NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations;

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary";

Also noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”;

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect privacy;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

This is a draft to repeal this:
We feel alarmed by the increasing intrusion of privacy by the governments in the world. Therefore, we propose that legislation is passed by each UN member that all personal communication, including, but not limited to:

face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet

shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. This evidence shall be reviewed and approved by the Judiciary before eavesdropping, phone tapping, network traffic monitoring, and other kinds of interception of communications is allowed.

Comments appreciated.

I'm not going to give you great odds on passing a repeal based upon "failure to define term X".

You might want to add something that supports the intent or otherwise nice and fluffy. Right now, it's a cold brick of facts thrown at the reader's throat.

I'm not going to give you great odds on passing a repeal based upon "failure to define term X".

You might want to add something that supports the intent or otherwise nice and fluffy. Right now, it's a cold brick of facts thrown at the reader's throat.

Any suggestions? I helped with the initial rewrite on the DEFCON forums, having added in the bit about the Judiciary, but if you have other suggestions I'd love to hear them.

Concerned, however, that UNR#10 creates no means to protect privacy;This statement isn't quite accurate since the original resolution presents at least one means of protecting privacy. The issue from where we sit is that the original is neither effective nor broad enough in its coverage limited as it is to communications.
Possibly: Concerned that privacy protections contained in UNR#10 are neither applicable to all member nations nor effective in providing a right of privacy due to their focus only on communications;

Noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”; ... Also noting the failure of the UNR#10 to define "Judiciary," or otherwise provide for competent oversight;The lack of definitions (at least of the words noted) aren't fatal flaws--national governments have a tendency to know what the judiciary and evidence is within the context of their systems. Emphasis could be placed on the lack of monitoring, or better, redress for violations, since that is problematic.
Possibly: Noting the lack of requirement in UNR#10 for means of redress for governmental violations of privacy;

Further notes that UNR#10 only “proposes” that legislation be passed by UN member nations to regulate privacy, thus creating a loophole that allows nations to breach privacy;Eh, doesn't this fall into the category of not chipping at old legislation just because it precedes the rule-sets?
Uneased by the fact that UNR#10 may hinder investigation through its unclear requirements;This seems to be trying to be all things to all people; either the original doesn't effectively protect privacy from government intrusion or it's hindering police powers. It's not impossible for it to do both, but that's not clear in your argument yet.
Possibly: Unsettled by the fact that UNR#10 does not provide clear guidelines for police investigations to follow, placing said agencies in danger of unintentionally violating individuals' rights and suffering the consequences in judicially disallowed evidence;

Eh, doesn't this fall into the category of not chipping at old legislation just because it precedes the rule-sets?

No. Rule-sets don't dictate interpretation of the resolution, just the legality of it when it goes to vote. So we couldn't attack it for being "Bloody Stupid" or having a Game Mechanics violation or whatever, but we can go after the fact that it's of bad quality.

You're going to make us find it, aren't you? :p *

What I remember, and it was probably in the context of the late, lamented UNR#7, was a mod comment/ruling/something to the effect that a repeal couldn't be based on 'it doesn't follow the rules or current format conventions' and that the now less-accepted language of early resolutions doesn't necessarily make them repealable, which to me that one clause tries to do.

"We propose to do X" is merely formal, indirect language (typical of pseudo-parliament speak) to effect whatever X is.


*We propose to go eat and drink instead. ;)

No. Rule-sets don't dictate interpretation of the resolution, just the legality of it when it goes to vote. So we couldn't attack it for being "Bloody Stupid" or having a Game Mechanics violation or whatever, but we can go after the fact that it's of bad quality.

You're going to make us find it, aren't you? :p *

What I remember, and it was probably in the context of the late, lamented UNR#7, was a mod comment/ruling/something to the effect that a repeal couldn't be based on 'it doesn't follow the rules or current format conventions' and that the now less-accepted language of early resolutions doesn't necessarily make them repealable, which to me that one clause tries to do.

"We propose to do X" is merely formal, indirect language (typical of pseudo-parliament speak) to effect whatever X is.


*We propose to go eat and drink instead. ;)

The point is not that it is illegal according to today's rules; the rules are obviously not retroactive. The point is that any requirements of the resolution can be easily bypassed because use of propose renders the whole resolution ignorable by today's standard.


Concerned, however, that UNR#10 creates no means to protect privacy;
This statement isn't quite accurate since the original resolution presents at least one means of protecting privacy. The issue from where we sit is that the original is neither effective nor broad enough in its coverage limited as it is to communications.

Thus, as I stated above, this statement is accurate because any of the provisions/requirements/etc. can be bypassed easily. That's why this resolution needs to go, IMHO.

You're going to make us find it, aren't you? :p *

What I remember, and it was probably in the context of the late, lamented UNR#7, was a mod comment/ruling/something to the effect that a repeal couldn't be based on 'it doesn't follow the rules or current format conventions' and that the now less-accepted language of early resolutions doesn't necessarily make them repealable, which to me that one clause tries to do.

"We propose to do X" is merely formal, indirect language (typical of pseudo-parliament speak) to effect whatever X is.


*We propose to go eat and drink instead. ;)

The format rules are actually in relation to the section of rules called "Format". In the case of UNR #7, IIRC, the explicit situation was the fact that the title did not match the text of the resolution - something that would be illegal by today's standards.

Basically, the situation is that no matter how illegal the proposal is, we CANNOT read it like it is illegal - it is legal upon passing whether it would be illegal if proposed today or not.

IIRC, there have been a few resolutions that have been successfully repealed for the weaker wording without really getting much of a look from the mods. It can't be the main argument for the repeal, but it can be an argument for the repeal.

The point is not that it is illegal according to today's rules; the rules are obviously not retroactive. The point is that any requirements of the resolution can be easily bypassed because use of propose renders the whole resolution ignorable by today's standard.

We would have to disagree. As the honoured representative of Rubina pointed out, the word 'propose' is formal language, indicating that the operative content of the proposal follows. Hence the word. Apart from the use of the first person and the slightly misleading title, "Stop Privacy Intrusion" actually stands up quite well to today's standard, better than a number of more modern proposals in fact. It carefully doesn't overly define terms that are subject to national variation, it's quite explicit about what it intends to be protected, and it makes a decent attempt to use formal language for clarity. We would be lothe to lose such legislation without at least a suggestion that something to the same intent was in the works.

We would have to disagree. As the honoured representative of Rubina pointed out, the word 'propose' is formal language, indicating that the operative content of the proposal follows. Hence the word. Apart from the use of the first person and the slightly misleading title, "Stop Privacy Intrusion" actually stands up quite well to today's standard, better than a number of more modern proposals in fact. It carefully doesn't overly define terms that are subject to national variation, it's quite explicit about what it intends to be protected, and it makes a decent attempt to use formal language for clarity. We would be lothe to lose such legislation without at least a suggestion that something to the same intent was in the works.

1) That's your opinion. That's fine and I thank you for your input. It's still my proposal. I'll consider every option though, and...
2)...I'm going to wait for a second or third opinion.

We would be lothe to lose such legislation without at least a suggestion that something to the same intent was in the works.

I am so fucking tired of hearing this goddamn dead horse line. You want to replace it? Step up to the plate. I don't speak for Dr. Hodz, so I can't say there's a replacement in the works. Frankly, I don't care either way. But this "I hope you have a replacement in the works" bullshit has got to stop, because it's not constructive, it's not related to the proposal at hand, and it only amounts to an ad hominem against the repeal's author.

Rang Erman
Royally Pissed Off

The point is not that it is illegal according to today's rules; the rules are obviously not retroactive. The point is that any requirements of the resolution can be easily bypassed because use of propose renders the whole resolution ignorable by today's standard.

Basically, the situation is that no matter how illegal the proposal is, we CANNOT read it like it is illegal - it is legal upon passing whether it would be illegal if proposed today or not.Hrm. I honestly don't think I argued UNR#10 is, was or would be illegal under any interpretation.
It [weaker wording of older proposals] can't be the main argument for the repeal, but it can be an argument for the repeal.Given Akimonad's later statements, it certainly looks like he is making it the main argument.
I am so fucking tired of hearing this goddamn dead horse line. You want to replace it? Step up to the plate. I don't speak for Dr. Hodz, so I can't say there's a replacement in the works. Frankly, I don't care either way. But this "I hope you have a replacement in the works" bullshit has got to stop, because it's not constructive, it's not related to the proposal at hand, and it only amounts to an ad hominem against the repeal's author.You should see a doctor about that bulging vein and a logic tutor about your misunderstanding of ad hominem. Asking if there is a replacement, for which the repeal is necessary, is merely determining what the voting options will be. If a resolution is operating, at least marginally, in a nation's eyes, it makes no sense to repeal it and have nothing in its stead, or worse find yourself looking at a blocker that's even worse, in your opinion, than the original resolution. You can froth all you want, but that's reality.

