NationStates Jolt Archive

We would like to introduce a new draft poprosal:
"Mutual Recognition of Borders"

Plaese let us know about every comments, suggestions and critics, thanks.

Mutual Recognition of Borders

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

-A- OBSERVING that border disputes and claims by more than one nation over a territory are significant sources of wars and cause excessive damage to cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific international relationship:

-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared by two other UN members;

-2- CHARGES The Pretenama Panel (TPP) to mediate current and future border disputes between UN nations and recommend peaceful, fair, and balanced solutions;

-3- APPLAUDS AND ENCOURAGES all efforts by nations in the world to mutually, officially or definitely recognize their international borders and all efforts to peacefully resolve related disputes.

Co-authored by Ceorana

Another way of phrasing it would be:
...damage to international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships;

http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/edit.gif

Another way of phrasing it would be:

Thanks, sound better.

I submitted the proposal before reading your post, but this is just a "test submition" without campaigning. I will include your suggestion for the next submition.

I like it...-2- CHARGES The Pretenama Panel (TPP) to mediate current and future border disputes between UN nations and recommend peaceful, fair, and balanced solutions;...however I am concerned that this may be a HOC violation? Probably not, having thought about it.

I don't think you should use TPP. It's been shown to be a flawed mechanism, and resolutions that have depended on it have floundered. Just encourage nations to seek independent arbitration or something - I'm guessing they could still take it to TPP if they wanted.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

I don't think you should use TPP. It's been shown to be a flawed mechanism, and resolutions that have depended on it have floundered. Just encourage nations to seek independent arbitration or something - I'm guessing they could still take it to TPP if they wanted.<Nods in agreement>

Something like:

URGES member states to seek neutral third party mediation during current and future border disputes.

I suppose the next issue is what you do with disputes between UN members and non-members.

The problem is that you can say "settle your territory dispute", but in reality they're intractable and extremely difficult to resolve. Mandatory mediation won't really solve it either, unless a prior agreement is reached to abide by the decision and even then, the losing party is apt to complain about it. Good idea but may not be very effective.

It seems to be limited to requiring UN nations to respect the borders of other UN nations, so taking over non UN nations or non nations is still perfectly acceptable under this resolution. (I believe there is a daily issue that gives you the option of taking over a nameless nation for its resources. It's a nice option and I wouldn't want to be guilt ridden in selecting it again should it come up.)

Get rid of the TPP reference. Even the sound of that name gets on my nerves. How about making a new committee, the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Border Stability and Quality Security for All. (SPEBSQSA)

How about making a new committee, the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Border Stability and Quality Security for All. (SPEBSQSA)

How about not?

I hate committees, still you'd get a pretty good score in scrabble for that one.

Just keep it vague, don't bother about committees.

http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/edit.gif
Oh alright.

How about not?
But once they changed their name to the Barbershop Harmony Society, I've looking to give this poor orphaned acronym a proper home (Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing in America - Founded by O.C. Cash in the 50's).

I can digup the old SPEBSQSA song if you like. (I'll assume you don't.)

I don't to sound too negative, but frankly I think the problems of borders is so complex and so vast that no resolution would ever be able to cover it and one that could would have no chance whatsoever of passing. Maintaining the status quo of international borders is not an adequate solution and in fact it is probably the wrong thing to do in many cases. National boundaries are arbitrary and do not reflect the dynamic demographics of migrating populations over time.

I like it......however I am concerned that this may be a HOC violation? Probably not, having thought about it.
My first thought was that it WAS a HOC violation.

Never have cared for TPP. I'd much rather see a new organization, say "Border Adjudication Panel".

"Disputes with your neighbors? Problems at home? Invite the NSUN to slap a BAP on your issues. Remember, 'Good Borders make Good Neighbors'."

SPEBSQSAAll I know about them is a haliarious rant Jerry Lewis went on durning one of his telathons when he tried to pronounce it.

I would sooner discuss Tsor's barbershop quartet than this proposal, because every time I try to think about borders in NS, my eyes cross.

There are lots of things in this fractal universe that resemble what goes on in the other (RW) one, but I can't figure out how defined, undisputed borders work here.

