ers as to achieve complete separation from RL for the sake of total immersion in a game, especially one many people play only once a week or so. In fact, even among frequent RP'ers, the tendency is to RP oneself. In light of this reality, a failure to appreciate that RL people playing an RP game will respond to RL influences subtly (or not so subtly) translated into the game is yet another easy path to political defeat.The law means what the law says. All it takes is a semi-competent laywer to interpret the law to say that the government has every right to do whatever it wants to anyone who does not meet every single letter of the law requirement put in place to protect them. That's why we let the lawyers write the laws.Great. Then let's let the lawyers write the laws (by adopting the RP convention that it's constantly happening behind the scenes) and spend our time RP'ing world leaders, shall we?

That's the essence of the problem with this body: too many people who ought to be world leaders are pretending to be lawyers. Think about it.You really haven't read the repeal, have you?G_d, this has become such a throwaway insult that it no longer has any meaning.

Yes, we read it. But if it makes you feel better to think that the people who don't agree with you are stupid, hey, go for it.There's business that needs to be discussed by those of us willing to actually make a difference.Do you even begin to realize how remarks like that marginalize your position?We would be better off finding some way of convincing nations to stop sending us their stupid to act as ambassadors.See the previous statement.That said, these are not traditional halls, nor are we a traditional group of delegations, so deal with it, and move on.And you wonder why this body is the way it is?

The impassioned orations of the representative of Community Property always seem to make so much sense until you look hard at what he's saying. Then you realize what utter nonsense he's spouting.


You can stand on principle, or theory, or whatever, but in politics, theory be d_mn_d, it's all about promises and expectations. Ignore that and you will fail.Let's be honest with ourselves: the early resolutions are the product of a different era, and judging them by current standards is unjustifiable.

Not so at all. It's sensible and responsible. This is not a question of "Was this good legislation for its time?" The question is "Is this good legislation?" If this Assembly has become more sophisticated in its understanding of legislation, we would fail in our responsibilities if we refused to try to improve the corpus of legislation we inherited. The Model T was a wonderful automobile for its time. Would the representative suggest we should all be driving them today? Would he like teachers to go back to teaching the flat-earth theory because that was acceptable science in its day?

UNR #7 is clear as a bell; it speaks in the language of its day. Its title, “Sexual Freedom”, it's category (“Human Rights”) and its strength (Strong) tell us what it deals with and how forceful it is far more that any infernal hair-splitting and word-lawyering.

Wonderful! Now, not only are we expected to go look at the title of a badly written resolution to figure out what it's talking about, we're supposed to go check the category and strenth to try to figure out what its effects are. Preposterous. The representative is quite correct. The resolution is clear as a bell. It is perfectly clear that it places no requirements whatsoever on any nation to do or refrain from doing a single thing. It is utterly useless.

As for the language, in those days there was no distinction between “perambulatory” and “operative” clauses; you said what you wanted to say, and that was that. Take that into consideration, and consider the (RL) context within which it was framed: how many times have (RL) politicians proclaimed that “what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of the government”. How much clearer do you want to get, for crying out loud?

And those statements of opinion or principle are not law. That's the point. This resolution does not make law. It simply states an opinion. That statement binds no one, and the resolution is simply completely ineffectual. You seem incapable of recognizing the difference between legislation and mere rhetoric.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

/me gives Community Property a handful of vowels. He seems to need them.

Oh, and since you insist...

OOC: The people who play this game live in RL. Why should we be surprised when they bring the concepts, terminology, reactions, and yes, even catch-phrases they have heard in RL into the game?

Few people are such excellent RP'ers as to achieve complete separation from RL for the sake of total immersion in a game, especially one many people play only once a week or so. In fact, even among frequent RP'ers, the tendency is to RP oneself. In light of this reality, a failure to appreciate that RL people playing an RP game will respond to RL influences subtly (or not so subtly) translated into the game is yet another easy path to political defeat.

OOC: It's a known fact that the regulars frown on too many RL referrences. As I've heard many times, NS not = RL. That doesn't mean we can't use our RL experience in arguments, but we should avoid blatant referrences to it.

IC: I don't agree with most of what the representitive of Community Property, but sadly, he's right about one thing. Politics IS a game of emotions, not logic. "Good" politics is what works, and that's what emotion does. Sirat isn't democratic, but I have seen elections in democratic nations, and there is a lot of "mudslinging" and appeals to emotion, especially fear, and very little truth or facts. A dictatorship like ours is so much better, but I digress.

scr_w_d
There's a difference between "avoiding excessive profanity" and "just being a dick".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Vaffanculo a Lei, la sua moglie, e' la sua madre. There's some sexual freedom for ya. Vada via in culo!

Antonio "Tony Knuckles" Santocanale
Nephew of Carmine Santocanale, the Capo di tutti capi, who has had the misfortune of being assigned to the fuckin' UN and ain't too happy with it, if you know what I mean.

My Italian's not very good either, but I believe the last sentence there translates roughly to "go shove it up your ass," or is at least a crude attempt at saying that.

Resepctfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I voted no instinct. The text of the repeal was utterly unconvincing. The last page similarly unconvincing. I'm betting the text of the resolution being repealed is the strongest argument for repealing it. Could we perhaps get the first post altered to link to said text, or have it include said text? I didn't just miss such a link did I?

You want the link to the original resolution?

Alrighty then

Sexual Freedom (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5)

Have you looked at the vote count? You're losing by close to a 2:1 margin. Boy, that perspective on your utter failure is sure going to help you do better next time 'round.

Or not.

Look, there's an old saying in rehab: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If people are just stupid, lazy, and illiterate, then your side in this debate is permanently scr_w_d, because you'll never overcome those obstacles, and so your next attempt at getting rid of UNR #7 will fail like the last two have.

We'll start with a basic clarification. This is not my repeal. I didn't write it. I didn't really help with much of the drafting. This belongs to somebody else. I am simply in full support of it.

Further, you continue to prove that you are not actually reading a damn thing that is being put forth. The statement that got made was that the repeal underwent a major overhaul, changing language, arguments, tactics, etc. It is an entirely new thing. Calling it the same thing over and ovver again won't magically make it the same thing.

You can try to figure out what mistakes you made.

If the best you can offer for what the problem is is that people don't understand what they're reading, then perhaps they need to up their education. Seriously, one should not be debating international law if one is incapable of understanding the basic concepts being put forth.

we're here to tell you, not posting your replacement here well in advance and building support for it before you tried the repeal was one of the big ones.

Are we still on about this. Get over it. Move on.

And so was the patronizing argument that, “You don't need to know what the replacement is going to look like, this thing's a turkey and should be tossed regardless of whether it gets replaced or not.” You used that same argument last time, too; if it failed you then, why should it do the job now?


No, we didn't. The last repeal attempt was accompanied with the posting of the replacement for people to debate upon. That ended up causing more problems than it solved because people got entirely too hung up on the replacement and completely forgot that there was a repeal going on. Yet further proof that you really have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Yes, we did – and so did most of the delegates who voted against your repeal. We know because we've been lobbying them. But if you and your peers want to continue to view yourselves as the only intelligent people in the U.N., go ahead. Who are we to mess with a good ego trip?<yawn>

That is sad that you believe this is all about ego. This is about an attempt to improve the quality of life for the whole UN. It is simply frustrating to see that the dunder-headed majority will once again claim victory over more enlightened minds who wish to try to protect the masses from themselves.

You comfy in that ivory tower of yours?

Very. It has a beautiful view of you and yours living in the squalor of ignorance that you've chosen to make your home.

There were N.S.U.N. Resolutions mandating the burning of red-headed women? Really? Honestly, we never got that memo.

Don't be a dick. You know what I meant.

Always better to gripe than to address the problem; it's easier and makes you feel better besides.You totally missed the point.

Fine. Enlighten me. Somehow prove that I missed something that actually resembled a point in your excessively long, protracted diatribe.

Unless, of course you were talking about how you think that laws shouldn't be written by those who have the most training in writing and enacting laws. Yeah. That's a point. Honestly, I can't see anything wrong with allowing the uneducated and uninformed make our decisions for us./sarcasm

We're sorry, we can't help you. If you don't see the attraction of people being able to write and vote on resolutions that look like the RL documents we've cited,

You mean legal documents. I don't know much about the mythical land of RL, but I imagine that their laws are written very much akin to ours her in the NSUN.

in preference to tangled, turgid imitations of the USC, you're hopeless;

What, exactly, about the repeal is turgid or tangled? You have, as yet, to list a single issue or problem with the repeal itself, instead going off about political tactics. Do you actually have anything to say about the repeal? Are you simply here to waste everyone's time? Such would appear to be the case.

we're better off moving along to someone who actually gets it.