Completely composed,
Leetha Talone

Asking if there is a replacement, for which the repeal is necessary, is merely determining what the voting options will be.
Oh, I love the smell of bullshit in the evening. The fact of the matter is, whether or not a replacement for a resolution being repealed is on the table is irrelevent the voting options of "FOR," "AGAINST" and "ABSTAIN" remain the same. And I share Mr. Erman's sentiments with regards to this constant harping about replacements. I strongly believe that a repeal author is in no way, shape or form responsible for providing a replacement, if you want to see a replacement, I suggest you get busy writing one.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We would be lothe to lose such legislation without at least a suggestion that something to the same intent was in the works.

I stumbled over this looking to deal with this same issue in the last resolution.

Repeal Authors are in no way obligated to provide or promote a replacement proposal. It's not an NS rule, and it probably never will be.

From here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12050778&postcount=177).

You should see a doctor about that bulging vein and a logic tutor about your misunderstanding of ad hominem. Asking if there is a replacement, for which the repeal is necessary, is merely determining what the voting options will be. If a resolution is operating, at least marginally, in a nation's eyes, it makes no sense to repeal it and have nothing in its stead, or worse find yourself looking at a blocker that's even worse, in your opinion, than the original resolution. You can froth all you want, but that's reality.

Completely composed,
Leetha Talone


Oh, aren't you just the sweetest little bitch, Leetha? I bet all the boys love you back in Rubina.

A marginal resolution is no resolution at all. Replacement for replacement's sake is something that smart people do not do! Now, let's get our pretty little behinds back to the resolution at hand, shall we Leetha? Yes, let's.

Now, Leetha, do you have anything else to add to Mr. Hodz's fine resolution here? You seem like a smart gal, Leetha, those additions you suggested are pretty good. But I wonder, why bother with that nonsense about a replacement when we don't even know if this'll make it to the submission phase?

There now.

Rang Erman
Fed Up

Oh, I love the smell of bullshit in the evening. The fact of the matter is, whether or not a replacement for a resolution being repealed is on the table is irrelevent the voting options of "FOR," "AGAINST" and "ABSTAIN" remain the same. ... I strongly believe that a repeal author is in no way, shape or form responsible for providing a replacement, ...Bullpucky. The question put forth is an attempt to understand whether the author of the repeal is merely repealing or is attempting to repeal and replace. No responsibility for a replacement on the part of the repeal author is inherent in the question. Those attempting repeals, however, surely are aware that the answer to the question of a replacement does indeed effect people's choices between the three voting options. Perhaps that's the source of their over-sensitivity and defensiveness?

From here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12050778&postcount=177).One is not requiring the author of the repeal to provide a replacement simply by asking if a replacement is being repaired. Said repeal author can merely answer "no" to the question and let the chips fall as to how that affects the asker's choice whether to vote for or against the repeal.

--L.T.

Oh, aren't you just the sweetest little bitch, Leetha? I bet all the boys love you back in Rubina.

A marginal resolution is no resolution at all. Replacement for replacement's sake is something that smart people do not do! Now, let's get our pretty little behinds back to the resolution at hand, shall we Leetha? Yes, let's.

Now, Leetha, do you have anything else to add to Mr. Hodz's fine resolution here? You seem like a smart gal, Leetha, those additions you suggested are pretty good. But I wonder, why bother with that nonsense about a replacement when we don't even know if this'll make it to the submission phase?

There now.

Rang Erman
Fed Up

Bite me, Rang.

If Dr. Hodz cares to present another draft, I'll be happy to look at it, though at this point I think he needs to provide far more support to his repeal than leaning on the use of "propose" as a flaw.

Had you (and Rep. Flibble) not over-reacted to the Gobbannium delegate's question, the issue of replacements wouldn't have gone any further than the initial question and its answer.

Ironically amused,
Leetha Talone

AHEM (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450344)

I'm gunning at everyone here because both sides have failings so far in this debate. Snipes have been pruned

-----------------------------

Hrm. I honestly don't think I argued UNR#10 is, was or would be illegal under any interpretation.

You didn't. I'm actually referring to the actual ruling you're referring to and what effect it would have on #10.

Given Akimonad's later statements, it certainly looks like he is making it the main argument.

No....he's got 4 arguments with 1 being weak wording, 1 being it's limited to communications and 2 being vague termonology and none of them really taking the fore as the "main argument" - really the main argument is that it's....poor quality.

Actually.....that "limited to communications" might be worth strengthening, but that's really the only campaign I can see having a chance. I actually disagree with the other three arguments for reasons I'll get into in a bit and the communications argument would be good if there was a replacement in the works, but I doubt it so....yeah.

We would be lothe to lose such legislation without at least a suggestion that something to the same intent was in the works.

Loopholes are a tool used by many to bypass resolutions. A FULLY valid loophole in this resolution is the decision to interpret the term "propose" as non-binding. YOU were the one who argued that Age of Consent should be passed to address the 1% of nations that aren't going to comply with the intent of SPA. The same is true for this proposal - 1% of nations - probably more like 5-10% - are utilizing the loophole to bypass the UN.

You need to learn how loopholes work and you need to decide - are you going to accept the fact that nations will always find loopholes and let the 1% go through, or are you going to tighten the noose. You need to make that decision because, thus far, you are horribly inconsistent.

On the other hand:

But this "I hope you have a replacement in the works" bullshit has got to stop, because it's not constructive, it's not related to the proposal at hand, and it only amounts to an ad hominem against the repeal's author.

Gobbannium has the full right to decide and declare what the requirements would be for him to support or not support a proposal. Considering that there are many posters here who do little more than say "I agree" or "I disagree" or "you really need to read the rules", I think he's right now running for about par for the course. He has contributed, constructively, to many proposals so I don't see a good alternate approach

It is not an ad-hominem attack - especially not in the context being used. If you want it translated, he says he disagrees with the points in the repeal, he thinks that UNR #10 is an excellent proposal and he would not wish to see it repealed unless it were part of a larger R&R campaign to improve the general quality.

I strongly believe that a repeal author is in no way, shape or form responsible for providing a replacement, if you want to see a replacement, I suggest you get busy writing one.

Nor was Gob in any way, shape or form saying that the requirement to do so rested on the shoulders of the repealer. For more information, read my above reply to AA (if you haven't already)

A marginal resolution is no resolution at all. Replacement for replacement's sake is something that smart people do not do!

A marginal resolution where the intent is clear will still be followed, willingly, by a vast percentage of the UN body. If that is "no resolution", then we have never passed a real resolution.

But I wonder, why bother with that nonsense about a replacement when we don't even know if this'll make it to the submission phase?

Because if there is talk or even structure of a replacement in the works, we can vastly rework the repeal text in such a manner to accompany and invite the replacement - something that could very well assist in the attempt to repeal the old resolution.

-------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------

Sorry about the White Space, but I think we needed a breather. On to the proposal.

I mentioned above in this post that I think putting the communications channel limitations at the forefront is probably a good way to go. Now mind you, if you do that, it does imply a replacement and there's slightly more validity to complaints - though between Flibs and AA, I'm sure you'll get enough protection that anyone who makes that argument will likely find themselves plastered to the wall in short order.

That said, there is much I just plain don't agree with in your repeal text.

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Concerned, however, that UNR#10 creates no means to protect privacy;

It actually does create a means - the fact that proposes exists means there's a means. What you really want to be aiming for is "guarantees". If one reads it in the most logical manner impossible, means is quite self-explanatory.

Noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”;

Also noting the failure of the UNR#10 to define "Judiciary," or otherwise provide for competent oversight;

Judiciary is, actually, quite well defined - of or relating to the judicial branch. Pretty much, the concept of the entire system is to give judicial overview to the exercise of executive powers. However, the biggest loophole is actually combining the judicial and executive branches into a single entity - which isn't, necessarily, uncommon in dicatatorships.

Regardless, because the concept is "judicial overview", "serious evidence" doesn't, actually, need to be defined. In a corrupt society, a police officer could walk into a judge's office and say "hey, I got blood evidence that so-and-so did this" and the judge would blind sign it even if the term was defined.