Not when a border dispute can flare up over a misplaced word in a resolution, a spilt drink in the Strangers Bar or an unfortunate vote in the GA.

Not when you may have to try defining borders between UN nations that aren't even on the same timeline and possibly not on the same version of the same planet.

I love L & E's interest in all sorts of obscure subjects and I often learn a lot from his enthusiasms. I agree that making nations in That Other Place recognise and clarify their own and others' borders would cut down on real live border disputes. I can see that this is a suitable subject for the less powerful RW UN (assuming such an entity exists).

But -- sorry, Ceo, L&E -- I just can't get this one to fit in an NS context.

Thanks for all your comments.
Seems indeed that TPP is not popular, but new committee/agencies seem to be very popular at the UN floor.

Ok, we will not mention mandatory mediation.
Maybe we can encourage independent third party mediation, and give TPP or another UN agency/committee as an example of third party mediation.

It seems to me that the problem of TPP was its lack of flexibility, not enough member interested in taking part of it and disputes about leadership, but I like the idea. So I donno yet about it.

There are lots of things in this fractal universe that resemble what goes on in the other (RW) one, but I can't figure out how defined, undisputed borders work here.

Not when a border dispute can flare up over a misplaced word in a resolution, a spilt drink in the Strangers Bar or an unfortunate vote in the GA.

Not when you may have to try defining borders between UN nations that aren't even on the same timeline and possibly not on the same version of the same planet.

I'm not sure to understand fully what you say, so I will try to answer you as I understand you, and I hope you will let me know if my answer is not or is partially adequate.

About fractal, I think it’s important to notice that a fractal represent a mathematical equation.

So, imagine that Ardchoille and Love and esterel are both UN members and share a border defined by the following fractal.
http://www.softwarefederation.com/fractal/images/funkpunk.jpg
I agree with you that one will not be able to see our border, but as a fractal, this border is defined by a mathematical equation and then can be easilly recognized:-), this is the only thing this proposal is directly about: recognition.


About multiverse (UN nations that aren't even on the same timeline and possibly not on the same version of the same planet) as I think you are dealing about multiverse here.

Thanks a lot for bringing this issue on the forum.
What about a clause reminding that as we are in a “multiverse”, a territory may belong to several nations, in the case that these nations are each in a different plane of our multiverse:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Multiverse

I love L & E's interest in all sorts of obscure subjects and I often learn a lot from his enthusiasms. I agree that making nations in That Other Place recognise and clarify their own and others' borders would cut down on real live border disputes. I can see that this is a suitable subject for the less powerful RW UN (assuming such an entity exists).

Thanks, I have to agree that some of the topic I proposed were a little bit obsure, but not this one: recognition of borders. Also I would like to say sustainable agriculture is more and more an important topic in news (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/02/roboticweeder_tec.html?category=earth), remittances amount is catching up FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) ammount for economically developping nations and tiny or micro-deposits, even if relatively new, seem to become as much succesfull that microcredit in their earliest times in the late 70's.

Thank you for your fractal, which is pretty. (Thus revealing my complete and utter inability to understand the significance. But they are pretty.)

I think we may as well call a halt at mutual incomprehension.

However, if the UN Gnomes want to define everybody's borders in that fashion, let them, because it seems to me to take place in the wild borderlands where magic meets mathematics.

The multiverse thing fits, and (certainly, in some universe) covers my objection.

But I wouldn't try to write it in as a whole clause. Maybe, if you feel it's acceptable, you could put in

-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared by two other UN members in the same universe;

(Though why do I have to recognise only two other borders? Why not all, while we're on a roll?)

But really, NS is a place where the nation that's next door today can be totally gone tomorrow, so trying to legislate on its borders as if they were divisions between continuously existing territories seems sort of, I dunno, like writing on water.

I'm wary of trying to regulate the free-form RP nature of NationStates. We do it in the NS UN by selective suspension of disbelief, but this one requires a bit too much suspension for me.

(On the other hand, Fris's BAPs look like fun. Ardchoille happily offers Finnegan's Wake tavern as a suitable venue for deliberations.)