Have fun with that. I think you'll find people that think around that level of logic in your average grade 1 class. They might be convinced to discuss political theory with you sometime after lunch and before nap time, because any of them that understand even the slightest bit of political theory will be put to sleep by your drivel.

People use terminology to which they are accustomed; they speak in the vernacular of the day.

And if the day is a day for arguing legalistic views, one should probably come equipped to deal with legal matters. Sorry if you missed the memo.

Ignoring that vernacular is only going to lead to frustration and political defeat.

So why are you ignoring it then?

Oh, and since you insist...

I really really do.

OOC: The people who play this game live in RL. Why should we be surprised when they bring the concepts, terminology, reactions, and yes, even catch-phrases they have heard in RL into the game?

OOC: Because these are phrases and terminology and slang that do not exist within the world of NS. Just as the documents you continually refer to don't exist here. Why should they exist here?

Few people are such excellent RP'ers as to achieve complete separation from RL for the sake of total immersion in a game, especially one many people play only once a week or so.

OOC:That is very unfortunate that people who wish to RP seem unable to. Those with an inability to separate game from RL should probably reconsider their position within the game. Perhaps stick to General where RP doesn't get into it too much. The UN is a primarily RP forum, and it takes away from everyone else's experience when people continually break away from character like this.

In fact, even among frequent RP'ers, the tendency is to RP oneself.

OOC: Even RP'ing one's self within the game still puts the qualification of being in the NS world, which functions differently than RL.

In light of this reality, a failure to appreciate that RL people playing an RP game will respond to RL influences subtly (or not so subtly) translated into the game is yet another easy path to political defeat.

OOC:Yet another occurance of people not separating RL from game. I will not compromise my RP for the sake of people who cannot keep character separate from player. Were I to give IC ground for OOC reasons, I would enjoy the game less, other people would enjoy RP'ing with me less, and the whole thing would become about stat-wanking, metagaming, mechanics, and IP searches. As such, I realize that I will lose the occasional IC battle as a result of others inability to keep RL and RP separate, but I'll enjoy the game more for having not shaken off my character in the debate itself. No hard feelings, mate, but I can't compromise my IC or OOC reality that way.;)

Great. Then let's let the lawyers write the laws (by adopting the RP convention that it's constantly happening behind the scenes) and spend our time RP'ing world leaders, shall we?

OOC: Problem with that. These things that we are debating about are the actual laws. These aren't simply the generic statements of intent that others will add to the law books. This is what will really appear in legislation. That's why we must treat them as lawyers. There isn't any further step past this, it simply takes what passes the GA and adds it to the books.

That's the essence of the problem with this body: too many people who ought to be world leaders are pretending to be lawyers.

Very few national leaders come to sit in the GA. Most of us are ambassadors assigned here by our national leaders, usually because of our legal, debating, or oration skills. If anything, we've got a bunch of lawyers pretending to be world leaders.

G_d, this has become such a throwaway insult that it no longer has any meaning.


Still has just as much meaning until you can actually prove yourself capable of reading the repeal and demonstrating some actual knowledge of the text.

Yes, we read it.

Prove it. Name three specific differences between this version of the repeal and the previous attempt.

But if it makes you feel better to think that the people who don't agree with you are stupid,

I didn't say that they were stupid, I said that you didn't read it.

Do you even begin to realize how remarks like that marginalize your position?

You are, of course, aware of the fact that somewhere around 90% of the voting nations never come to the GA debate floor? As unfortunate as it is, these debates are generally irrelevant when it comes to the turnout of the actual vote.

See the previous statement.

What of it? They keep sending you back.

And you wonder why this body is the way it is?

Nope. I understand why it is the way it is. I just don't like it.

Minor closing: I avoided entire expanses of your statement as being nothing more than spurious insult. Doin' a great job of living up to those expectations you had for these halls, aren't ya? I'm not wasting my time with you until you actually have something constructive or useful to contribute. You're dismissed.

You're dismissed.

Ooh! Can I be dismissed, too? I've got a hot CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21)
chick waiting for me.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ooh! Can I be dismissed, too? I've got a hot CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21)
chick waiting for me.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

No. You must stay and suffer with the rest of us. :p

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

No. You must stay and suffer with the rest of us. :p

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Bugger all. It's not just any hot CPESL chick. It's Anilegna (http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8276/angelinajolie8qp.jpg), CPESL's VP for research...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Of course, given the amount of time you spend in the General Assembly, you could almost declare this as your "home away from home". Erect a little tent around your desk and have her meet you here. It would be in the privacy of your home, so you could do whatever the heck you wanted to her.....as long as she consents.

Of course, given the amount of time you spend in the General Assembly, you could almost declare this as your "home away from home". Erect a little tent around your desk and have her meet you here. It would be in the privacy of your home, so you could do whatever the heck you wanted to her.....as long as she consents.

She better consent! Do you have any idea how much I'm paying for her um...services?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well, if for some reason that doesn't work out, I'm sure there are a few members of the General Assembly that would be more than happy to help out a friend in need. Unfortunately, Ms. LaPreuve is off taking care of some business back home, otherwise she is usually willing to show a strong male figure an invigorating time.

Well, if for some reason that doesn't work out, I'm sure there are a few members of the General Assembly that would be more than happy to help out a friend in need. Unfortunately, Ms. LaPreuve is off taking care of some business back home, otherwise she is usually willing to show a strong male figure an invigorating time.

Hmmm...don't believe I've met this Ms. LaPreuve, though perhaps I should make it a point to do so...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Nope. I understand why it is the way it is. I just don't like it.


Seriously? Why is this body the way it is?

I was against the repeal, but the replacement is better, and the original resolution is nothing but a statement of intent and support. The text of the original is best argument for it's repeal.

"
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7
Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003
"

I will support the repeal of this flawed resolution, as a replacement seems likey, not just some vain hope.

Nice to see that this debate has turned into a pimping service. Maybe we should bring in some of the Karmicarian callboys (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=33&view=findpost&p=1057890) for the ladies of the GA.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

As unfortunate as it is, a great percentage of the voting populace are more swayed by emotion over logic. They see something that will repeal Sexual Freedom, and they are afraid that people are trying to take their rights away. Not enough of them take the time to understand what the original resolution, the repeal, and any potential replacement will actually mean for them. They knee-jerk to the Against side without thought for the consequences for their actions. In this case, keeping the law allows oppressive regimes to continue having their way with the law to do whatever they want to their people. What little it does is easily abused to suit their ends.

Hmmm...don't believe I've met this Ms. LaPreuve, though perhaps I should make it a point to do so...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You may have seen her in passing as the Regional ambassador (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/8_G.jpg) for Kivisto. Lovely girl with a good head for figures and wonderfully adept at manoevering into the appropriate positions for advantageous congressional tactics.

As unfortunate as it is, a great percentage of the voting populace are more swayed by emotion over logic. They see something that will repeal Sexual Freedom, and they are afraid that people are trying to take their rights away. Not enough of them take the time to understand what the original resolution, the repeal, and any potential replacement will actually mean for them. They knee-jerk to the Against side without thought for the consequences for their actions. In this case, keeping the law allows oppressive regimes to continue having their way with the law to do whatever they want to their people. What little it does is easily abused to suit their ends.


Don't blame the voters. The text of the repeal has to overcome this inclination. Sexual Freedom seems to only be a blocker now, it's necessary that we convince people of the fact.

Don't blame the voters. The text of the repeal has to overcome this inclination. Sexual Freedom seems to only be a blocker now, it's necessary that we convince people of the fact.


The issue is that many won't stop to really read and understand the text at all.

You may have seen her in passing as the Regional ambassador (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/8_G.jpg) for Kivisto. Lovely girl with a good head for figures and wonderfully adept at manoevering into the appropriate positions for advantageous congressional tactics.

Ah, yes, I most certainly remember her now. I will definitely have to introduce myself to her properly once she returns to the UN.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Is it time to start passing out "Dope slaps", friend Oskar, and Friend Cluich? just wondering.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Nice to see that this debate has turned into a pimping service. Maybe we should bring in some of the Karmicarian callboys (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=33&view=findpost&p=1057890) for the ladies of the GA.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Would you prefer that everyone go back to bitching about how you won't post the possible replacement?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Would you prefer that everyone go back to bitching about how you won't post the possible replacement?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I don't see how they can go back to bitching about the lack of a replacement when it has already been posted in a different thread.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendome of Karmicaria

I don't see how they can go back to bitching about the lack of a replacement when it has already been posted in a different thread.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendome of Karmicaria

I know that, I was just making a smart ass remark.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Stout is a title, Mr. Santocanale. It replaced my last name when I earned it, winning the Norderian version of the Olympics [OOC: The name of which I forgot and will have to look up] twenty-four years ago. The games only occur every decade. In fact, I still hold the national record in the axe throwing competition for accuracy. My last name is of no consequence to you.
*shrugs* Eh, that's understandable. Some of us don't like to use our real names neither. An' I was just breakin' your balls a little with that other stuff. I'm sure your mother is a wonderful woman. No disrespect was intended to her. Still, we gotta give you a name. Stout sounds like stoat. A stoat is a type of weasel. From now on we'll call you...Tommy "The Weasel".