Further notes that UNR#10 only “proposes” that legislation be passed by UN member nations to regulate privacy, thus creating a loophole that allows nations to breach privacy;

I would put this one as your last argument. The hardcore loophole hunters and fighters will agree with this sentiment and may even vote for your proposal because of it, but the vast majority will just groan at it. You put it last, it's an afterthought, it's unimportant, and by that point, if we already have been sold, we aren't going to care enough about it to make us change our votes - we already know that them UN people are a strange bunch.

Uneased by the fact that UNR#10 may hinder investigation through its unclear requirements;

Drop. The entire idea is to hinder investigation to protect the rights of the innocent and, really, in the event that the UN fails to be specific, the right falls to the individual nation to determine the specific. The vagueness isn't vague in a sense that it can actually hinder anything with reasonable legislation.

Further, it contradicts your opening line where you say no mechanism was provided, yet here you say that the provided mechanism was so effective that it neutralized our police force. It also contradicts the next line by the same argument.

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect privacy;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

Wait.....wasn't there something about being limited to communications? Hmm...someone else must've said that then.....

Bullpucky. The question put forth is an attempt to understand whether the author of the repeal is merely repealing or is attempting to repeal and replace. No responsibility for a replacement on the part of the repeal author is inherent in the question. Those attempting repeals, however, surely are aware that the answer to the question of a replacement does indeed effect people's choices between the three voting options. Perhaps that's the source of their over-sensitivity and defensiveness?

--L.T.

And it shouldn't matter, repeals should be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of the possible replacement or lack thereof.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Any suggestions? I helped with the initial rewrite on the DEFCON forums, having added in the bit about the Judiciary, but if you have other suggestions I'd love to hear them.

I would like to point out that the discussion regarding this proposal on the DEFCON (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?) forum was conducted in an unofficial capacity, as this proposal does not relate to international security. The proposal author merely floated it among DEFCON members for advice.

I now yield the floor to Sheik Nadnerb.

Cordially,
Sheik Nottap bin Cluich
Cluichstani Defense Minister
Chairman, UN DEFCON

Bullpucky. The question put forth is an attempt to understand whether the author of the repeal is merely repealing or is attempting to repeal and replace. No responsibility for a replacement on the part of the repeal author is inherent in the question. Those attempting repeals, however, surely are aware that the answer to the question of a replacement does indeed effect people's choices between the three voting options. Perhaps that's the source of their over-sensitivity and defensiveness?

Bullshit. Yeah, I said it. Bullshit. A repeal needs to be judged on its merits and on the arguments made against the resolution at which it is aimed. If the resolution is a turd, it should be repealed. End of story. Constantly whinging about replacements is tiresome. That's the source of over-sensitivity. We're tired of hearing that tripe.

One is not requiring the author of the repeal to provide a replacement simply by asking if a replacement is being repaired. Said repeal author can merely answer "no" to the question and let the chips fall as to how that affects the asker's choice whether to vote for or against the repeal.

As far as I'm aware -- although I can't speak for the proposal's author, of course -- there is no replacement in the works. Can you drop this garbage now and, as you put it, let the chips fall where they may?

In summary:

A. The existing resolution is shite.
B. It should be repealed.
C. If you're so bloody hungry for a replacement, write it yourself and quit the constant whinging.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

And it shouldn't matter, repeals should be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of the possible replacement or lack thereof.
Says who? As far as I know this body hasn't codified any rules on the rationale for voting choices (not that any attempt to do so would be legal). The political reality is that individuals have their own, valid reasons as to why they vote a certain way or not. People stamping their feet or saying what "should" be doesn't change that reality.

And it shouldn't matter, repeals should be judged on their own merits, not on the merits of the possible replacement or lack thereof.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Proposals and repeals have been supported an opposed because people liked/disliked:
-The sentiment
-The author
-The replacement
-The replacement written by someone else
-The process used to vet the proposal
-The communities used to vet the proposal
-Co-authors and campaigners
-The actual text

IIRC, you, yourself, are guilty of the author one. I know multiple people acknowledged that part of their reason for voting on the recent repeal for MRoB was because of personal issues with L&E or how he conducts his drafting process.

Judiciary is, actually, quite well defined - of or relating to the judicial branch. Pretty much, the concept of the entire system is to give judicial overview to the exercise of executive powers. However, the biggest loophole is actually combining the judicial and executive branches into a single entity - which isn't, necessarily, uncommon in dicatatorships.


You've misread my proposal. Put your Merriam-Webster way for a moment. I know what Judiciary means. I took Social Studies in Sixth Grade and we learned all about the three branches of government.

What my point is there is that "Judiciary" isn't clearly defined in the resolution. It is referencing an unknown entity. It does not specify any specific type, be it international, national or local. I think this came from the old days of RL UN = NSUN. They probably assumed - or wished to assume - that the UN had some international court. Well, we don't. Under that interpretation, any "serious evidence" found would have to be approved by some nonexistent authority. I imagine an abandoned office, still receiving mail. It doesn't work, and would hinder an investigation. Under the other two possibilities, National and Local, that is certainly a possibility. To an extent. Some nations do not have courts. Or, the courts are corrupt/crooked/etc. Clearly this would be an impediment to criminal investigation. Those interpretations (and at this point interpreting is all you can do with UNR#10) should show that this resolution severely hinders any sort of investigation.

Let's move on to the word "propose". It is up for interpretation, which, in case you haven't caught on, is the subject of my post. I know "propose" is a "proper" form. According to some people. Some people read potato and say "Po-tay-toe" and others say "po-tah-to". It's all about how you read it. In this case, my argument is that the word "propose" can be construed as "flaky" or ineffective since a government/nation (and I think of Kenny's Creative Solutions Dept.) would read that and say "Yep, well, we don't have to do anything. It merely proposes." In this instance, I believe that "propose" acts the same as the word "urges" in most proposals. It does not implement anything, it just suggests. You don't have to listen to it.

I hope I have shown that I believe UNR#10 is a pile of cow paddies masquerading as something useful. It is my opinion that this resolution should be repealed so that we can continue to operate our investigations and intelligence gathering in an efficient way.

Now let's switch gears to a replacement.

I make no promise of a replacement. I'm not obligated to, despite what many seem to think. And to those of you, I ask: Why does EVERY REPEAL need a replacement? Surely there are some resolutions that could stand to be completely forgotten. We did not replace "Fight the Axis of Evil." Why? Because it was a test or whatever and it did nothing. The repeal function does not come with a disclaimer that
All repeals must be well-written and you must make guarantee of a replacement or risk your banishment.
If the repeal function came with requirements beyond the Rules for UN Proposals, I would not be offering this up for your consideration and, apparently, blatant criticism or disgust. I should think you'd be kind to someone who is new to proposal writing and mentor that person, like Mr. Erman and Mr. Flibble have. Instead, I see that Mr. or Mrs. MacDougall seems to be demanding conformity to his/her will. I was expecting constructive editing, not control. Or at least that's what I interpret.

Back to the subject of a replacement. There may be one. It's a crude draft at this stage. Now will you shut your replacement-mongering mouths? My ears hurt. You were not informed of this before because, at this stage, it's noon of your business. If you care so much about a replacement, you should pull yourself up by your suspenders, sit down at the keyboard and WRITE ONE YOURSELF. Your comments on a replacement seem irrelevant to my draft so I have addressed the issue to dispel it completely.

***********


Regardless, because the concept is "judicial overview", "serious evidence" doesn't, actually, need to be defined. In a corrupt society, a police officer could walk into a judge's office and say "hey, I got blood evidence that so-and-so did this" and the judge would blind sign it even if the term was defined.


I hope I proved that the concept does not necessarily mean "judicial overview". That said, your argument here falls to pieces if that is not, indeed the case, which I believe it isn't.

It needs to be defined because the resolution singles out "serious evidence". This is awfully ambiguous, and creates another loophole. A corrupt judge could say that evidence presented to him does not constitute "serious evidence" and criminal justice would fall apart in that case. Of course, if there is no judge, there is no serious evidence, therefore there is no justice.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

This debate inspired me to create a new UN card. :cool:

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1287/rattlescx6.png

Possibly: Concerned that privacy protections contained in UNR#10 are neither applicable to all member nations nor effective in providing a right of privacy due to their focus only on communications;
I might tweak that clause a little bit. This is a good stencil.

Possibly: Noting the lack of requirement in UNR#10 for means of redress for governmental violations of privacy;
This is an excellent suggestion. I wish to use a word less complex than "redress" though.