The fractal is an attempt to show that in the NSverse, you have overlap. For instance, let's say that Ardchoilleans occupied Greenland. Well, the Hack also occupies Greenland. How can two nations occupy the same space without being inside each other? Fractal goofiness. There's a wiki article somewhere about it; written by Scolopendra, I believe.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's something that needs to be directly addressed in the text of the Proposal. I'd be willing to let the Gnomes worry about fractal realities.

For instance, let's say that Ardchoilleans occupied Greenland. Well, the Hack also occupies Greenland. How can two nations occupy the same space without being inside each other? Fractal goofiness. There's a wiki article somewhere about it; written by Scolopendra, I believe.

Here is an interesting NSwiki article about multiverse:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Multiverse

Anyway, I'm not sure it's something that needs to be directly addressed in the text of the Proposal. I'd be willing to let the Gnomes worry about fractal realities.

But I wouldn't try to write it in as a whole clause. Maybe, if you feel it's acceptable, you could put in

-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared by two other UN members in the same universe;

I was thinking that in order to comply with our multiverse, as Ardchoille mentionned, and to let to gnomes what belong to them: we could just add a sidenote at the end of the proposal:

NB: A territory, or a part of it, may belong to several nations, in the case that these nations are each in a different plane (or another dimension) of our NS multiverse


I'm wary of trying to regulate the free-form RP nature of NationStates. We do it in the NS UN by selective suspension of disbelief, but this one requires a bit too much suspension for me.

Ardchoille, I'm sorry but every significant proposal reduce roleplay. A resolution banning slavery ban roleplay as a typical ancient egyptian civilizations for example or whatever.

Some folks say that mild proposal do nothing, then criticising the very existence of mild proposal, some other say that significant proposal reduce roleplay, then criticising the very existence of significant proposal!

Anyway, if you want to roleplay a border dispute, this border is not undisputed, so is not concerned by clause [1]. I agreed in a previous post, that this proposal will not force anything about undisputed border, just encourage or urges.

Ardchoilleans;11977908']Not when you may have to try defining borders between UN nations that aren't even on the same timeline and possibly not on the same version of the same planet.Gotta love the multiverse in all it’s technicolour glory :)

One issue though with your point – if two nations do not have a common frame of reference, such as location on the time-space continuum, or dimension, how would they possibly share a border to argue over?

The justified ancient of MU-MU have a great deal of experience with dealing with spacial rifts – after all our whole domain is based in a bubble in between them...somewhere.

OOC: Anyone played planescape before? That's kinda what MU-MU is. Or - think of Honest Johns from Raymond E Fiests novels, but no a national scale :)

Since this is only a test submission, I won't get overly involved in analysis, but there are a couple of points, some of which have already been covered in some way, but bear with me.

-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared by two other UN members;

Someone already mentioned this, but only two other nations? Might be smoothed out by using "...borders shared amongst UN members;" or somesuch. And why not recognize our own and other nations' borders with non-UN members? Since it would be our recognition, it would not require anything of them.

-2- CHARGES The Pretenama Panel (TPP) to mediate current and future border disputes between UN nations and recommend peaceful, fair, and balanced solutions;

The HoC thing was mentioned. Along with various issues regarding TPP itself. Aside from those, TPP was meant to deal with genocide, was it not? Seems an odd one to use for border disputes.

One final point or two regarding this:

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

I get GD. It wouldn't really fit anywhere else, given what it is, even though it makes no mention of actual disarmament on any kind of a scale. I'm not sure how this is Significant, though. It doesn't mandate much, and what it does mandate is in undisputed areas. That might just be my personal feeling about the word "Significant", though.

Does this mean that I can force the United Nations to discuss the borders of my floating cities on international waters which are officially borderless. We keep having problems of having big flotillas of naval ships and nuclear submarines wandering around inside the borders of the Pacific Ocean.

Also lets say I have several regular islands, and there are man made islands floating next to them, do the man made islands extend the borders of the natural islands out to sea. Further once I have claimed the man made islands borders next to the natural islands, how far can I officially extend the borders from the edge of the sea if I expand the man made islands.

These are serious questions that need to be pondered if one lives on floating cities.