My Italian's not very good either, but I believe the last sentence there translates roughly to "go shove it up your ass," or is at least a crude attempt at saying that.
Close, very close my friend. It's Sicilian though, not regular Italian.

How'd the two of ya' like some wine? It's a nice Chianti. Here, you gotta try some.

*shoves a bottle of Chianti at Sheik Nadnerb and Tommo*

BTW I wish to give the delegate from Greebo Matlock, a Klondike Bar(TM). They deserve it.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/klondike.jpg

I humbly and graciously accept this confection on behalf of the great people of The Disputed Territories of Greebo Matlock. Sexual Freedom is something our nation is very passionate about, after all - our population is increasing by a million people every day!

Well, if for some reason that doesn't work out, I'm sure there are a few members of the General Assembly that would be more than happy to help out a friend in need.Not for Sheik Nadnerb, I'm afraid; Vice President Morgan was very upset at his treatment of her over their last diplomatic visit. Besides, Miss Morgan's really taken to the former Gruenberger UN ambassador since he moved to Paradise City.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

*shrugs* Eh, that's understandable. Some of us don't like to use our real names neither. An' I was just breakin' your balls a little with that other stuff. I'm sure your mother is a wonderful woman. No disrespect was intended to her. Still, we gotta give you a name. Stout sounds like stoat. A stoat is a type of weasel. From now on we'll call you...Tommy "The Weasel".


Close, very close my friend. It's Sicilian though, not regular Italian.

How'd the two of ya' like some wine? It's a nice Chianti. Here, you gotta try some.

*shoves a bottle of Chianti at Sheik Nadnerb and Tommo*

Two of The Black New World's finest walked into the room. There was a woman with short spiky hair and a leather coat. Holding the hand of a woman with short spiky hair and a pinstripe suit.

"Is this not the lesbian feminazi workshop?"

"I think we must have gone through the wrong door."

The issue is that many won't stop to really read and understand the text at all.

It's still the texts fault. It has to grab the eye, from the very first sentence.

You can blame voters all you want, people have been doing it since the first vote was cast, it won't get you anywhere.

It's still the texts fault. It has to grab the eye, from the very first sentence.

You can blame voters all you want, people have been doing it since the first vote was cast, it won't get you anywhere.

It's not the text,its the title,mate. I've never been convinced that most of the sheeple voting actually read more than the title. Most seem to have a knee jerk reaction to repeals. they certianly do not show up here in these hallowed*cough*Halls to smarten themselves up on the pros and cons of the issues at hand. The people here are kinda like "yellow dog Democrats" and "second coming Republicans". Its the idiotic sheeple that irritate the hell out of me.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Two of The Black New World's finest walked into the room. There was a woman with short spiky hair and a leather coat. Holding the hand of a woman with short spiky hair and a pinstripe suit.

"Is this not the lesbian feminazi workshop?"

"I think we must have gone through the wrong door."
Whoa! Hey ladies, you're looking very nice today, vey nice indeed. How'd ya like to run around with Big Tony for awhile, huh? I got the Cadillac parked outside, we could hit a couple of clubs, see some shows an' then head back to my place, see what happens. Whaddya say?

They should code in a short multiple choice quiz based on the text of a proposal that has to be passed before your vote gets tallied.

Whoa! Hey ladies, you're looking very nice today, vey nice indeed. How'd ya like to run around with Big Tony for awhile, huh? I got the Cadillac parked outside, we could hit a couple of clubs, see some shows an' then head back to my place, see what happens. Whaddya say?

"…the bloody hell? Who's this tosser then? Just coz he has a dick thinks he can shove it anywhere."

"Gods gift to women are ya? I got a gift for ya me self."

The actual beating went very quickly. So quickly that he didn't know what happened. And it would be a while before he realised he was missing his car keys. And had Lady Des's number.

They should code in a short multiple choice quiz based on the text of a proposal that has to be passed before your vote gets tallied.

OOC: what frightens me is that some of these same people have the same right to vote in next Tues. General election in the US of A as I do. *SHUDDER*
Excelsior,

OOC: what frightens me is that some of these same people have the same right to vote in next Tues. General election in the US of A as I do. *SHUDDER*
Excelsior,
Also OOC: Or worse, they could be politicians.

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 repeal of "Sexual Freedom" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region.

Hellar Gray

Also OOC: Or worse, they could be politicians.

OOC: Thanks, now I'll be laying awake tonight wondering which politician I might have torked off. Hello IRS Audit.

*snip*
It "speaks in the language of it's day" huh. Well then, maybe it's time to "update" it's language. Oh wait, I forgot I was talking to the delegation whose computers in their offices are still running MSDOS (or so my contact inside the UN Building Management tells me).
Bull shit, if you can't tell exactly what a resolution does without referring to the title then it desperatly needs to be rewritten.

OOC: Didn't we have this arguement with one of the mods once?

*snip*

Good call. "Speaks in the language of it's day"? What, 2003?!? Precisely how was language so different beyond a couple of neologisms and the fact that the Republican Party was openly saying "stay the course"?

Answer to your OOC question:

We did. Back when I was a few months younger, and a lot dumber, I argued against the first repeal attempt on #7 by claiming that the title mentioned sexual freedom, so the body didn't have to. I was disabused of that notion quickly and efficiently by the likes of the Meddling Monk and Nadnerb bin Cluich.

I've been known to be tenacious in hanging on to a point if I haven't been shown a reasonable refutation, but Disco purchases ingredients, pans, a new stove, a mixer, then makes batter, bakes, cools and ices the cake before he takes it.

The repeal is doomed to failure; there's no point in wasting further time on it.

We have suggested that those who support this repeal reconsider their approach to the problem; no one ever won votes by branding those whose votes they seek as lazy and uninformed. Likewise, bemoaning the fact that just about anyone can join the U.N. and that everybody gets to vote, rather than just the “chattering classes”, does nothing. If you want to succeed, then you'd be well advised to try and figure out what motivated almost two-thirds of all nations voting to oppose this repeal.

And, in doing that, we offer a hint: try to come up with an explanation other than “they're stupid”, “they're lazy”, “they only read the title”, and such; these are useless explanations, since they lead to no conclusion that can possibly aid you in future efforts.

But if you don't want to do that, if you want to rest in your smug superiority and gripe about how the Membership aren't worth a dime, well, go ahead. You'll get precisely the what you deserve: nothing but a plate full of sour grapes.

The repeal is doomed to failure; there's no point in wasting further time on it.

We have suggested that those who support this repeal reconsider their approach to the problem; no one ever won votes by branding those whose votes they seek as lazy and uninformed. Likewise, bemoaning the fact that just about anyone can join the U.N. and that everybody gets to vote, rather than just the “chattering classes”, does nothing. If you want to succeed, then you'd be well advised to try and figure out what motivated almost two-thirds of all nations voting to oppose this repeal.

And, in doing that, we offer a hint: try to come up with an explanation other than “they're stupid”, “they're lazy”, “they only read the title”, and such; these are useless explanations, since they lead to no conclusion that can possibly aid you in future efforts.

But if you don't want to do that, if you want to rest in your smug superiority and gripe about how the Membership aren't worth a dime, well, go ahead. You'll get precisely the what you deserve: nothing but a plate full of sour grapes.

Is that so? In fact, determining that many members don't read past the title or read the text of the proposal only lightly has been an invaluable realization. How do you think we've gotten blockers passed like the "United Nations Security Act" and the "Abortion Legality Convention" and the "UN Educational Aid Act" and the "Fair Sentencing Act" or the "Protection of Marriage Act"? It sure as hell wasn't because the membership demographics changed. It was because we identified part of the problem with getting the legislation we wanted passed, which was that a large portion of the membership was not reading the resolutions very well, and addressed that problem effectively by changing the way they were written to appeal to that voter demographic.

So if you want to rest in your smug superiority regarding our being effective (but not omnipotent) problem-solvers, go ahead. Care for a grape or two?

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The repeal is doomed to failure; there's no point in wasting further time on it.

There's two and a third days left for the vote to change. The repeal gained some 291 votes from Gatesville. Who's to say that the vote cant' change? You?

We have suggested that those who support this repeal reconsider their approach to the problem; no one ever won votes by branding those whose votes they seek as lazy and uninformed.