Possibly: Unsettled by the fact that UNR#10 does not provide clear guidelines for police investigations to follow, placing said agencies in danger of unintentionally violating individuals' rights and suffering the consequences in judicially disallowed evidence;
This is good too.

You've misread my proposal. Put your Merriam-Webster way for a moment. I know what Judiciary means. I took Social Studies in Sixth Grade and we learned all about the three branches of government.

Oh good.

What my point is there is that "Judiciary" isn't clearly defined in the resolution. It is referencing an unknown entity. It does not specify any specific type, be it international, national or local. I think this came from the old days of RL UN = NSUN. They probably assumed - or wished to assume - that the UN had some international court.

Your assumption is unfounded. Even in the RL=NS concept, the World Court is not a fully recognized body nor does it address non-International issues.

Further, the first wave of proposals had a tendancy to try and implement what the authors saw as important rights that needed to be protected in NS just as they were in RL. In this case, it was the issue of Judicial oversight which is often done anywhere from municipal to national levels in RL. It is relatively unimportant what level it got done at, what was important was that a separate judiciary had oversight. If you want to attack poor distinctions, THAT is the best place to start - at no point does it say that the executive and the judiciary have to be different.

Well, we don't. Under that interpretation, any "serious evidence" found would have to be approved by some nonexistent authority.

The authority defined by your own nation, not by the NSUN. Under UNR #49, anything the UN fails to address directly, your nation gets to address personally in whatever way it feels like. If there's a lack of a clear definition of what such a thing is, your nation gets to invent one.

I imagine an abandoned office, still receiving mail. It doesn't work, and would hinder an investigation. Under the other two possibilities, National and Local, that is certainly a possibility. To an extent. Some nations do not have courts. Or, the courts are corrupt/crooked/etc.

Every single government that enforces laws has a judiciary. The Judiciary might be the Dictator who also ordered the arrest of X persons, but they are still the judiciary. Judiciary != Courts.

Clearly this would be an impediment to criminal investigation. Those interpretations (and at this point interpreting is all you can do with UNR#10) should show that this resolution severely hinders any sort of investigation.

This interpretation assumes that nations picked the method of implementation of UNR #10 that would most greatly damage them. The average implementation in every system would still allow a fully functioning system to operate. Even your own nation should have no problem implementing it.

Let's move on to the word "propose". It is up for interpretation, which, in case you haven't caught on, is the subject of my post. I know "propose" is a "proper" form. According to some people.

Did you notice that I didn't care about that point?

Some people read potato and say "Po-tay-toe" and others say "po-tah-to". It's all about how you read it. In this case, my argument is that the word "propose" can be construed as "flaky" or ineffective since a government/nation (and I think of Kenny's Creative Solutions Dept.) would read that and say "Yep, well, we don't have to do anything. It merely proposes." In this instance, I believe that "propose" acts the same as the word "urges" in most proposals. It does not implement anything, it just suggests. You don't have to listen to it.

Which means that if you care whether the resolution is being enforced or not, it is an argument for you. I'm in no way, shape or form suggesting that you don't use it or that it is a poor argument. It will only get you votes if you take my suggestion and make it one of your final arguments. In fact, I chewed on Gobbannium more about the word "proposes" than I did on you - my only comment to you about it was argument order. I would appreciate it if you recognized what my arguments actually were - or if you wish to be gunning at Gob and Rubina over the matter, you may wish to actually turn to them (or their characters, or their posts) so that they are aware that you are addressing them. As it is, it looks like you're attacking me using straw man tactics. Moving on

I hope I have shown that I believe UNR#10 is a pile of cow paddies masquerading as something useful. It is my opinion that this resolution should be repealed so that we can continue to operate our investigations and intelligence gathering in an efficient way.

It would be wiser for you to attack UNR #10 not because it impedes your ability to investigate matters but because it doesn't impede your ability to investigate matters. It would be wiser to go from the position of Kenny Solutions Agency and say that the resolution doesn't do what it intended and work from there.

Now let's switch gears to a replacement.

I make no promise of a replacement. I'm not obligated to, despite what many seem to think.

At no point has anyone said you are obligated to make a replacement. Again, please stop misrepresenting our arguments.

And to those of you, I ask: Why does EVERY REPEAL need a replacement? Surely there are some resolutions that could stand to be completely forgotten. We did not replace "Fight the Axis of Evil." Why?

Because the sentiment was no greater wanted than the actual text. As it were, the people who have commented on a replacement (they didn't ask you for one, they said they won't vote for the repeal unless a replacement was being looked at) have all enjoyed the sentiment that is behind this resolution.

Because it was a test or whatever and it did nothing. The repeal function does not come with a disclaimer that
All repeals must be well-written and you must make guarantee of a replacement or risk your banishment.
If the repeal function came with requirements beyond the Rules for UN Proposals, I would not be offering this up for your consideration and, apparently, blatant criticism or disgust.

You have gotten both suggestions and criticism. Jolt forums are known for that.

I should think you'd be kind to someone who is new to proposal writing and mentor that person, like Mr. Erman and Mr. Flibble have. Instead, I see that Mr. or Mrs. MacDougall seems to be demanding conformity to his/her will.

My, my. Thus far, I have been the most constructive and helpful individual on this thread yet for some reason, I'm attacked. I have both defended you and attacked you - not to mention the supporters and opposers of this proposal. Indeed, aside from Cluich and Hack, I have engaged every single individual on this thread. I am trying to help, but apparently you think that everything that comes out of my mouth must be "Death to Akimonad". It's not.

I'm not asking for conformity, I'm asking for intelligence. I hear you have some, I would like to see you use it at some point.

I was expecting constructive editing, not control. Or at least that's what I interpret.

It is constructive editing. I have stated where the failings in your proposal are, I have stated where the weakness in your arguments are. I'm trying to help you draft a proposal that would be looked at by the average member of the General Assembly and they would support it - even though I don't agree with the position I know your government holds on this matter.

It is time that you shelved your feud with me. I know you come from a region that has, often, been at odds with me, but I am a well respected member of this community, I am a constructive member of this community, and my record shows that I do believe that helping new authors is above my own agenda.

Back to the subject of a replacement. There may be one. It's a crude draft at this stage. Now will you shut your replacement-mongering mouths? My ears hurt. You were not informed of this before because, at this stage, it's noon of your business. If you care so much about a replacement, you should pull yourself up by your suspenders, sit down at the keyboard and WRITE ONE YOURSELF. Your comments on a replacement seem irrelevant to my draft so I have addressed the issue to dispel it completely.

Again, I'm not one who was calling for a replacement. Stop attacking me on something unrelated to what I have been saying.

***********

I hope I proved that the concept does not necessarily mean "judicial overview". That said, your argument here falls to pieces if that is not, indeed the case, which I believe it isn't.

It needs to be defined because the resolution singles out "serious evidence". This is awfully ambiguous, and creates another loophole. A corrupt judge could say that evidence presented to him does not constitute "serious evidence" and criminal justice would fall apart in that case. Of course, if there is no judge, there is no serious evidence, therefore there is no justice.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

Alright, let me sing it for you:

#1: It says that nations are to pass their own laws to implement the proposal. It does not say that the text of UNR #10 IS the law. That means your legislative branch needs to pass some text which implements the general requirements of this proposal. That INCLUDES fleshing out the terms "Judiciary" and "Serious offense" - and that's assuming you even bother writing such proposals.

So where does it say you get to decide what those two terms are? Aside from "naturally", we have

Article 2

§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

What does it mean? You can exercise your authority over your own nation in whatever manner so pleases you as long as it doesn't CONTRADICT the United Nations. If a term such as the judiciary is vague, ANY member of the judicial branch will do. If the term "serious" is vague, you can do whatever the hell you want to make your laws accordingly. Quite frankly, if your emperor's emotions are to be considered "serious", that is perfectly valid.

Did you notice that I didn't care about that point?
Are you so selfish that you believe that the entire post was directed at you? Do I need to notate which sections apply to which people? You really can't take a hint, can you? Did I at any time say who my points were addressed to?

I'm asking for intelligence. I hear you have some, I would like to see you use it at some point.
I have, thanks. Apparently not up to your par though. You can politely settle down now.

At no point has anyone said you are obligated to make a replacement. Again, please stop misrepresenting our arguments.
Which has already been addressed ...by other people in this thread.