We have further questions. How does one define the borders of the asteroid fields. If one lives in an asteroid field, the chunks of rock owned within a given area are more important than the physical space surrounding them. It is very easy to move a big rock into ones neighbors space. The rocks-- resources are more important than the physical borders.

Ardchoille, I'm sorry but every significant proposal reduce roleplay. A resolution banning slavery ban roleplay as a typical ancient egyptian civilizations for example or whatever.

I see significant proposals as increasing roleplay. In the example you gave, you could have a reformist (possibly monotheistic) Pharoah suddenly announcing that God told him slaves were no longer acceptable, and launch dozens of RPs from that one point. It's like having blind chance or natural disasters (or idiot gormless governments) affecting real life.

One issue though with your point – if two nations do not have a common frame of reference, such as location on the time-space continuum, or dimension, how would they possibly share a border to argue over?

Suppose one nation (for reasons which will no doubt need a lot of techno-babble) decides to set up a string of matter-transporters (or magic-repeller stations, or hyperspace energy converters, or Mysterious Alien Technology Not Fully Understood Machines) along its border, and these are found to interfere with the space-time continuum, causing reality distortions in any/all other nation(s) which occupies(y) this space? One helluva border dispute!

Look, I'm trying to get out of here before I hijack L&E's legitimate border-disputes thread any further. I'm with Hack on leaving it to the gnomes; give the little buggers something to keep 'em occupied. And I've read the fractal universe article, which left me dreamily saying, "Yes, of course" without knowing exactly what I was saying "Yes, of course" to -- which is an excellent frame of mind for RPs.

I would very much like to serve on the border committee if this passes. There are other issues. Some of our cities are nomadic and sometimes pass along the borders of several nations in the gray zone of what might be considered shore and ocean borders. There are sometimes issues where we get too close to several nations. So far nothing has happened yet. There are many nomadic nations which pass through multiple territories. In space we are currently dealing with one of them now-- the Posleen.

The other issue is moving bodies. We have an asteroid that passes through Martian, Plutonian, and Commonalitarianism space. If you define physical space as boundaries and not actual bodies, this would cause trouble for multiple nations. This proposal is a truly exciting prospect for diplomacy.

I would very much like to serve on the border committee if this passes.
How many times does it have to be said.
Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I don't see fractal reality as a problem here. Think of each "plane" of the multiverse as being a different dimension, and then a border only qualifies as something where nations touch in all four dimensions.

Also, how would you have a border between more than two nations? A border's just a line, how does it connect three or more?

This is like opening a can of starved fire ants while covered in honey. It will only hurt.

Someone already mentioned this, but only two other nations? Might be smoothed out by using "...borders shared amongst UN members;" or somesuch.

Ok thanks

And why not recognize our own and other nations' borders with non-UN members? Since it would be our recognition, it would not require anything of them.

Why not, but it seems to me better if the UN doesn’t ask members something which will not be reciprocal.


I'm not sure how this is Significant, though. It doesn't mandate much, and what it does mandate is in undisputed areas. That might just be my personal feeling about the word "Significant", though.

Both mild and significant are OK for me, I understand that “undisputed borders” and “disputed borders” is something nation will choose themselves, but it seems to me that the requirement of clause 1, is significant. If it’s mild, I’m ok to change it no pb.


Does this mean that I can force the United Nations to discuss the borders of my floating cities on international waters which are officially borderless. We keep having problems of having big flotillas of naval ships and nuclear submarines wandering around inside the borders of the Pacific Ocean.

I will post the new draft soon, but it will the UN will not force to discuss borders dispute, it will just be encouraged.

Also lets say I have several regular islands, and there are man made islands floating next to them, do the man made islands extend the borders of the natural islands out to sea. Further once I have claimed the man made islands borders next to the natural islands, how far can I officially extend the borders from the edge of the sea if I expand the man made islands.

Good remark, as long as these man made islands are not beyond another members borders, this proposal doesn’t deal with these scenarios.

We have further questions. How does one define the borders of the asteroid fields. If one lives in an asteroid field, the chunks of rock owned within a given area are more important than the physical space surrounding them. It is very easy to move a big rock into ones neighbors space. The rocks-- resources are more important than the physical borders.