Our approach to the repeal was not the issue. It was nations like yours which continuously obfuscated the debate and directed attention away from the repeal itself who have been the problem, as well as the vast majority of UN members who don't read anything other than the large title that says "Repeal 'Sexual Freedom'." I'm sorry, but they are simply lazy and uninformed. I would know, I used to be one of those UN nations that just voted on the basis of the title and didn't read the proposal itself. It's much more gratifying this way.

Likewise, bemoaning the fact that just about anyone can join the U.N. and that everybody gets to vote, rather than just the “chattering classes”, does nothing.

Yeah, it doesn't do a goddamn thing to complain about them. The problem is that this is a recurring issue- a good repeal with good arguments is in trouble because the "chattering classes" aren't paying attention.

If you want to succeed, then you'd be well advised to try and figure out what motivated almost two-thirds of all nations voting to oppose this repeal.

Okay. Stupidtiy and laziness. Oh wait, I'm sorry- you said that it wasn't stupidity and laziness. Well, I'm hornswoggled. I can't think of any reasons to vote against repealing a bad resolution, and now that I look back at the debate, neither can you. So, since it's not stupidity or laziness that's the culprit, maybe you'd like to share your opinion on the matter, since ours is wrong?

And, in doing that, we offer a hint: try to come up with an explanation other than “they're stupid”, “they're lazy”, “they only read the title”, and such; these are useless explanations, since they lead to no conclusion that can possibly aid you in future efforts.

See above, oh most clairvoyant one.

But if you don't want to do that, if you want to rest in your smug superiority and gripe about how the Membership aren't worth a dime, well, go ahead. You'll get precisely the what you deserve: nothing but a plate full of sour grapes.

I had a good hearty laugh at this. You have gone on and on for the entirety of this debate complaining about the replacement to the repeal. You have not offered one single reason to oppose the repeal, other than the fear that "Sexual Freedom" will not be replaced. Not a single, effective argument about the repeal has been put forward, not a single coherent and well-thought out reason has been expounded. And that's in general.

So, here you are, sitting on your throne, wagging your finger at us, telling we supporters should be ashamed at ourselves. You haven't added a damn thing to this debate other than pointless griping and bickering!

There's two possible factors here: either we supporters are all wrong and everyone who has voted against this repeal has a prefectly logical, well-founded reason to and is simply chosing not to grace the General Assembley with their august reasoning,

OR;

They're a bunch of idiots who haven't read the fucking proposal, listened to the debate, or even thought about the resolution in terms of the title!

I am inclined to think the latter.

So why don't you just go back to you hemp-wearing, jungle-dwelling country and stop telling us that we're stupid. Because we aren't. You are the largest hypocrite here, and the debate is the worse because of it.

I sent telegrams to some of the delegates with the largest numbers of votes who voted against the repeal. The text of the message was as follows:

"Esteemed UN Delegate,

It has come to our attention that you have voted AGAINST the current UN Proposal to repeal UNR#7 (Sexual Freedom). As an influential nation in your region, your vote carries much weight. It is also clear that your vote was cast early in the debate and as such, it's possible that you have not followed the debate up to it's current status. If this is the case, we urge you to examine the recent arguments in favor of this repeal. The authors of this proposal have chosen to post the current draft of the replacement proposal which has gathered considerable support even among those who have voted against the repeal. As you are well aware, the replacement proposal cannot be submitted for a vote unless the current resolution is repealed. Therefore it is vital that the many votes already cast be reversed.

We appeal to your logic and your dedication to the welfare of your region. It is universally agreed that UNR#7 is faulty and as such needs replaced. The replacement proposal is sound, yet cannot go forward without a successful repeal. Nations concerned about their citizens' rights during the period between repeal and approval of the new resolution need only enact similar laws at the national level. Therefore, it is our suggestion that there is absolutley nothing to lose by repealing UNR#7 - and yet we have everything to gain.

We urge you to review the recent talks on this issue and seriously consider a change of vote.

Respectfully,

Lord Regent Theowold Grimwold III
Voice of The High King of Anago
Protector of the Defenders of The Land
Anago"

I've received a handful of replies already, and most have been polite and friendly and yet almost all replied with responses similar to:

"Personally I don't care one way or the other about the issue but one of the nations in my region asked me to vote against it, so I did."

These responses were from delegates wielding 25-70 votes each.

This proposal needs to pass, I don't hear anyone denying that now. If it doesn't pass this time it will come up again in a slightly different form but personally I'd like to see it go through now so we don't have to wade through all this nonsense again later. What we need to do is to talk to these delegates that have many votes and who have voted against the proposal and explain to them what exactly they're voting for because from the responses I've received it seems to me that apathy is taking control and unfortunately, in a lot of cases, apathy has quite a few votes to spend.

I would personally like to thank the representative of Anago. Your insight and diplomacy is an example I hope to learn from.

I have also been informed that the replacement has been posted on some of the forums of a few of the larger regions to halp assuage any concerns they may have. Hopefull that will be enough.

Initially Unkerlantum was against said resolution not because the government was afraid of abuses being taken within our nation while the the gap between the repeal and the replacement took place, but because we feared other nations would take advantage of the temporary void.

However, after contemplating the matter more thoroughly, and after reading the arguments of other nations in favor of the proposal, we have come to the conclusion that we really don't give a damn what other nations do within their own borders. The government of Unkerlantum fully supports this resolution.

I voted yes because I think that if the people dont express how they feel then they will start to take it out on other people, then crime rates will start to go up and as well as civil rights.

There's two and a third days left for the vote to change. The repeal gained some 291 votes from Gatesville. Who's to say that the vote cant' change? You?Statistical reality; you're too far behind to catch up, and the ration of “nays” to “yeas” has been steady from the outset. Sorry.It was nations like yours which continuously obfuscated the debate and directed attention away from the repeal itself who have been the problem,...The repeal's fate was sealed within hours of our only post on the subject of the repeal resolution itself.... as well as the vast majority of UN members who don't read anything other than the large title that says "Repeal 'Sexual Freedom'." I'm sorry, but they are simply lazy and uninformed. I would know, I used to be one of those UN nations that just voted on the basis of the title and didn't read the proposal itself. It's much more gratifying this way.If that's the case, then this debate made no difference.

But maybe you're right; maybe people are lazy and uninformed. If that's the case, there's nothing you can do to get around that.

See what we mean by unproductive thinking?We urge you to review the recent talks on this issue and seriously consider a change of vote.Good luck.

The problem is that this is a recurring issue- a good repeal with good arguments is in trouble because the "chattering classes" aren't paying attention.FWIW, the term “chattering classes” is a reference to the press and the spin doctors. In the NSUN, that would be the denizens of this forum.So, since it's not stupidity or laziness that's the culprit, maybe you'd like to share your opinion on the matter, since ours is wrong?We already did. You failed to address the concerns of the majority; you just assumed that they'd look at things the way you did. Twice.You have not offered one single reason to oppose the repeal, other than the fear that "Sexual Freedom" will not be replaced. Not a single, effective argument about the repeal has been put forward, not a single coherent and well-thought out reason has been expounded. And that's in general.<whistles>So, here you are, sitting on your throne, wagging your finger at us, telling we supporters should be ashamed at ourselves. You haven't added a damn thing to this debate other than pointless griping and bickering!Ashamed of yourselves? Heavens, no. But this fight was over before you started, and until you realize it, you won't be able to work out a better approach.

OOC: In RL, I know a lot of (fellow) Democrats who make the same mistake. They get the same results, too.There's two possible factors here: either we supporters are all wrong and everyone who has voted against this repeal has a prefectly logical, well-founded reason to and is simply chosing not to grace the General Assembley with their august reasoning,

OR;

They're a bunch of idiots who haven't read the fucking proposal, listened to the debate, or even thought about the resolution in terms of the title!

I am inclined to think the latter.We guess it really s_cks to be in your position, doesn't it?

Big fat hint: “Blame the voter” is the worst possible excuse you can dream up for losing, because it never gets you anywhere. “Understand the voter”, on the other hand, is the essence of political wisdom.

If you don't like losing, get on the road to recovery.So why don't you just go back to you hemp-wearing, jungle-dwelling country and stop telling us that we're stupid. Because we aren't. You are the largest hypocrite here, and the debate is the worse because of it.<sigh>

“Shoot the messenger” ranks right up there with “blame the voter”.

As for our spoiling the debate, let's not kid ourselves: there has been no debate - because the repeal was DOA. From the start, you failed - nay, refused - to take the concerns of those inclined to vote against the repeal seriously.

What we're conducting now is the post mortem.

OOC: what frightens me is that some of these same people have the same right to vote in next Tues. General election in the US of A as I do. *SHUDDER*
Excelsior,

OOC: I wanted the slogan for my country to be:

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Didn't fit though but sums up my views quite nicely.