My, my. Thus far, I have been the most constructive and helpful individual on this thread yet for some reason, I'm attacked. I have both defended you and attacked you - not to mention the supporters and opposers of this proposal. Indeed, aside from Cluich and Hack, I have engaged every single individual on this thread. I am trying to help, but apparently you think that everything that comes out of my mouth must be "Death to Akimonad". It's not.


You can't understand the reason you're attacked? Try to get this through your head: You are not helpful to me. I have completely disregarded your suggestions because I do not want to use them. Though you may think you're helpful, I can tell you that you are not.

It also does not seem to me that you are trying to help.

Your suggestions are no longer welcome to me. I will write my own proposal.

Hardly respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

(TO EVERYONE)
I am hereby ceasing all disputes I've made.

Now, let's draft something, shall we?

The United Nations;

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Concerned that privacy protections contained in UNR#10 are neither applicable to all member nations nor effective in providing a right of privacy due to their focus only on communications;

Noting the lack of requirement in UNR#10 for means of rectification for governmental violations of privacy;

Noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”;

Further notes that UNR#10 only “proposes” that legislation be passed by UN member nations to regulate privacy, thus creating a loophole that allows nations to breach privacy;

Also noting the failure of the UNR#10 to define "Judiciary," or otherwise provide for competent oversight;

Uneased by the fact that UNR#10 may hinder investigation through its unclear requirements;

Unsettled by the fact that UNR#10 does not provide clear guidelines for police investigations to follow, placing said agencies in danger of unintentionally violating individuals' rights and suffering the consequences in judicially disallowed evidence;

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect privacy;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

This is the latest draft.

Also, I wish to thank those veterans who helped to defend me, or at least my draft: Cluichstan, Allech-Atreus, Flibbleites. I also thanks Rubina for his contributions.

Bite me, Rang.


Any time, Leetha. Your place or mine?

Rang Erman
Dirty Old Man

I may be grabbing the wrong end of the stick here (and believe me, that's happened a good number of times), but I'm of the opinion that the resolution seems to be fairly well rounded. Okay, yes, there is a loophole that exists concerning breach, however it can only be used by those who are corrupt...hold up, if it can be exploited by the corrupt, then it ain't very well rounded. Drat!

Draw up a replacement (I can assist you if you desire), and submit it to here.

IIRC, you, yourself, are guilty of the author one.
I'll admit that yes, there are times who the author of a proposal is, is a reason for how I vote on a proposal. However it is never the primary reason and in fact it has so little impact on my decision that if someone who I completely despise were to write a proposal that I agreed with I'd vote for it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'll admit that yes, there are times who the author of a proposal is, is a reason for how I vote on a proposal. However it is never the primary reason and in fact it has so little impact on my decision that if someone who I completely despise were to write a proposal that I agreed with I'd vote for it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, everyone votes for their own reasons and they are as valid or invalid as any other reason.

Also, Gobbannium didn't say it was his primary reason either. He said he felt that UNR #10 was fine. He said that if it were a R&R campaign, he might be willing to support it depending on what the position of the replacement is like - after all, it isn't perfect and there is room for improvement - but unless someone has an improvement to suggest to UNR #10, he doesn't feel it needs to be repealed. I hardly think that is an invalid position.

This is the latest draft.

Also, I wish to thank those veterans who helped to defend me, or at least my draft: Cluichstan, Allech-Atreus, Flibbleites. I also thanks Rubina for his contributions.Dr. Hodz, you are welcome. I don't think I'll be much more assistance, as I disagree with a number of your assertions, and you seem to only want those who agree to contribute. One thing that does stick out, however, is your use of "unease" as a verb. To our knowledge, and our quick research seem to back this up, "unease" is occasionally used as a nominative object, an adjective and a noun, but rarely if ever a bald verb. The more common phrase is "made uneasy" though that doesn't lend itself to your clause construction. Perhaps a thesaurus could provide you with a useful alternative. Oh, and her.

--L.T.
___________________

Any time, Leetha. Your place or mine?

Rang Erman
Dirty Old ManIt depends, advisor, you don't happen to own a set of restraints, do you?

(Doubting the old fool is serious),
Leetha

It depends, advisor, you don't happen to own a set of restraints, do you?

(Doubting the old fool is serious),
Leetha

If he doesn't, I'm sure CPESL will be happy to sell him some.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If he doesn't, I'm sure CPESL will be happy to sell him some.

We most certainly would. We'll even throw in a coupon for a free night with one of our servicewomen. It's the least we can do for our friend (and longtime customer), Mr. Erman.

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Vice President of Marketing and Public Relations, CPESL

(TO EVERYONE)
I am hereby ceasing all disputes I've made.

Now, let's draft something, shall we?
But disputation is the chosen method of this assembly for the dissection and improvement of proposals :-) Still, if we grasp your intent correctly, we would be glad to put acrimony aside in as far as it is possible. We would also gently suggest that rereading the debate thus far with a dispassionate eye would reveal arguments as yet unanwered and points as yet unaddressed on both sides of the debate, which could have fruitfully informed this draft.

The United Nations;

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Concerned that privacy protections contained in UNR#10 are neither applicable to all member nations nor effective in providing a right of privacy due to their focus only on communications;
This would be our first problem with the argument. What we recognise as the intent of UNR#10 is the prevention of governmental intrusion into personal communications. You appear to be regarding the title as the intent of the proposal, the prevention of governmental intrusion into any part of a citizen's private life. Admirable as such intent is, it is clearly not supported by the highly focused text of the resolution. Our conclusion is that it is the title which is misleading, whether by accident of the writer of the original resolution or by necessity of character limit, and we cannot honestly make ourselves prefer your position.

Noting the lack of requirement in UNR#10 for means of rectification for governmental violations of privacy;
We aren't at all convinced by this. Punishments for governmental non-compliance with UN resolutions can, as far as a brief skim through past resolution tells us, be enumerated on the fingers of no hands. We can recall at least one occasion within the last few months in which a proposal contained such a clause, and the proposer was very firmly told that it was unnecessary. Attacking a resolution for not containing such a clause is logically therefore a rather weak argument.

Noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”;
Thereby leaving it to national governments to define. We are curious as to the opinions of those involved in resolution enforcement as to whether they would consider a definition which did not involve the production of actual evidence of a non-trivial nature would be in compliance; if they do then this is a significant loop-hole, if not it is merely allowing the necessary flexibility for nations to exercise their own sovereignty in the level of difficulty they wish to impose upon themselves.

Further notes that UNR#10 only “proposes” that legislation be passed by UN member nations to regulate privacy, thus creating a loophole that allows nations to breach privacy;
OOC: and here I have to drop out of character. Part of the reason for my apparent inconsistency on loopholes in this debate is that I genuinely can't see how the phrase "I propose that" leading a resolution makes it less than completely binding. I need mod guidance on this, otherwise I'm just going to carry on insisting that you're wrong and any nation trying to fiddle this one is non-compliant.

Also noting the failure of the UNR#10 to define "Judiciary," or otherwise provide for competent oversight;
The lack of definition of 'judiciary', like the lack of definition 'serious evidence', seems to us to be a necessary flexibility for differences between nations. However, Ambassador MacDougall makes a very valid point that the Judiciary does not provide competant independent oversight when it is part of the Executive. That would be a point well worth making; it is certainly causing us to reevaluate the strength of UNR#10 where other arguments have not.

Uneased by the fact that UNR#10 may hinder investigation through its unclear requirements;
We would strongly recommend dropping this clause. Not only is 'uneased' not a verb, but the whole point of UNR#10 is to hinder investigations in the name of privacy. Criticising a resolution for doing its job when you do not criticise that job is again a rather weak argument.

Unsettled by the fact that UNR#10 does not provide clear guidelines for police investigations to follow, placing said agencies in danger of unintentionally violating individuals' rights and suffering the consequences in judicially disallowed evidence;
This is a much better statement of the previous clause. We don't agree with it, however; it seems to argue that it is the place of a resolution of this nature to specify in detail not only what the law should be but how it is enforced. The resolution, however, takes the position that it is national laws which are enacted (within the specified framework) to achieve privacy of communications, and as such national law should always come with national guidance to policing authorities. Anything else would be unhelpfully prescriptive.

One could argue that the resolution should be defining law rather than allowing national laws to be defined, but again we would disagree; having set the framework of judicial review of non-trivial evidence, there is no reason not to allow nations to determine the details as best fits their societies. If that framework cannot be set, then something stronger and more prescriptive would be required, but we would regret such a case.

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect privacy;
You will be unsurprised to learn that our beliefs diverge. We think that UNR#10 protects the element of privacy that it addresses quite well, though not as well as we had first thought. That does not mean that there is not scope for more privacy legislation, especially if one took the wide reading of the now repealed Sexual Freedom resolution.