Not sure to get the point. You mean you own an asteroid, you have the ability to move it and you want to move it inside another member boundaries?

I think that if you want to migrate your asteroid from one member to another, you will have to comply with the migration authority of your nation and your asteroid will have to be accepted by the migration authority of the nation where you want to migrate your asteroid.

Ardchoilleans;11982016']I see significant proposals as increasing roleplay. In the example you gave, you could have a reformist (possibly monotheistic) Pharoah suddenly announcing that God told him slaves were no longer acceptable, and launch dozens of RPs from that one point. It's like having blind chance or natural disasters (or idiot gormless governments) affecting real life.

I see this proposal as increasing roleplay. For example, a rogue nation could have its rogue leader suddenly announcing that God told him that it was no longer acceptable for his nation to claim countless foreign territories, and then shift the national policy towards peace process, economic development and social initiative, and launch dozens of RPs from that one point. It's like having blind chance or stunning religious events affecting real life;)

This is like opening a can of starved fire ants while covered in honey. It will only hurt.

I understand your point of view, but for me recognitions of borders are important step for international relationship, for example the China-India dispute had closed their borders for decades.

What about adding a clause encouraging members to establish border crossing point with other members with whom they share a border?

I understand your point of view, but for me recognitions of borders are important step for international relationship, for example the China-India dispute had closed their borders for decades.

What about adding a clause encouraging members to establish border crossing point with other members with whom they share a border?

I really wish you would stop using RL analogies to support your proposals.

I don't see what adding that clause would do to help the proposal. I don't even like the idea of the proposal in the first place, adding that phrase isn't going to change it.

To put it succinctly, I just don't like the whole idea behind it. It smells of nannying and intrusion. Nations have always benefited by fighting border disputes out anyway, supporting the status quo is a losing strategy.

This wouldn't support the status quo in the case of disputed borders. It requires that undisputed borders be recognized, and tries to avoid war with disputed ones.

Well, I can't claim to understand the Multiuniverse theory very well, and neither do I understand the proposal really...possibly due to my lack of knowledge (even after reading the NSwiki article).

Therefore, it is only seemly to me to oppose the resolution, because I don't vote for things I don't understand. However, that could change if I could receive more information regarding the function of the proposal, and the multiuniverse theory.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Here is the new draft.

I put the committee and the clause about borders crossing point in italic, as I'm not yet certain to include them inside and put also the Strength in italic


Strength: Significant (or mild?)

The United Nations,

-A- OBSERVING that border disputes and claims by more than one nation over a territory are significant sources of wars and cause excessive damage to international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships:

-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared amongst UN members;

Establish the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) for the purpose of helping members desiring to settle their borders and seeking for a neutral third party mediation

-2- URGES member to seek neutral third party mediation, peaceful, fair, and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputes, such as the the CMRoB

-3- APPLAUDS AND ENCOURAGES all efforts by nations in the world to mutually, officially or definitely recognize their international borders and all efforts to peacefully resolve related disputes.

URGES members to establish border crossing point with other members with whom they share a border, in order to increase international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships

NB: A territory, or a part of it, may belong to several nations, in the case that these nations are each in a different plane (or another dimension) of our NS multiverse.

Co-authored by Ceorana

The multiverse theory is basically [ooc: in my understanding/interpretation] that different nations can be separated by an additional dimension than the one they currently occupy, i.e. you can't travel from one to the other using normal methods of transportation. They're in two completely separate universes. (Which may in fact be in the same place if the world had a normal number of dimensions.)

Well, I can't claim to understand the Multiuniverse theory very well, and neither do I understand the proposal really...possibly due to my lack of knowledge (even after reading the NSwiki article).

Therefore, it is only seemly to me to oppose the resolution, because I don't vote for things I don't understand. However, that could change if I could receive more information regarding the function of the proposal, and the multiuniverse theory.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I mentionned a good NSwiki article about the multiverse. I think it's the best answer to your question:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Multiverse
But if you have still specific questions after reading it, I will try my best to answer them.

I have read the article, but the actual mechanics of the multiuniverse theory is to say the least confusing, thereby leading to confusion in this draft proposal.