Much to the shock of all, Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich marches into the assembly hall, a scimitar in his hand, and flanked by two white-plastoid-armoured troopers. Without a word, he swings the scimitar and decapitates Sheik Larebil bin Cluich. The two troopers drag the headless corpse away, as Nadnerb sheathes the scimitar.

The HOCEK NSUN Nuncio walks into the assembly hall just in time to witness the Cluichstani diplomatic corps' human relations policy in action. Surprisingly unfazed by the horrifying spectacle, he hustles to his seat, muttering, "...and I thought my in-laws were a pain to deal with..."

His deputy, trying very hard to ignore the mayhem at the podium, hands the Nuncio a copy of the resolution and its draft repeal, saying, "I took the liberty of casting our vote for the repeal, your grace. I figured it'd be a no-brainer."

The Nuncio looks over the printed text, and shrugs. "Nothing our laws against co-habitation don't make moot, it appears. Still, you made the right decision--at least the public back home won't think we've gone totally degenerate here."

Brother Timothy of Findhorn walks hesitantly from delegation to delegation.

"Care to sign the official Condolences Book? Care to sign the ..."

So far it contains one message:

We stood shoulder to shoulder with Sheik Larebil in the cause of liberalism. Fortunately, he was taller.

The signature is indecipherable.

"Blaming the voter" and "understanding the voter" aren't mutually exclusive. It seems clear that many voters are too lazy and too ignorant to read past the title of the proposal. (""Repeal 'Sexual Freedoms'"? This must introduce repressive legislation against sex! Quick, I must vote against!"). Insisting that a majority of voters in the UN are intelligent, educated and take the time to read proposals carefully to consider their full effect is pure demagogy.


Sergei V. Telkijski (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sergei_Vyacheslav_Telkijski),
PDSRA
(Temporarily replacing Ambassador Zyryanov, who is still in shock.)

Brother Timothy of Findhorn walks hesitantly from delegation to delegation.

"Care to sign the official Condolences Book? Care to sign the ..."


Ambassador Telkijski scribbles something illegible in Bulgarian, and smiles at Brother Timothy politely.

Hm...

The ambassador of Mairada takes up a huge book saying on its cover "Father knows best states"

"Yes, indeed, not as many as I would have thought simply by listening to this debate..."

"Care to sign the official Condolences Book? Care to sign the ..."Doctor Leary glance at the book and smirks, pulling out a rather nice fountain pen. His script is quite legible:

My only regret is that my attempt failed.

Good riddance.

We did. Back when I was a few months younger, and a lot dumber, I argued against the first repeal attempt on #7 by claiming that the title mentioned sexual freedom, so the body didn't have to. I was disabused of that notion quickly and efficiently by the likes of the Meddling Monk and Nadnerb bin Cluich.

OOC: It's an annoying problem in the real world as well, especially with the bizzare laws that look more like Frankenstien's Monster when they finally get passed. A lot of bills have the words "and for other purposes" directly in their title.

Example: S.3930 Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

If it's true for professional law writers, imagine us ametuers.

Forgive me for being a bit new to this thread... is this the correct forum to lodge a nay vote?

Forgive me for being a bit new to this thread... is this the correct forum to lodge a nay vote?

OOC: No need to apologise for being new. We were all new here once -- well, except for Gruen, who I think initially started out as a small spore on the earliest incarnation of NationStates. :p

Seriously, though, this is where you can announce how you are voting. Voting itself is conducted on the United Nations page of the actual NationStates site (http://www.nationstates.net). See the sidebar on the left there for a link to the UN section.

Forgive me for being a bit new to this thread... is this the correct forum to lodge a nay vote?

If you are voting against, would you mind telling us your reasoning for doing so?

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

If you are voting against, would you mind telling us your reasoning for doing so?

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

My guess? The title of the proposal is "Repeal 'Sexual Freedom."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

My guess? The title of the proposal is "Repeal 'Sexual Freedom."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Right. I guess we are dealing with yet another who failed at reading past the title? It really is sad. Not much to be done about it though.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Right. I guess we are dealing with yet another who failed at reading past the title? It really is sad. Not much to be done about it though.
yeah. I've come here because i was just wondering if all the people who voted against did read anything else other than the title.

i suppose they didn't. no one. But that should make 7051 idiots among a total of 11085, as of now.

kind of embarassing.

now, the question is: could the repeal have been written better? idiot-proof?

such as:

The resolution #7 sucks because it is badly written.
Click it and see for yourself.

We'll repeal it because it is badly written.

Repealing it does not mean not having sexual freedom
something like this could be considered less professional, but much more effective, if voters are this kind of people...

The issue with that is most don't read past the title. The actual text of the resolution matters very little.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Well it looks like we'll just have to use that to our advantage on the next attempt. Here are some title suggestions:

More Sexual Freedom
Reduce Gov't Corruption
Free Money to All Who Vote For This



Lord Regent Theowold Grimwold III
Voice of The High King of Anago
Protector fo the Defenders of The Land
Anago

The issue with that is most don't read past the title. The actual text of the resolution matters very little.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Are you arguing that you have given yourself an impossible task?

Well it looks like we'll just have to use that to our advantage on the next attempt. Here are some title suggestions:

More Sexual Freedom
Reduce Gov't Corruption
Free Money to All Who Vote For This



Lord Regent Theowold Grimwold III
Voice of The High King of Anago
Protector fo the Defenders of The Land
Anago

Unfortunaltly, changing the title of a repeal just isn't possible.

Are you arguing that you have given yourself an impossible task?

No. I was just stating the facts, and I'm not about to get into this argument with you.

Now, if you'll all excuse me for a while, I have some other business to attend to. However, I will be back. I haven't given up on this quite yet.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Brother Timothy of Findhorn walks hesitantly from delegation to delegation.

"Care to sign the official Condolences Book? Care to sign the ..."


Stewart takes a pen from his coat pocket and writes neatly in the Condolences Book.

"You once were a Cluichy Sheik
Who smoked up some ten times a week
But now it's off with your head
And it seems now you're dead
So here, have a flower... you freak."

Wiping away a tear, Stewart hands the book back to Brother Timothy.

St Jello Biafra;11896085']Stewart takes a pen from his coat pocket and writes neatly in the Condolences Book.

"You once were a Cluichy Sheik
Who smoked up some ten times a week
But now it's off with your head
And it seems now you're dead
So here, have a flower... you freak."

Wiping away a tear, Stewart hands the book back to Brother Timothy.

Uploads video of worlds tiniest violin to youtube.

"Blaming the voter" and "understanding the voter" aren't mutually exclusive. It seems clear that many voters are too lazy and too ignorant to read past the title of the proposal. (""Repeal 'Sexual Freedoms'"? This must introduce repressive legislation against sex! Quick, I must vote against!"). Insisting that a majority of voters in the UN are intelligent, educated and take the time to read proposals carefully to consider their full effect is pure demagogy.


Sergei V. Telkijski (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sergei_Vyacheslav_Telkijski),
PDSRA
(Temporarily replacing Ambassador Zyryanov, who is still in shock.)

I had that same argument in my region. A lot of people there didn't actually read the proposal(or if they did didn't understand it).

Uploads video of worlds tiniest violin to youtube.

You wanna feel the bite of my scimitar next?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. What the hell is this youtube of which you speak?

"…the bloody hell? Who's this tosser then? Just coz he has a dick thinks he can shove it anywhere."

"Gods gift to women are ya? I got a gift for ya me self."

The actual beating went very quickly. So quickly that he didn't know what happened. And it would be a while before he realised he was missing his car keys. And had Lady Des's number.
*"Tony Knuckles" slowly regains consciousness and sits up*

Hey I think they like me! Someone get me an icepack already, I don't feel so good.

You wanna feel the bite of my scimitar next?
Which reminds me, our name for you is...Nadnerb "The Blade" bin Cluich, for your impressive knifework the other day. Got any aspirins?

Which reminds me, our name for you is...Nadnerb "The Blade" bin Cluich, for your impressive knifework the other day. Got any aspirins?

Knife? That was no bleedin' knife...

http://www.armart.antiquanova.com/images/Project_scimitar1.jpg

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Knife? That was no bleedin' knife...

[big picture of scimitar][/scimitar]

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it was a freakin' sword. It's still a knife. How 'bout those aspirins?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it was a freakin' sword. It's still a knife. How 'bout those aspirins?

If you're looking for any drugs -- including aspirin -- sorry, but I killed the guy who'd hook you up. The best you'll get outta me is a bottle of Cluichstani whiskey.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If you're looking for any drugs -- including aspirin -- sorry, but I killed the guy who'd hook you up. The best you'll get outta me is a bottle of Cluichstani whiskey.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Hey, that'll do. Thank you, my friend.