Our biggest problem in pure drafting terms is that we see a string of very weak reasons around one potentially serious one. This tends to minimise the impact of the serious point; indeed, the casual reader may not even reach it before discarding the proposal as unconvincing. We ourselves are guilty of this in our latest attempt at proposal-writing and by no means certain of how to fix it, but it is undeniably an issue.


For the avoidance of doubt, and because some people seem to be incapable of reading English despite it being their first language, we will spell out our current position. Pending consideration of whether the independence of the judiciary materially affects it (OOC: and mod guidance!), we regard UNR#10 as a strong resolution of mildly misleading title, and the arguments presented in this repeal do not convince us to change that opinion. Were there an amazing replacement waiting in the wings we would reconsider, and we thank the ambassador for stating that he is going beyond that which is required of him and considering a replacement, but at such an early stage it cannot yet influence our stance.

Concerned that privacy protections contained in UNR#10 are neither applicable to all member nations nor effective in providing a right of privacy due to their focus only on communications;
Its aim is to apply only to communications: this would be like criticising the UN Bio Agent Convention for not prohibiting chemical weapons.
Noting the lack of requirement in UNR#10 for means of rectification for governmental violations of privacy;
This is the case with most resolutions, and largely a function of how compliance works in the NSUN. The following statement is true:

'Cultural Heritage in War contains no means of rectification for military destruction of cultural heritage'

Should it pass, will you be repealing that too?
Noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”;
I thought you were a sovereigntist? Surely you don't want the UN defining these kind of terms.
Further notes that UNR#10 only “proposes” that legislation be passed by UN member nations to regulate privacy, thus creating a loophole that allows nations to breach privacy;
No, it really doesn't. This is beneath grasping at straws.
Also noting the failure of the UNR#10 to define "Judiciary," or otherwise provide for competent oversight;
Please. You can have the point about evidence, ok, but now you need the UN to define judiciary for you too? Why do I get the impression that when everyone starts squealing for the UN to stay out of their criminal justice procedures, you'll be on their side? So what changes in between?

My point is: if the UN has to define 'judiciary', we're all doomed. Yes, vagueness is bad, but we can't expect every single word to be triple-defined in full, or else the entire legislative process will be reduced to a quagmire of suicidal tedium. Not defining 'judiciary' might be a problem in a resolution about separation of powers, but in this case, it hardly seems the fish worth frying.
Uneased by the fact that UNR#10 may hinder investigation through its unclear requirements;
This is a contradictory element in a repeal that has thus far talked about Resolution #10 allowing for invasion of privacy (through presumably unhindered investigations). Further, when the last repeal of this resolution went to vote, it contained such contradictions and was roundly booed for doing so.
Unsettled by the fact that UNR#10 does not provide clear guidelines for police investigations to follow, placing said agencies in danger of unintentionally violating individuals' rights and suffering the consequences in judicially disallowed evidence;
Again, you actually want the UN to tell you how to conduct police investigations? This is surprising, because we're not very sovereigntist and feel a bit uneasy about it; yet elsewhere you've claimed you don't like to be told how to use your resources, which would presumably include your police force(s).

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

It depends, advisor, you don't happen to own a set of restraints, do you?

(Doubting the old fool is serious),
Leetha

A little kinky, Leetha? Just like my ex-wife.

Oh, Bala- make sure you've got my monthly shipment of viagra. Looks like I'm going to be making up for all those years in the service.

Rang Erman
Starting to creep himself out
Ending this absurdness now

/threadjack

We are against this. Not because of government privacy intrusion. This is something basically unavoidable, but because of business privacy intrusion. We do not like receiving spam in our homes, invasive telemarketers, cell phone advertising, and invasion of our medical records.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

Dr. Hodz, you are welcome. I don't think I'll be much more assistance, as I disagree with a number of your assertions, and you seem to only want those who agree to contribute.
Well, that was because I had somewhat of an angry collapse and I've regained my composure now. I'm really ignoring the squabbles that are going on now, as they have evolved into one-on-one fighting, it seems.

One thing that does stick out, however, is your use of "unease" as a verb. To our knowledge, and our quick research seem to back this up, "unease" is occasionally used as a nominative object, an adjective and a noun, but rarely if ever a bald verb. The more common phrase is "made uneasy" though that doesn't lend itself to your clause construction. Perhaps a thesaurus could provide you with a useful alternative. Oh, and her.

Erm, point taken. I'll consider it, although I think that this has happened before.

*takes swig of beer*

Yeah, that calms the shakes.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

OOC: I'd have thought that I should have seen grammatical errors before. I'm, like, a grammar nazi.

We are against this. Not because of government privacy intrusion. This is something basically unavoidable, but because of business privacy intrusion. We do not like receiving spam in our homes, invasive telemarketers, cell phone advertising, and invasion of our medical records.
We are confused. We are not entirely sure what it is Ambassador Smiley is against, since it appears to be neither the Stop Privacy Intrusion resolution nor the repeal under discussion. Neither of them deal with anything but governmental intrusions into personal communications.

We are against this. Not because of government privacy intrusion. This is something basically unavoidable, but because of business privacy intrusion. We do not like receiving spam in our homes, invasive telemarketers, cell phone advertising, and invasion of our medical records.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

If your national government can't pass its own laws to prevent such intrusions, perhaps we can help. Our legislature has passed numerous laws against spam, telemarketing, advertising and the like...we can send some of them over to your country to draft privacy laws for you, and we doubt our populace would object to losing some politicians at all. We don't feel, however, that your objection has anything whatever to do with the resolution at hand.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Our biggest problem in pure drafting terms is that we see a string of very weak reasons around one potentially serious one. This tends to minimise the impact of the serious point; indeed, the casual reader may not even reach it before discarding the proposal as unconvincing. We ourselves are guilty of this in our latest attempt at proposal-writing and by no means certain of how to fix it, but it is undeniably an issue.

So, help me out, which is the serious reason? I can't seem to discern it. Maybe I'm just too old.

OOC: and here I have to drop out of character. Part of the reason for my apparent inconsistency on loopholes in this debate is that I genuinely can't see how the phrase "I propose that" leading a resolution makes it less than completely binding. I need mod guidance on this, otherwise I'm just going to carry on insisting that you're wrong and any nation trying to fiddle this one is non-compliant.

Well, if that constitutes non-compliance, that show a failure on the part of the resolution and/or the nation. I think it's both, and if we get rid of this resolution it will be fixed.

OOC: Was there ever a mod ruling on the use of propose? If so, I'd appreciate if someone showed it to me.

IC:
However, Ambassador MacDougall makes a very valid point that the Judiciary does not provide competant independent oversight when it is part of the Executive. That would be a point well worth making; it is certainly causing us to reevaluate the strength of UNR#10 where other arguments have not.

Okay, I'll concede that. There seems to be a need for change in that area.

OOC: Was this the serious point? My eyes are opening.

IC:
This is the case with most resolutions, and largely a function of how compliance works in the NSUN. The following statement is true:

'Cultural Heritage in War contains no means of rectification for military destruction of cultural heritage'
Okay, fine. But that was someone else's suggestion. Get off my case.
I thought you were a sovereigntist? Surely you don't want the UN defining these kind of terms.
Perhaps it's too narrow, as it references only serious evidence. What the heck does that mean? It should either be clearly defined or just "evidence". The adjective "serious" just mucks things up by adding another confusing layer.

Please. You can have the point about evidence, ok, but now you need the UN to define judiciary for you too? Why do I get the impression that when everyone starts squealing for the UN to stay out of their criminal justice procedures, you'll be on their side? So what changes in between?

My point is: if the UN has to define 'judiciary', we're all doomed. Yes, vagueness is bad, but we can't expect every single word to be triple-defined in full, or else the entire legislative process will be reduced to a quagmire of suicidal tedium. Not defining 'judiciary' might be a problem in a resolution about separation of powers, but in this case, it hardly seems the fish worth frying.

You'd have to refer your concern to Mr. Erman, he drew that part up.

This has been addressed by FL and Gob, and it will be modified.

This is a contradictory element in a repeal that has thus far talked about Resolution #10 allowing for invasion of privacy (through presumably unhindered investigations). Further, when the last repeal of this resolution went to vote, it contained such contradictions and was roundly booed for doing so.

So, what are you suggesting?