Personally, I don't believe that any UN committee would be able to stop wars from happening regardless of what universe/planet/dimension/time-period they occur in. Further, if someone should wish to avoid war altogether..then they should develop IGNORE weapons. These handy little devices have the capacity of completely obliterating the existence of any would be opponent...indeed there is an international incident where i am currently involved in and I do not hear a response from my opponent within the next few days...i will just simply drop an ignore bomb on his capital and he will "magically" cease to exist. Oh and did i mention that IGNORE weaponry when used doesn't harm the environment?

Although Ceorana accurately addressed my questions...for now. But I will still be opposing the measure.

I really wish you would stop using RL analogies to support your proposals.
Why? It's not against the rules to do so, and it can save pages of exposition to refer to something in RL that may have an NS effect.

The only place RL effects are banned is in proposals proper. You can use RL examples and RL links in the forums anytime it improves clarity.

I have read the article, but the actual mechanics of the multiuniverse theory is to say the least confusing, thereby leading to confusion in this draft proposal.

Not sure I can do this, but I will try to answer you if you explicit what can lead to confusion about the multiverse.


Personally, I don't believe that any UN committee would be able to stop wars from happening regardless of what universe/planet/dimension/time-period they occur in. Further, if someone should wish to avoid war altogether..then they should develop IGNORE weapons. These handy little devices have the capacity of completely obliterating the existence of any would be opponent...indeed there is an international incident where i am currently involved in and I do not hear a response from my opponent within the next few days...i will just simply drop an ignore bomb on his capital and he will "magically" cease to exist. Oh and did i mention that IGNORE weaponry when used doesn't harm the environment?

Thanks for this, It's pretty interesting, and i like what you say, but I'm not sure to find a pragmatic-enough manner to write it in international legislation.

Resubmitted as such, for another test submition without campaigning.
Thanks for all the comments.

Mutual Recognition of Borders
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

-A- OBSERVING that border disputes and claims by more than one nation over a territory are significant sources of wars and cause excessive damage to international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships:


-1- REQUIRES every member to recognize officially and definitely their currently undisputed international borders with other UN members and the undisputed international borders shared amongst UN members;

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members desiring to settle their borders and seeking for a neutral third party mediation;

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, such as the CMRoB, for peaceful, fair, and balanced solutions, during current and future border disputes;

-4- APPLAUDS AND ENCOURAGES all efforts by nations in the world to mutually, officially or definitely recognize their international borders and all efforts to peacefully resolve related disputes;

-5- URGES members to establish border crossing points with other members with whom they share a border, in order to increase international cultural, economic, humanitarian and scientific relationships.


NB: A territory, or a part of it, may belong to several nations, in the case that these nations are each in a different plane (or another dimension) of our NS multiverse.

Co-authored by Ceorana

Thanks to every delegates who approved it so far, the ammount of approvals is superior to what we expected for a no-campaigning submition, as it obviously benefited from the abscence of resolution at vote.

We will probably resubmit it tommorow, along with a telegramming campaign.

Just if someone can help me, I'm not sure about grammar here, thank's a lot:

-2- ... and seeking for a neutral third party mediation;

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, ...

Thanks to every delegates who approved it so far, the ammount of approvals is superior to what we expected for a no-campaigning submition, as it obviously benefited from the abscence of resolution at vote.

We will probably resubmit it tommorow, along with a telegramming campaign.

Just if someone can help me, I'm not sure about grammar here, thank's a lot:

-2- ... and seeking for a neutral third party mediation;

-3- URGES members to seek neutral third party mediation, ...

I like your proposal. :)

To change clause 2, you might consider breaking it into two subsections:

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members whom are (a) desiring to settle their borders, and (b) seeking for a neutral third party mediation;

-or-

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members desiring to settle their borders and whom are seeking neutral third party mediation;

I prefer my first suggestion, as it is a bit more clear to me ... "Hey, look ... the CMRoB has two main tasks!" When reading German I can't recognize subtle things ... not at all. But if things are broken into steps (such as with game instructions), I understand it better. I would think that English works the same way to non-native English speakers. :)

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members whom are (a) desiring to settle their borders, and (b) seeking for a neutral third party mediation;

-or-

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members desiring to settle their borders and whom are seeking neutral third party mediation;



If you don't mind, a slight rephrasing: " ... to help members who want to (a) settle their borders and/or (b) seek neutral third-party mediation".