*pours himself a double*

So does anyone want to debate the repeal?

Is anyone paying attention to the actual debate?
Look me in the eye!
I mean discussing the merrits of the repeal under consideraton?
You are getting sleepy!
And how the resolution does nothing and blocks any reasonable resolution?
You will vote for this repeal! NOW!
And the repeal is well written and worthy of your consideration?
And you will pre-order my new NaNoWriMo novel - Werepenguins Love Sushi!
And the repeal writer is the nicest, if not the most bizzare, nation in the Antarctic Oasis?
And buy me a drink at the Stranger's Bar!

Personally, I think we should let the people do whatever they want. I mean, Can we really force them to not have sex in the privacy of their own homes? Seriosly. But I do think if we allow sexual freedom, then we should ban abortions.

Laborland walks in and takes their seat in the assembly once again. " I wish to thank the representative from the Queendom of Karmicaria for allowing this assembly to view the replacement resolution and Laborland thinks it is a great piece of legislation. It does what the resolution was suppose to do in the first place and is very specific. Laborland regrets the outbursts that occured early on in the debate and has changed his vote to FOR this Repeal. Laborland has also asked that the rest of their region also vote for the repeal. Once again I wish to appologise for the earlier outburst, however I do sense that the voting would have went in your favor from the begining if the Great replacement that was shown late in the voting would have been on the table from the begining. I hope th repeal is passed for you." Laborland sits down and lissons to the delegates quitely.

Current state of voting

Votes For: 4,609
Votes Against: 7,247

The Republic of Steenhuffel is shocked and appalled that so many delegates have voted to retain such a clearly abysmal piece of legislation and requests that those who have voted against the repeal actually look at the text of Resolution #7

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

The first point to make is that this resolution confers unlimited rights to the owner(s) of the home in question and none to those that don't happen to have their name on the deeds of the premises in question.

As such, this resolution is a charter to criminals, subversives, rapists, paedophiles and anyone else who is able to lure a victim into a property they can prove that they own.

Resolution #7 provides no protection to consenting adults in any location other than their own home. To gain the unlimited protection provided by this resolution, you need to have bought a property with the adult with which you consent. That's a big expense for any casual encounter.

Also, "medical reasons" is a wide and vague category and one that is dangerously open to abuse.

We are aware that a replacement has been drafted and will consider such a proposal in due course. But, quite frankly, Resolution #7 is such a dangerously badly drafted piece of legislation that to have no resolution would be better than to have this one.

:sniper: ::mp5: :upyours: Thank you for the flower, Sheik Larebil. I thank you for your support as well.
you will hand over your country or we will fight Long live The templar Knights
Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

[I agree with almost all of which the good representative has stated. Yet I disagree with the last part.

But, quite frankly, Resolution #7 is such a dangerously badly drafted piece of legislation that to have no resolution would be better than to have this one.


We do need a resolution that addresses this information. But the good nation of Karmicaria has shown the floor that they have a great piece of legislation that will come to the floor for a vote and it will dispell all the worries of the current resolution. We all need to change our vote to FOR this repeal so that the great legislation Karmicaria has can have a fair vote.

It would be wonderful if we could convince people to change their votes, but that's not going to happen. At least not in any way that's going to make a difference.

Some have mentioned that this repeal was doomed from the beginning. At this point I have to agree. If it weren't for people who read nothing but the title or who just didn't understand the text of the proposal, I think there would have been a lot more on our side. Yes, showing the replacement helped, but obviously it wasn't enough.

It wasn't enough the first time and it won't be enough the next time or the time after that.

If someone else makes the attempt to repeal Sexual Freedom and it actually passes, then I will be more than happy to submit the replacement. But until that day comes, it will go back into the filing cabinet.

*Dahlia stands, smiles and thanks everyone then leaves*

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I do agree that UNR#7 needs to be replaced by a more specific document. However, I think any resolution repealing UNR#7 needs to include a replacement, not just encourage a replacement.

I do agree that UNR#7 needs to be replaced by a more specific document. However, I think any resolution repealing UNR#7 needs to include a replacement, not just encourage a replacement.

Please check the Rules for UN Proposals that are posted at the top of this forum. You can't include a repleacement in a repeal. It's against the rules. The repeal would just be deleted by the moderators.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I do agree that UNR#7 needs to be replaced by a more specific document. However, I think any resolution repealing UNR#7 needs to include a replacement, not just encourage a replacement.

The reason the repeal doesn't include the replacement is because a repeal is not allowed to introduce new legislation. Hence the "Encourages a replacement."

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Also if you look at the posts in this thread sir after the great nation of Laborland was banned for a few days do to the fact they demanded a replacement be shown. Since then in the three days we were on vacation A link to a replacement was posted and it is a fine piece of legislation. This is the future of the current sexual freedom laws. I was in the same frame of mind that you are now in good sir but once The proposers placed that link on this thread and I read the replacement I found that I am a firm supporter of this repeal. Please review this thread and find that link my friend and you will also see the reason we need to repeal this resolution.

:sniper: ::mp5: :upyours:
Thank you for the flower, Sheik Larebil. I thank you for your support as well.
you will hand over your country or we will fight Long live The templar Knights
Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

OOC: Not only do you use the wonderful gun smileys on your first post, but you also purposely misquote someone else's post. Nice work, fuckstick. I can tell you're gonna do really well here.

***Walks into the GA with his children and looks at the vote (:fluffle:)***

"Ok, guy's lets go"....."Yes, your still legitimate"...."Don't give her a flower!"...."We're leaving Now"...."I don't care I said NOW!!

***Walks into the GA with his children and looks at the vote (:fluffle:)***

"Ok, guy's lets go"....."Yes, your still legitimate"...."Don't give her a flower!"...."We're leaving Now"...."I don't care I said NOW!!

How do you spell spam?

I spell it w-a-r-m-p-o-n-d-s.

But then how do you spell warm ponds?

s-p-a-m.

As we read over this repeal we got down to the part. To do a 'more detailed' and decided we could never support it... the repeal nor any 'more detailed' one on this subject. As we need to stay out of folks lives and get to dealing with more demanding problems than one such as this. Next we will get so 'more detailed' that we will be telling them what color condoms they have to use. We don't need this but 'more details' we need less than we need what we have.

So I say don't vote for this repeal.

Zarta Warden,
Ambassador UN Zeldon

A side comment on the remarks this current resolution promoted illegal acts in the privacy of ones home. Rape is still a crime here and laws are in place to deal with it wherever it takes place.. We see nothing in the current resolution that supports the idea one can rape anyone in the privacy of ones home. Nor anything that says any laws in place to stop criminal acts are voided by the current resolution. Like anything one does there will always be limits and restrictions to it. Don't keep inside the lines and you get dealt with at some point.. Rape another person here and you can swing from a nice tree and new rope and this sexual freedom resolution won't help you here.

As we have said before, we agree with the ambassador of Zeldon. The current resolution is sufficient enough and not a burden. Details can and are being regulated by individual state laws.

I suppose it's time to start the wake. I'm going to ask two members from the Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins to stand as honor guard while we wake this doomed resolution repeal.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/187368349.jpg http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/189882582.jpg

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here this day to mourn the loss, not of this repeal resolution, but of reason itself. Yes on this day reason has died. The mindless moronic fluffy representatives, and the completely anal deligates and of course the deligates of the great feeders who, have decided that this piece of manure that defaces the already shoddy list we call the list of approved resolutions must remain first and foremost a pillar of shame for the entire United Nations - a clear body of repressed sexual morons who are probably more dangerous to humanity than a congregation of Frustrated Franciscans.

I should point out that the current resolution is 7,588:4,858 or 1.56:1 against. This is well short of the 2:1 ratio that I promised would cause me to forever quit the United Nations. I congratulate those who voted for this repeal.

However, I swear, by the Eye of Harmony itself, that as long as I have a single vote in the United Nations I shall never, ever, nay I just won't vote for a single repeal until this resolution is stricken from the records of the United Nations. Yes my single vote is set in stone.

Except for the fact that the current resolution prevents governments from properly investigating any occurence that occurs behind closed under certain circumstances. Not so much for rape. Rape is not consensual. Killing can be. If someone wanted you to kill them, you could do it in the privacy of you own home, in some kind of sexual fashion, and there is nothing the government could say about it.

That is, of course, assuming one decides to view it as being binding. That is also open to debate. Realistically, is sits there without properly mandating anyting and completely failing to protect anyone. You may think that that is a good thing. Yes, nations can cover these things on their own. The purpose of this sort of legislation is to protect the populace from oppressive regimes like mine. We allow our citizens as little by way of freedom as possible. Keeping them firmly under the watchful eye of the government at all times, no matter where they are or what they are doing keeps them from stepping out of line.