Again, you actually want the UN to tell you how to conduct police investigations? This is surprising, because we're not very sovereigntist and feel a bit uneasy about it; yet elsewhere you've claimed you don't like to be told how to use your resources, which would presumably include your police force(s).

Fine. But if you wish to discuss it, I'm not the person to talk to about that clause.

We are against this. Not because of government privacy intrusion. This is something basically unavoidable, but because of business privacy intrusion. We do not like receiving spam in our homes, invasive telemarketers, cell phone advertising, and invasion of our medical records.

Come now, don't be a hit-and-run poster.

I don't think annoyance by businesses constitutes privacy intrusion. They're not taking anything from you, they're just annoying you. My friends from the puppet corporation VISA Corp would be upset if they heard you say that.

If you're that concerned, you should suggest something.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

So, help me out, which is the serious reason? I can't seem to discern it. Maybe I'm just too old.
The potentially serious point to our eyes is, as you later suggest, the one concerning the independence of the judiciary. We accept that this is our perception, and others may perceive it differently. Still, we must repeat that we found the other arguments of the repeal very weak, and the cumulative effect as having a reduced impact.

Well, if that constitutes non-compliance, that show a failure on the part of the resolution and/or the nation. I think it's both, and if we get rid of this resolution it will be fixed.
No, non-compliance shows a failure on the part of the nation. That phrase is the nearest thing to boiler-plate text that Resolution #10 has!

Okay, fine. But that was someone else's suggestion. Get off my case.
We are relieved to see your agreement.

Perhaps it's too narrow, as it references only serious evidence. What the heck does that mean? It should either be clearly defined or just "evidence". The adjective "serious" just mucks things up by adding another confusing layer.
On the contrary, the adjective "serious" is very important, as it clearly indicates that trivial or implausible evidence should not be acceptable. The level at which seriousness cuts in is up to nations to determine for themselves; Gobbannium sets a relatively high bar, while we imagine some other nations prefer a low one. Regardless, all of us have to require some degree of plausibility of the evidence presented.

You'd have to refer your concern to Mr. Erman, he drew that part up.
With respect, ambassador, it is part of that on which you requested comments, and it is your nation's name that is affixed to the proposal. Dismissing that which has been requested as someone else's concern is somewhat churlish, particularly when you seem more than happy to accept our support that there is a potential problem in that general area of the original resolution.

I don't think annoyance by businesses constitutes privacy intrusion. They're not taking anything from you, they're just annoying you. My friends from the puppet corporation VISA Corp would be upset if they heard you say that.

If you're that concerned, you should suggest something.
That is an excellent suggestion, Dr Hodz, and we shall put some effort forthwith into a proposal to deal with this unacceptable intrusion into our time.

OOC: Was there ever a mod ruling on the use of propose? If so, I'd appreciate if someone showed it to me.Ugh. Semantics. My unofficial opinion is that since this is a rather old Resolution (before pedantry ruled the UN), it is not a suggestion; it's as binding as anything we have now.

Regarding the use of 'propose', aside from that argument being very silly, it's not backed by precedent. In this repeal (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=107) the clause 'IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with a new, effective resolution' was used. The latter had no legal force, but the former clearly did (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=15). Hence in that instance, 'proposing' something had the effect of actually requiring it.

Okay, fine. But that was someone else's suggestion. Get off my case.
...
You'd have to refer your concern to Mr. Erman, he drew that part up.
...
Fine. But if you wish to discuss it, I'm not the person to talk to about that clause.
Um, no. This is the UN, not playschool: we take responsibility for what we put in our drafts. If you're unwilling to defend your own proposal, you shouldn't put your name atop it.
So, what are you suggesting?
Strike it.
Perhaps it's too narrow, as it references only serious evidence. What the heck does that mean? It should either be clearly defined or just "evidence". The adjective "serious" just mucks things up by adding another confusing layer.
It just seems a really slight concern. Differentiating 'serious evidence' from 'circumstantial evidence' isn't so out of line, and nor is trusting national law enforcement agencies with the sense to tell between the two.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

The United Nations;

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary";

Also noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”;

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect privacy;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

Aww, dang. Now it's small. This is the new draft.

I'll post replacements soon.

Dr. Jules Hodz
Pretty Awesome
In his own opinion

Ugh. Semantics. My unofficial opinion is that since this is a rather old Resolution (before pedantry ruled the UN), it is not a suggestion; it's as binding as anything we have now.
Well, I took it out for now.

On serious evidence...

Also noting that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence”;

That argument has no substance. Do you really think you can convince the UN that the resolution should include something like this in the reso...

Serious - demanding careful consideration or application
evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

We - first person plural pronoun used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together
do - auxiliary verb used before a verb in negative statements
not - used with an auxiliary verb to express the negative
accept - receive as adequate, valid or suitable
the - denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge
argument - a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong

I am so fucking tired of hearing this goddamn dead horse line. You want to replace it? Step up to the plate. I don't speak for Dr. Hodz, so I can't say there's a replacement in the works. Frankly, I don't care either way. But this "I hope you have a replacement in the works" bullshit has got to stop, because it's not constructive, it's not related to the proposal at hand, and it only amounts to an ad hominem against the repeal's author.

Rang Erman
Royally Pissed Off

I am afraid you are going to have to remain "royally pissed off," Rang. Nations have a vested interest in whether there will actually be a replacement proposed following a repeal. I never bought the argument that repeal authors are under no obligation in any way to write a replacement. That argument is selfish, jejeune and tiresome. If I want to know just how serious a repeal author is, I need to know if they even CONSIDERED writing or having an allied nation assist by writing a replacement resolution.

I grant there are some repeals where a replacement following it is not necessary.

Finally, how can the simple questions, "Have you considered or are you considering authoring a replacement resolution" be ad hominem?

Those are legitimate questions and are part of my conditions for signing onto a repeal of an existing resolution.

It must have infuriated you terribly when Karmicaria and Kivisto actually went the extra mile and sold their repeal based on the draft of a replacement, because it then meant repeal authors had to live up to that standard and not fall back on the argument. "I am not obligated to write a replacement."

Finally. The authors of resolutions, whether they like it or not, are like salesmen. They have to sell me and other nations on their idea. It does them no good when someone who pitches a fit is one of their supporters. It looks pretty bad, actually.

Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

I am afraid you are going to have to remain "royally pissed off," Rang. Nations have a vested interest in whether there will actually be a replacement proposed following a repeal. I never bought the argument that repeal authors are under no obligation in any way to write a replacement. That argument is selfish, jejeune and tiresome. If I want to know just how serious a repeal author is, I need to know if they even CONSIDERED writing or having an allied nation assist by writing a replacement resolution.

I grant there are some repeals where a replacement following it is not necessary.

Finally, how can the simple questions, "Have you considered or are you considering authoring a replacement resolution" be ad hominem?

Those are legitimate questions and are part of my conditions for signing onto a repeal of an existing resolution.

It must have infuriated you terribly when Karmicaria and Kivisto actually went the extra mile and sold their repeal based on the draft of a replacement, because it then meant repeal authors had to live up to that standard and not fall back on the argument. "I am not obligated to write a replacement."

Finally. The authors of resolutions, whether they like it or not, are like salesmen. They have to sell me and other nations on their idea. It does them no good when someone who pitches a fit is one of their supporters. It looks pretty bad, actually.

Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

1. This is not the place.

2. What's stuck up your ass, Thomas?

3. This is not the place.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Drugged-up
Going on Administrative Leave

1. This is not the place.

3. This is not the place.


I agree. That doesn't seem relevant.

Maybe it's just me.

Mr. Erman, have fun on administrative leave.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

What standard of "serious evidence" are you proposing, Dr. Hodz? I confess to a certain level of curiousity in this matter.

Do you propose "reasonable suspicion," a low threshold of evidentiary requirement, or "probable cause," the next highest level required to trigger investigative action.

There are three levels of Judicial burdens of proof to consider as well.

Preponderance of evidence- A roughly numeric equivalent of 50%+1.

Clear and Convincing- a medium level of proof.

or

Beyond a reasonable doubt- The highest burden of proof required in adversarial systems.

Just what constitutes "serious evidence?"

I appreciate your genuine concerns, Dr. Hodz and I ask this based on a genuine concern. Because it is clear to me that if this repeal is successful, a more clearly defined resolution will be necessary to replace it.

Lynniston

I am afraid you are going to have to remain "royally pissed off," Rang. Nations have a vested interest in whether there will actually be a replacement proposed following a repeal. I never bought the argument that repeal authors are under no obligation in any way to write a replacement. That argument is selfish, jejeune and tiresome. If I want to know just how serious a repeal author is, I need to know if they even CONSIDERED writing or having an allied nation assist by writing a replacement resolution.

