NationStates Jolt Archive

Topic hijack split:
Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Rhodesia Newydd

Description: BELIEVING STRONGLY: That the UN, a bastion of equality safeguards and protects the rights of all peoples. Regardless of skin colour, nationality, sexuality, creed or gender, in all cases consentual.

AFFIRMS: That as an international organisation, we have the duty to establish a definition and resolution for all peoples in whole equality or nothing.

DECLARES:
• That all peoples are able to marry regardless of global location.
• That all marriages are recognised in all member states
• That any legally aged citizen of a UN member state can marry in any other UN member state under “The Universal Marriage” law and is entitled to equal rights therein of said country.
• That homosexual marriage is as equal as heterosexual marriage and is privy to all equal government benefits and rights in all UN member states as is all other creeds, races and gender.
• That arranged marriages are NOT inherently “evil”, given that there is a CHOICE available to both parties and condemns forced marriages.
• That religious interpretation should not condemn or destroy the happiness of any couple, regardless of skin colour, nationality, sexuality.
• That the state is under obligation to marry two consenting individuals that have chosen to live together for life, for better, or worse.
• That the church is positively encouraged to marry two consenting individuals that have chosen to live together for life, for better, or worse.
• The minimum legal worldwide age to marry is 18 years old.

RECOGNISING: That some member nations may feel “offended” by the terms and declarations of “Universal Marriage”, URGES these nations to recognise the minorities in their nation that are directly, or indirectly persecuted against.

ASKS: Member states to research and formulate an unbiased opinion before, commencing voting in the spirit of equality for all.

PROPOSES: That the UN protect the rights and responsibilities of mankind through a definition of “Universal Marriage”.

DECLARES: That everyone is entitled to live and pursuit happiness in good spirit without malice or intent thereof. This includes all privileges and rights of any majority.

Gah, not another marriage resolution.

Why is that thing still in the list?

Why is that thing still in the list?
I'm feeling lazy today, so do my job for me. What is my justification for removing it? Looks superficially legal to me.

It contradicts Marriage Protection Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=181):
DECLARES that it is the right of all UN member nations to define and regulate marriage and civil union within their own borders as they see fit.
vs.
DECLARES:
• That all peoples are able to marry regardless of global location.
• That all marriages are recognised in all member states
• That any legally aged citizen of a UN member state can marry in any other UN member state under “The Universal Marriage” law and is entitled to equal rights therein of said country.
• That homosexual marriage is as equal as heterosexual marriage and is privy to all equal government benefits and rights in all UN member states as is all other creeds, races and gender.
• That arranged marriages are NOT inherently “evil”, given that there is a CHOICE available to both parties and condemns forced marriages.
• That religious interpretation should not condemn or destroy the happiness of any couple, regardless of skin colour, nationality, sexuality.
• That the state is under obligation to marry two consenting individuals that have chosen to live together for life, for better, or worse.
• That the church is positively encouraged to marry two consenting individuals that have chosen to live together for life, for better, or worse.
• The minimum legal worldwide age to marry is 18 years old.

Okay then. See how easy that was for me to research?

Why is that thing still in the list?

Kivisto, firstly, you really should learn some manners. That "THING" is a resolution that took me quite a while to construct and formulate that was intended for all. Your dismissive and deragatory comments only go to show that some mods on here are not only over zealous but, downright disrespectful.

As Frisbeeteria has noted the actual content of the resolution is legal however, because some mods here love to revel in bureaucracy and find any issue at all to "shoot down" resolutions (that in all fairness proposed something that boosted equality in member states, wheras ive seen plenty of other resolutions that try to legalise something far worse).

Now, i'm all for procedure guys but, it seems very odd that to ammend or change a resolution already in place by making it more equal too all. Requires repealing the entire law and then submitting another proposal.

Surely, it would be easier and less bureaucratic if resolutions that are legal pass by majority consent, automatically repeal previous resolutions that contain almost the same subject matter?

I understand that what a say may not exactly be in favour, it's just i do not like being given "official warnings", when all ive done is submitted a legal resolution.

Had i hacked or been otherwise abusive to members of NS i could understand the tone of the message from one of your moderators.

Kivisto, firstly, you really should learn some manners. That "THING" is a resolution that took me quite a while to construct and formulate that was intended for all. Your dismissive and deragatory comments only go to show that some mods on here are not only over zealous but, downright disrespectful.Uh, Kivisto is not a mod.

As Frisbeeteria has noted the actual content of the resolution is legal however, because some mods here love to revel in bureaucracy and find any issue at all to "shoot down" resolutions (that in all fairness proposed something that boosted equality in member states, wheras ive seen plenty of other resolutions that try to legalise something far worse).Try rereading Fris's comment again, he said it looked "superficially" legal, he didn't go into any detail otherwise he would have realized that, as Gruenberg pointed out, it contradicted the Marriage Protection Act.

Now, i'm all for procedure guys but, it seems very odd that to ammend or change a resolution already in place by making it more equal too all. Requires repealing the entire law and then submitting another proposal.You should be lucky we can even repeal, back when I first started playing we couldn't even do that. And anyway amendments are illegal because implementing them would require a massive overhaul of the game's code.

Surely, it would be easier and less bureaucratic if resolutions that are legal pass by majority consent, automatically repeal previous resolutions that contain almost the same subject matter?See above.