That said, by getting this off of the books, it will save us a great deal of time telling people how open to abuse it is and how we prove it every day. With a better replacement in place, it would give our legal team new challenges in the form of finding new ways to loophole other laws, since getting around the replacement to this would be much more difficult then slipping around this was.

A side comment on the remarks this current resolution promoted illegal acts in the privacy of ones home. Rape is still a crime here and laws are in place to deal with it wherever it takes place.. We see nothing in the current resolution that supports the idea one can rape anyone in the privacy of ones home.
Whoever said rape was the issue at hand?

Nor anything that says any laws in place to stop criminal acts are voided by the current resolution.
Then perhaps you should try reading the resolution.

"What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons"

Any illegal activity taking place within the owner's home is out of the control of the state. Therefore any laws you (the state) may have passed to outlaw, say, using illegal drugs, are rendered null and void.

The law is vague. Not being the concern of the state does not mean not investigating suspected illegal activities. Moreover, the law is obviously referring to sexual activities and I care not if it is not explicitly mentioned in the body of the law, since we in Mairada interprete the spirit of the law and we do not follow the word of the law blindly.

It's Sicilian though, not regular Italian.

I've just received an urgent memo from Minister Morasyō of the Health and Education, who is watching the debate live at home, who asks that I inform the General Assembly that Sicilian occupies its own branch of the Romance family, distinct from "regular" Italian, Spanish, or French.

"What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons"

Any illegal activity taking place within the owner's home is out of the control of the state. Therefore any laws you (the state) may have passed to outlaw, say, using illegal drugs, are rendered null and void.
Only they're not: these things should not be the concern of the state. That doesn't say anything about whether they are or are not: useless and pointless.

The law is vague. Not being the concern of the state does not mean not investigating suspected illegal activities. Moreover, the law is obviously referring to sexual activities and I care not if it is not explicitly mentioned in the body of the law, since we in Mairada interprete the spirit of the law and we do not follow the word of the law blindly.
That is all well and good for Mairada, but what about those nations who are not as open-minded? Not only does the law not accomplish anything besides offering a suggestion, it leaves major loopholes in its suggestions.

Chabhyomī Jhewerthō
Ambassador to the United Nations
Dhāna

The law is vague. Not being the concern of the state does not mean not investigating suspected illegal activities. Moreover, the law is obviously referring to sexual activities and I care not if it is not explicitly mentioned in the body of the law, since we in Mairada interprete the spirit of the law and we do not follow the word of the law blindly.

The law means what it says. The spirit of the law is irrelevant.

Nowhere in the text of the resolution does it say during sexual relations. It says What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

That means that two or more consenting adults can do whatever they wish in the privacy of their own home and it is not my, nor your, government's business. It doesn't mean just sex, because it doesn't say that. If the two are consentually shooting up, then it is none of your business(shouldn't be anyways, imo, but that's another matter).

If two or more people decide to plan an attack on some government installation in the privacy of their home, you cannot listen on them cause it is none of your business.

And since there is a compliance ministry ensuring you follow the letter, not the spirit of the law, then that's what you are doing.

We of the Singularly Queer Wasteland of Tharkent are persuaded of the need to remove this legislation from the statute. Indeed, it seems to us that this decision is both overdue and obvious. Since the United Nations understandably needs to repeal legislation prior to the enactment of any similarly-minded legislation, the argument that we are considering a REPEAL and not its intended replacement stands firm.

However, we do have some sympathy with the argument that the draft proposal for its replacement be made available to members. Whilst the point is valid that at present it is only a draft proposal and has no certainty of being enacted, we do feel that the purpose of this action is not simply to repeal but to replace, and thus the repeal is only the means to an end. The proposed replacement legislation is therefore relevant to the discussion at hand and members calling for its publication do so with no small justification.

In the absence of such publication, we are being asked simply whether the current legislation is of any practical value. We of the Wasteland feel that it is of some value, but as has been noted above, it is deeply flawed and in some cases counterproductive. To that end we will be voting in FAVOUR of this repeal.

As a small addendum to the above regarding the natsov issue, we would like to state that we agree with the suggestion that governments should stay out of the realm of personal choice, and that supra-national legislation to enforce that is entirely reasonably within the remit of the United Nations. Should this repeal pass and a reasonable alternative be proposed we will happily cast our vote in favour of it.

Sincerely

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

The law is vague. Not being the concern of the state does not mean not investigating suspected illegal activities. Moreover, the law is obviously referring to sexual activities and I care not if it is not explicitly mentioned in the body of the law, since we in Mairada interprete the spirit of the law and we do not follow the word of the law blindly.

That's all well and good for you, but how you interpret the law is no basis for how the remainder of the 10,000+ narions in NSUN interpret the law. In short, it does not matter that you don't care.

I suppose it's time to start the wake. I'm going to ask two members from the Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins to stand as honor guard while we wake this doomed resolution repeal.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/187368349.jpg http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/189882582.jpg

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here this day to mourn the loss, not of this repeal resolution, but of reason itself. Yes on this day reason has died. The mindless moronic fluffy representatives, and the completely anal deligates and of course the deligates of the great feeders who, have decided that this piece of manure that defaces the already shoddy list we call the list of approved resolutions must remain first and foremost a pillar of shame for the entire United Nations - a clear body of repressed sexual morons who are probably more dangerous to humanity than a congregation of Frustrated Franciscans.

I should point out that the current resolution is 7,588:4,858 or 1.56:1 against. This is well short of the 2:1 ratio that I promised would cause me to forever quit the United Nations. I congratulate those who voted for this repeal.

However, I swear, by the Eye of Harmony itself, that as long as I have a single vote in the United Nations I shall never, ever, nay I just won't vote for a single repeal until this resolution is stricken from the records of the United Nations. Yes my single vote is set in stone.

Cheers to the Meddling Monk, and hear, hear! The feeders and fluffies have further misplaced their minds.

Also if you look at the posts in this thread sir after the great nation of Laborland was banned for a few days do to the fact they demanded a replacement be shown. Since then in the three days we were on vacation A link to a replacement was posted and it is a fine piece of legislation. This is the future of the current sexual freedom laws. I was in the same frame of mind that you are now in good sir but once The proposers placed that link on this thread and I read the replacement I found that I am a firm supporter of this repeal. Please review this thread and find that link my friend and you will also see the reason we need to repeal this resolution.

Oh, and look at that -- it's TOO LITTLE TOO LATE, sir. Had you not pranced around the repeal thread and demanded what you have no right to demand, there might have been more votes in favor of the repeal. Now do you see why the repeal must come first, and the debate over the replacement should be separate? No repeal will pass now. It isn't entirely your fault, sir, but I maintain that you were playing a mighty fine fiddle while this repeal burned.

OOC: It's an annoying problem in the real world as well, especially with the bizzare laws that look more like Frankenstien's Monster when they finally get passed. A lot of bills have the words "and for other purposes" directly in their title.

Example: S.3930 Title: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

If it's true for professional law writers, imagine us ametuers.

Very good point...unfortunately. Time for a drink.

Hey Intangelon! Are you trying to boost your post count? :p

I'd like to thank you and everyone else who supported this repeal. Maybe next time we'll have better luck.

Do I have permission to pass out Dope Slaps(TM) next time?

Do I have permission to pass out Dope Slaps(TM) next time?

Please do.

*Giggles like a TEK schoolgirl eating Pocky(TM)*

With extreme reservations, Community Property withdrew its “nay” vote just before the final gavel and abstained on the repeal instead.

As we have stated, we have chosen not to debate the merits of the repeal per se since our initial announcement of our intention to vote against the repeal because we perceived the vote to be a foregone conclusion. We understand that our subsequent statements have angered proponents of the repeal; we regret this fact, but not our statements. We still believe that it serves no purpose to complain about the shortcomings of the Membership, because nothing can be done about this. We made the observations we did for the purpose of trying to get people to start thinking more productively, since blaming the voter is unproductive.

Our initial opposition to this repeal was based on the fact that, however imperfect it may be, it blocks attempts to pass legislation endorsing or even mandating intrusions into domestic privacy for the sake of security; it also blocks attempts to establish laws banning certain sexual practices in the name of “morality”.

Arguments that such “blockers” are not needed don't hold water. Consider the record of this body in opposing nuclear arms limitation; this hasn't stopped disarmament opponents from enacting multiple “blockers” against such measures. Why should proponents of domestic privacy and sexual freedom not want the same measure of protection?

This is what supporters of the repeal have failed to comprehend: that, however toothless UNR #7 may be, it prevents the passage of odious legislation. You say that repealing UNR #7 won't mean a loss of sexual freedom, but in fact - should a replacement fail - it just might.