(I'm assuming here that there are two reasons to approach the committee -- to sort our your borders or to seek mediation; ie, that it's possible for a nation to want just one of these functions.)

I'd suggest the same alterations in the second version: who, not whom; present tense, not present continuous; and no 'a'.

"Settle" is a bit ambiguous. too, given that "settle their borders" could mean "encourage their citizens to settle (along) their borders" (downright provocative in some circumstances -- Thisistan has settled 4million people in the disputed territory on its borders with Thatistan.).

How about "clarify their borders"?

I like your proposal. :)

To change clause 2, you might consider breaking it into two subsections:

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members whom are (a) desiring to settle their borders, and (b) seeking for a neutral third party mediation;


Ardchoilleans;12015208']If you don't mind, a slight rephrasing: " ... to help members who want to (a) settle their borders and/or (b) seek neutral third-party mediation".

(I'm assuming here that there are two reasons to approach the committee -- to sort our your borders or to seek mediation; ie, that it's possible for a nation to want just one of these functions.)

I'd suggest the same alterations in the second version: who, not whom; present tense, not present continuous; and no 'a'.

"Settle" is a bit ambiguous. too, given that "settle their borders" could mean "encourage their citizens to settle (along) their borders" (downright provocative in some circumstances -- Thisistan has settled 4million people in the disputed territory on its borders with Thatistan.).

How about "clarify their borders"?


Thanks Mik and Ardchoilleans, so:

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members whom are (a) desiring to clarify their borders, or (b) seeking for a neutral third party mediation;

Thanks Mik and Ardchoilleans, so:

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members whom are (a) desiring to clarify their borders, or (b) seeking for a neutral third party mediation;


The other changes I suggested were changes of style; meh, tastes differ.

For good grammar, though, you really do need 'who' instead of 'whom'. Who is the form used for subjects, whom the form used for objects.

You need the subject form because you have an adjectival clause, "who are desiring.... (etc)". "Who" is the subject of the verb "are desiring" in this clause.

I'm trying not to use all those horrible grammatical terms, but I can't explain it any other way. Possibly you might use "nominative" instead of "subject"?

The other changes I suggested were changes of style; meh, tastes differ.

For good grammar, though, you really do need 'who' instead of 'whom'. Who is the form used for subjects, whom the form used for objects.

You need the subject form because you have an adjectival clause, "who are desiring.... (etc)". "Who" is the subject of the verb "are desiring" in this clause.

I'm trying not to use all those horrible grammatical terms, but I can't explain it any other way. Possibly you might use "nominative" instead of "subject"?

Thanks, ooops, in fact I had read your previous post too fast.

Your suggestion is great:

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and/or (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

Thanks, ooops, in fact I had read your previous post too fast.

Your suggestion is great:

-2- ESTABLISHES the Committee for Mutual Recognition of Borders (CMRoB) to help members who want to (i) clarify their borders and/or (ii) seek neutral third party mediation;

Looks good. I'd probably change "and/or" to "and", on the assumption that CMRoB is charged with only helping nations that want the help (part i) and that the body will always be a non-party to the dispute (hence part ii). Nothing big to worry about though. :)

Looks good. I'd probably change "and/or" to "and", on the assumption that CMRoB is charged with only helping nations that want the help (part i) and that the body will always be a non-party to the dispute (hence part ii). Nothing big to worry about though. :)

Yes indeed, It's "and", thanks.

As this proposal reached quorum, we would like to thank all nations who helped us to draft it, and in particular its co-author: Ceorana and the 135 delegates who approved it so far.

NB: A territory, or a part of it, may belong to several nations, in the case that these nations are each in a different plane (or another dimension) of our NS multiverse.Isn't this Metagaming, references to different "planes," "dimensions," and the "multiverse"?

As this proposal reached quorum, we would like to thank all nations who helped us to draft it, and in particular its co-author: Ceorana and the 135 delegates who approved it so far.

In turn, we'd like to thank you for the proposal. You have the complete support of our region's UN members. This proposal will only help cut off petty squabbles before they reach eyesore level in the future.