I understand that what a say may not exactly be in favour, it's just i do not like being given "official warnings", when all ive done is submitted a legal resolution.Obviously it's illegal, otherwise it wouldn't have been deleted.

Your dismissive and deragatory comments only go to show that some mods on here are not only over zealous but, downright disrespectful.

i do not like being given "official warnings", when all ive done is submitted a legal resolution.

Had i hacked or been otherwise abusive to members of NS i could understand the tone of the message from one of your moderators.
Let's just clarify the tone of those messages, shall we? Here is the exact text, as recorded in the modlogs.
Wed Nov 8 03:13:06 2006: nationstates_moderators sent rhodesia_newydd the telegram "UN Proposal "Universal Marriage" deleted. You may not Amend passed resolutions. Read the Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) in the UN Forum before posting any more proposals.".

Sat Nov 11 17:23:06 2006: nationstates_moderators sent rhodesia_newydd the telegram "UN Proposal "Universal Marriage" deleted for contradiction of Res #182. That's your second warning. Read the rules, please.".

Sat Nov 11 18:23:26 2006: rhodesia_newydd filed task xxxxx "Bit over-zealous as a mod? Fine, have a moan and issue your petty "warnings". No doubt you have a personal issue with the subject content of "Universal Marriage", that's your prerogative not mine."

Sat Nov 11 18:59:48 2006: nationstates_moderators sent rhodesia_newydd the telegram "If you can't be bothered to read what's already been passed, don't be surprised when your proposals are deleted for duplication and/or contradiction. Your claims of personal bias have nothing to do with following the UN rules."
You received two warning telegrams that were absolutely stock responses, pointing out the violation of the rules. Everyone who posts an illegal proposal gets that same telegram, with the exception of the first line naming and identifying the problem.

You then followed up with a rather pissy message, indicating that the two warnings you received were due to some sort of personal bias. I'll admit that my response was a bit miffed, as I don't like false accusations of bias, but was entirely accurate and straight to the point.

Your proposal was illegal. You submitted it twice. Your argument here appears to be "what you think ought to be" rather than "what is". I'm sorry you feel slighted, but I'm not at all sorry for the tone of the three messages you were sent, or the fact that the other mods and I enforce the rules fairly and impartially across the board.

This organization has passed quite a few resolutions that I think are utter crap, but they met the definitions as described in the rules. Yours didn't. That's really all there is to it. If you want to repeal the existing resolution and put yours in its place, have at it. Two campaigns are tough, but more than a few people have succeeded.

It's up to you whether you want to try to do it by the rules of the game, or abandon your effort. As for me, I don't care either way.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Obviously it's illegal, otherwise it wouldn't have been deleted.

Depends on your definition of "illegal" i tend to view resolutions that curtail peoples freedoms and liberty as "illegal". Those documents that actually propogate equality, no.

Your proposal was illegal. You submitted it twice.

Actually no i didn't, they were not exact in content at all. The first resolution if you had noted included (out of three key passages that were changed) the word "Ammend" and the previous "Marriage Protection Act".

The second reposting included no such reference and the passage about the church/religious institutions were also altered. In that regard. They were not exact.

Your argument here appears to be "what you think ought to be" rather than "what is".

Not really, my argument stands that it's illogical to repeal a law entirely when all it needs is a few ammendments. Whether that's to harsh on the gaming code is understandable but, it still stands to reason that the procedure is illogical. I'm sure that if there was some survey available, i believe many would agree with that sentiment. It wouldn't therfore be "waht i think ought to be" rather, "what the the majority thinks it ought to be". If you can't accept or consider that, that isn't my fault.

If you want to repeal the existing resolution and put yours in its place, have at it. Two campaigns are tough, but more than a few people have succeeded.

No thankyou, it appears these boards prefer bureaucracy over enjoyable positive progress. Shame but, whatever..

I think we can consider the matter case closed. I don't want to start a "flame war". We've both said our peace.

It wouldn't therfore be "waht i think ought to be" rather, "what the the majority thinks it ought to be". If you can't accept or consider that, that isn't my fault.
This isn't a democracy, it's a game. There are three people capable of those sorts of code changes, and their vote is unanimously 'no'. No one else's voice matters, as it won't be done if they can't/won't do it.

You're right. We're done.

I think I might be able to clarify a couple of things here.

Rhodesia Newydd seems to have been under the impression that I am a Mod, for some reason. I don't know why that is, but whatever. As such, his initial irate response was because of my dismissal of his proposal. He further assumed that, when his proposal was deleted by the moderator team, I had something to do with it. I swear, I'm trying to not find that kind of funny. Honest I am.

For the gentleman/lady from Rhodesia Newydd;

There are rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) in place about what can be proposed as legislation. The more recent one you submitted contradicted previously passed, and currently still binding, legislation. That it was deleted is not a comment on your capacity as an author, but a result of that contradiction.

As for my apparent dismissal of your proposed bill, I added no emphasis onto my text, and I fear you read contempt where none was intended. It was an honest question, not a condamnation.

Depends on your definition of "illegal" i tend to view resolutions that curtail peoples freedoms and liberty as "illegal". Those documents that actually propogate equality, no.
There are multiple definitions of illegal now?

Depends on your definition of "illegal" i tend to view resolutions that curtail peoples freedoms and liberty as "illegal". Those documents that actually propogate equality, no.

Well your definition of illegal is wrong. For the correct answer please see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Guys, we agreed this one was done. Let it lie.

[split from Silly/Illegal Proposals thread]