In this context, the failure to produce a replacement represented a major tactical blunder: it fueled suspicion that, however well-meaning some repeal proponents might be, a large number of nations were waiting to pounce on the opprtunity to rob us of our rights. Hence, our remarks about the role of fear in politics; people respond more powerfully to fear than promise.

An example may help drive this point home: OMGTKK's resolution of “unconventional” arms introduces wording similar to but stronger that that of UNR #110, closing an obvious loophole in the latter (the loophole involving the GA issuing the opinion that the weapon[s] to be banned are “unnecessary to national defense”). What if someone were to propose the repeal of UNR #110 on the basis that it was flawed (which, in fact, due to the aforementioned loophole, it actually is). Would those of you who oppose arms limitation support such a repeal, on the basis of a promise that it clears the way for “something better”?

Of course you wouldn't, especially if proponents of the repeal not only failed but refused to discuss what that “something better” (i.e., the potential replacement for UNR #110) was. You'd suspect us of trying to lull you into giving us a chance to ram through disarmament legislation, and - all things considered - that could hardly be thought an unreasonable fear

So why should the advocates of domestic privacy and sexual freedom not do the same?

In light of this, you may ask why we are now willing to abstain. The answer is that we have a resolution, “Individual Privacy”, that came within a whisker of making the queue on its first reading, and will almost certainly make queue on its current reading. We have 104 delegate endorsements, and believe that we can get the 19 more we need for quorum; we also believe that our prospects of passage are good.

Once “Individual Privacy” is law, proponents of domestic privacy and sexual freedom will have far less to fear from a repeal on UNR #7 than we do today. That is not to say that repeal will be easy; but it will make repeal less difficult, and that counts for something.

The situation is exactly analogous to what will exist should OMGTKK's resolution pass: much of the reason for having UNR #110 on the books will vanish, and thus a resolution that is probably impossible to repeal as things stand today, however worthless it is (and it's even more worthless that UNR #7, given that it fails in its sole purpose, i.e., as a disarmament “blocker”) will enter the realm of possibility (although it will still be difficult).

This is what we meant when we said that if you really want to repeal UNR #7, you need to understand why people support it. The supporters of UNR #7 aren't fools: they have real concerns. Your dismissal of those concerns as trivial is why you can't succed. If you wish to succeed, you must take those concerns seriously and move to address them.

Hey Intangelon! Are you trying to boost your post count? :p

I'd like to thank you and everyone else who supported this repeal. Maybe next time we'll have better luck.

Nah. My post count is fairly low, given how long I've been here and compared to those in five digits.

I felt the need to respond to all the arrogant jerkwads who came in at the last minute and said "oh dear, I like the replacement and now I'm going to vote for the repeal." Or, in the case of Community Property, the even MORE annoying "I abstained". What a complete load of pretentious blather that is. It's the same people whose gassing on about the replacement cost the repeal any chance it had to begin with. Grrrrr...

*snip the self-important baggage*

Yawn...are you talking again?

It is most unfortunate that this repeal effort has not succeeded, thus precluding any attempt to address the myriad concerns that currently exist within United Nations legislation on sexual liberties.

High Chief Serph
Republic of Krioval

Yawn...are you talking again?

Immaturity may be entertaining elsewhere, but I can assure you that you are not amusing anyone (neither are you dissuading those who wish to express their opinions intelligently and with explanation from doing so).

Arguments that such “blockers” are not needed don't hold water. Consider the record of this body in opposing nuclear arms limitation; this hasn't stopped disarmament opponents from enacting multiple “blockers” against such measures.Oh please, if someone wanted to they could write a nuclear disarmament resolution around resolutions 109 and 110. I know how, but I'm not saying lest I give anyone ideas.

This is what supporters of the repeal have failed to comprehend: that, however toothless UNR #7 may be, it prevents the passage of odious legislation. You say that repealing UNR #7 won't mean a loss of sexual freedom, but in fact - should a replacement fail - it just might.And of course you're choosing to forget that a replacement was standing by ready to be submitted the moment this repeal had passed.

In this context, the failure to produce a replacement represented a major tactical blunder: it fueled suspicion that, however well-meaning some repeal proponents might be, a large number of nations were waiting to pounce on the opprtunity to rob us of our rights. Hence, our remarks about the role of fear in politics; people respond more powerfully to fear than promise.Since the last time a repeal was attempted a replacement was provided simultaniously, and as a result everyone was debating the replacement instead of the repeal, and since this time the replacement wasn't shown right away and everyone, yourself included, was bitching about the lack of replacement, apparently we supporters were, as the saying goes, damned if we did, and damned if we didn't.

Personally I think the biggest obsticle those of us who want to see this piece of garbage (I call it that because in my mind, it's not quite bad enough to be a piece of shit) repealed is the damn title which we can't do anything about.

This is what we meant when we said that if you really want to repeal UNR #7, you need to understand why people support it. The supporters of UNR #7 aren't fools: they have real concerns. Your dismissal of those concerns as trivial is why you can't succed. If you wish to succeed, you must take those concerns seriously and move to address them.Come on, resolution 7 is, at best, ineffective, and at worst overly effective depending on your interpertation of it. Any idiot who's actually read the resolution can tell you that.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Nah. My post count is fairly low, given how long I've been here and compared to those in five digits.

OOC: You think your post count to length of time here ratio is low? Look at mine.

Nah. My post count is fairly low, given how long I've been here and compared to those in five digits.

I felt the need to respond to all the arrogant jerkwads who came in at the last minute and said "oh dear, I like the replacement and now I'm going to vote for the repeal." Or, in the case of Community Property, the even MORE annoying "I abstained". What a complete load of pretentious blather that is. It's the same people whose gassing on about the replacement cost the repeal any chance it had to begin with. Grrrrr...

The only gassing going on in this forum is when players presume to know with certainty what the 1,000s of other players are thinking when they cast their vote.

My nation voted in favour of the repeal, but I personally am not ready to fault its failure on a few individuals, let alone a few individuals who post in a forum where a very small fraction of those voting ever bother to visit.

That said, I'd like to explain why I voted yes on the repeal. I actually was lurking here and on the IDU forums, and it was Ausserland's puppet that convinced me to reread both the resolution and repeal after I had already decided "Meh, another repeal ... perhaps I'll sit out." When I saw that there was a serious replacement I quietly voted in favour of the repeal.

In case my point is lost: there are always many reasons for players to vote one way or another. It is hard for me to really explain why nations voted against this, other than to *assume* that many players really agree with the basic idea presented in the original resolution.

That said, moderators, I've always liked that repeals link to the original resolutions. I suspect many players actually take the time to at least glance at the original text when a well written repeal is being voted upon (as was this case this time).

St Jello Biafra;11902877']Immaturity may be entertaining elsewhere, but I can assure you that you are not amusing anyone (neither are you dissuading those who wish to express their opinions intelligently and with explanation from doing so).

Well, you're wong there. I'm amusing the living shpedoinkel outta me.

Seriously, though, what was the point of a lengthy harangue that basically boils down to "hey, I helped sink the repeal that I now support, but I was principled"?

The only gassing going on in this forum is when players presume to know with certainty what the 1,000s of other players are thinking when they cast their vote.

My nation voted in favour of the repeal, but I personally am not ready to fault its failure on a few individuals, let alone a few individuals who post in a forum where a very small fraction of those voting ever bother to visit.

That said, I'd like to explain why I voted yes on the repeal. I actually was lurking here and on the IDU forums, and it was Ausserland's puppet that convinced me to reread both the resolution and repeal after I had already decided "Meh, another repeal ... perhaps I'll sit out." When I saw that there was a serious replacement I quietly voted in favour of the repeal.

In case my point is lost: there are always many reasons for players to vote one way or another. It is hard for me to really explain why nations voted against this, other than to *assume* that many players really agree with the basic idea presented in the original resolution.

That said, moderators, I've always liked that repeals link to the original resolutions. I suspect many players actually take the time to at least glance at the original text when a well written repeal is being voted upon (as was this case this time).

Well said, but it begs the question -- is it time for a seious look at the policy about repeals versus replacements? This is the first thread on a repeal that found legitimate flaws in the policy of separation, and they were (I admit) arguments well made. I voted for the repeal because I had the rules explained to me in no uncertain terms the last time #7 came up for repeal (and I had then supported leaving #7 in place). When enough reasonble points are raised against a rule, or at least questioning it, it seems like it's time to revisit that rule (or visit it at all).

You can't, for game-coding reasons. Take it up with the admins.

As an aside, people really should be voting to repeal based on the repeal's actual arguments, and the merits (or lack thereof) of the original bill. Voting on how much you trust the sponsors to offer replacement legislation is just plain silly. If a law is bad, then a law is bad, and it needs to be stricken from the record. And even if you don't trust the repeal's sponsors, you are more than welcome to offer a replacement proposal yourself.