Isn't this Metagaming, references to different "planes," "dimensions," and the "multiverse"?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or ...

...attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations...

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but from what I found about what "Metagaming" is, it doesn't seem to me that this proposal do this,


... * Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does...

it doesn't seem to me that this proposal do this either,

... * Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.



and it doesn't seem to me that this proposal do this either.

Isn't this Metagaming, references to different "planes," "dimensions," and the "multiverse"?
It's not metagaming. Even though many players may not recognize or care that they exist, they are a legitimate RP construct within NationStates.

Had he required that a representative of each plane 'do something' as a result of this proposal, that would have been metagaming.

Isn't this Metagaming, references to different "planes," "dimensions," and the "multiverse"?

For what it is worth, the multiverse theory is one of the things that allows you to be right and me to be right at the same time. There was an article about it up on NSWiki, and though NSWiki isn't official, I believe just last week arguments were made about how another NSWiki article was effectively "official" as something could get.

It's not metagaming. Even though many players may not recognize or care that they exist, they are a legitimate RP construct within NationStates.

Had he required that a representative of each plane 'do something' as a result of this proposal, that would have been metagaming.

:confused: RP construct or not they clearly form metagame concepts about the nature of the NS Universe that are not accepted as canon as how the game actually is. The multiverse as a practical concept for actual UN legislation is extremely dangerous to practical UN resolution writing. Yes it's a great hand waving thing that avoids some of the silliness within the actual game itself (as are region populations that exceed the current population of the planet) but it should be avoided at all costs in written UN resolutions.

It is as metagaming as using "gnomes" or "werepenguins" in a resolution. Imposing ones view of the universe in UN resolutions is metagaming. I'm all for member nations messing with my people, my industry and even my land, but no way am I going to tolerate anyone breaking my fourth wall! We have enough problems with past, present and future technology in resolution writing.

:confused: RP construct or not they clearly form metagame concepts about the nature of the NS Universe that are not accepted as canon as how the game actually is. The multiverse as a practical concept for actual UN legislation is extremely dangerous to practical UN resolution writing. Yes it's a great hand waving thing that avoids some of the silliness within the actual game itself (as are region populations that exceed the current population of the planet) but it should be avoided at all costs in written UN resolutions.

It is as metagaming as using "gnomes" or "werepenguins" in a resolution. Imposing ones view of the universe in UN resolutions is metagaming. I'm all for member nations messing with my people, my industry and even my land, but no way am I going to tolerate anyone breaking my fourth wall! We have enough problems with past, present and future technology in resolution writing.

"Multiverse", "planes" and "other dimension" are common expressions which describe the structure of many worlds (such as NS) and are not specific to NS, you can read these interesting article about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe_%28fiction%29.
And it's why I personnally don't see which wall may be broken.

no way am I going to tolerate anyone breaking my fourth wall!
I hope you've got your campaign against this mapped out for when it hits the floor, 'cause I'm not taking it down for Metagaming. Find yourself another Deus ex machina.

Congratulations to Love and esterel for reaching quorum! My predecessor didn't much care for the resolution, but I'm still forming an opinion.

I'd also like to note the increasing use of the modbomb as a tool. Of course, some proposals are illegal and should be deleted, but I'm afraid that it is being increasingly used as a tool.

Let's all have a fun debate, then!

In the name of the Emperor,

Is this the Official Topic, or is someone creating a new one? We'll be glad to unstick and rename if you prefer a fresh start.

I representing the country of alchatraz am debating on the fact of war. people it is not a crime to go to war but the true crimes of war are genocide i am up for war and making peace BUT I AM STRICTLY AGAINST GENOCIDES >;(

I representing the country of alchatraz am debating on the fact of war. people it is not a crime to go to war but the true crimes of war are genocide i am up for war and making peace BUT I AM STRICTLY AGAINST GENOCIDES >;(
Nice random rant, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic.

Welcome to NationStates. We'll be here all week. Try the veal.

Is this the Official Topic, or is someone creating a new one? We'll be glad to unstick and rename if you prefer a fresh start.

Ok thanks, I'm creating a new one