I grant there are some repeals where a replacement following it is not necessary.

Finally, how can the simple questions, "Have you considered or are you considering authoring a replacement resolution" be ad hominem?

Those are legitimate questions and are part of my conditions for signing onto a repeal of an existing resolution.

It must have infuriated you terribly when Karmicaria and Kivisto actually went the extra mile and sold their repeal based on the draft of a replacement, because it then meant repeal authors had to live up to that standard and not fall back on the argument. "I am not obligated to write a replacement."

Finally. The authors of resolutions, whether they like it or not, are like salesmen. They have to sell me and other nations on their idea. It does them no good when someone who pitches a fit is one of their supporters. It looks pretty bad, actually.

Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of SchwarzchildDidn't Fris already scold you for hijacking multiple topics with this rubbish? My, we are gunning for a mod warning, aren't we?

Didn't Fris already scold you for hijacking multiple topics with this rubbish? My, we are gunning for a mod warning, aren't we?Can you point to such? Otherwise, you're just poisoning the well.

What standard of "serious evidence" are you proposing, Dr. Hodz? I confess to a certain level of curiousity in this matter.

Do you propose "reasonable suspicion," a low threshold of evidentiary requirement, or "probable cause," the next highest level required to trigger investigative action.

There are three levels of Judicial burdens of proof to consider as well.

Preponderance of evidence- A roughly numeric equivalent of 50%+1.

Clear and Convincing- a medium level of proof.

or

Beyond a reasonable doubt- The highest burden of proof required in adversarial systems.

Just what constitutes "serious evidence?"

I appreciate your genuine concerns, Dr. Hodz and I ask this based on a genuine concern. Because it is clear to me that if this repeal is successful, a more clearly defined resolution will be necessary to replace it.

Lynniston

Did you ever consider that that's exactly what I'm wondering from the original resolution?

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12050778&postcount=177

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12050778&postcount=177
ooc: Four months ago? Sheesh. If you think Schwarzchild needs mod attention, report it, but this is just browbeating someone for political gain.

Asking a repeal author if they are planning a replacement does not indicate an expectation that they are. Heavens to betsy. Surely the answer, "no I'm not, I don't think it should be replaced" would garner as many supporters as it garners opponents. And that should be the end-point for the asker, going on and on about "no replacement/no repeal" is over bounds. Throwing a snit when someone merely asks pushes the bounds of etiquette as well. /soapbox

ooc: Four months ago? Sheesh. If you think Schwarzchild needs mod attention, report it, but this is just browbeating someone for political gain.

I think warnings are in effect until they're not. Whenever that is. The point is, he should only need to be told once. Preferably.

/soapbox

*sets fire to soapbox*

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

I think warnings are in effect until they're not. Whenever that is. The point is, he should only need to be told once. Preferably.



*sets fire to soapbox*

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

OOC:

This is a very brief, two part answer post. Do not take this as a threadjack, please.

1. My response to A-A was not a threadjack, nor intended to be a threadjack. Take that as you will. In my estimation he invited discussion by mentioning the fact that people might want to ask if there is a replacement in the offing and basically threw a public fit at the concept that people might ask that question, he even called such questions ad hominem attacks, which is not true.

I should have never responded to that post, but I did. I regret it, because I now see there could be no good end to what I said and what he said.

I tender my apologies for that post and most sincerely.

2. I have received no further warnings from a mod about threadjacking, I consider this matter closed and not fodder for public discussion. I have tried my very hardest to watch myself in regard to that warning from four months ago, and I am satisfied with the fact that my post count bears out the fact that I do not threadjack, flood a topic with posts and I even self-moderate to the point of not posting a response to something that irks me far more often than I actually post a response.

Further, I was NOT told by the mod that I had received some sort of super secret double probation that continued after the first warning (kindly note, my only warning in three+ years of playing this game), if this is indeed a fact then I am certain that Fris or any other qualified mod will tell me if this is true.

Thank you all for your patience while I addressed those matters. I am sorry if I interrupted anything.

JC/Player of Schwarzchild

I think warnings are in effect until they're not. Whenever that is. The point is, he should only need to be told once. Preferably.So in August, after a summer of perfect behavior, you regress and need reminding (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12558129&postcount=53) again; the time in-between should be ignored?

*sets fire to soapbox**watches as gnomes hefting large fire-extinguishers run up to her table*

Dammit, Dr. Hodz, we had just special-ordered that soapbox.

*mumbles about grown men setting fires inside occupied buildings*

--L.T.

So in August, after a summer of perfect behavior, you regress and need reminding (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12558129&postcount=53) again; the time in-between should be ignored?


Huh? I cleared that up privately with Fris. And what do you mean, reminding again?

And this isn't regression; I'm actually happy. With that I was frustrated and angry. (OOC: For real. I'm not about to do that again.)

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

Huh? I cleared that up privately with Fris. And what do you mean, reminding again?

And this isn't regression; I'm actually happy. With that I was frustrated and angry. (OOC: For real. I'm not about to do that again.)

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodzooc: And for all we know, Schwarzchild also "cleared [his warning] up privately". That's the problem with using old warning posts to trash another poster.

For that matter, you still seem to be having trouble distinguishing ic/ooc and bouncing back and forth... discussion of mod action ic is difficult without breaking the fourth wall.

One can promise they will never do $foo again; only the future will tell. I presented a hypothetical to you that involved you 'forgetting' that you have promised never "to do that again" and repeating previous behavior that had been absent for a time, and asked you whether the intervening good behavior should be worth something in the measure of how to "remind" you of your promise.

ooc: Four months ago? Sheesh. If you think Schwarzchild needs mod attention, report it, but this is just browbeating someone for political gain.

Asking a repeal author if they are planning a replacement does not indicate an expectation that they are. Heavens to betsy. Surely the answer, "no I'm not, I don't think it should be replaced" would garner as many supporters as it garners opponents. And that should be the end-point for the asker, going on and on about "no replacement/no repeal" is over bounds. Throwing a snit when someone merely asks pushes the bounds of etiquette as well. /soapboxLook, repeatedly flogging some mindless notion that everyone who proposes a repeal is somehow morally obligated to post a replacement contributes nothing to the central point of the discussion: namely, whether the flaws of the original, and the strength of the repeal argument, is such that the original merits being stricken from the record. Moreover, this is a draft. That's all this is. That would suggest that input as to the language of the actual repeal argument might be helpful. Harassing authors about the timetable for replacement is not.

This author does have a replacement in mind, and has even posted it on an off-site forum. I haven't yet made up my mind whether I would support this repeal, let alone the replacement; in my opinion, both need substantial work -- and all this "Show me the replacement!! (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/maguire.jpg)" blather does nothing to help me, or any other serious UN contributor, come to a reasoned judgment on the matter. When the author's ready to post his replacement here for help drafting it, he will. Till then, let this draft continue, or if you simply can't wait for the replacement, write one yourself, and stop wasting everybody's time.

Knock it off. All of you.

He doesn't need to write a replacement if he doesn't want to. Quit banging on about it. In fact, quit with all this other nonsense, too.

You people are turning this into the General forum. Please stop.

Newest draft. I tried to add more specificity.

The United Nations;

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary" when judicial powers are vested in an executive entity;

Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect the communications it outlines;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

I'm especially looking for an opinion on this:
Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;
I realize some of you have already entered your opinion that it be thrown out, but I think there still may be hope. As Schwarzchild and Quod mentioned, the clause does distinguish between Circumstantial and "regular" evidence, but it does not outline a specific "level" of evidence (reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc. up to burden of proof) and I think that that is a shortcoming.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz

P.S.: If there is a replacement, it will only be posted after this reaches quorum, if it in fact does. Otherwise it's fairly useless.

The standards "Clear and Convincing" and "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" are the highest burdens possible. It might be helpful to require a minimum of "Clear and Convincing" as the level required to trigger an investigation of a private citizen.

I tend to view lower burdens as too easily bypassed by the overzealous.

With respect to the honoured ambassador, while we understand (given the preceeding explanations) the terms being used, we must point out that they are by no means international in scope.

The problem we have in offering useful comments to Dr Hodz specific question on this clause is that after due consideration, we still aren't worried. We apologise, but there seems nothing useful to say from that position.

The preceding clause is eloquently and clearly expressed now, and we thank you for taking on board the concerns raised by the initial statement. On a truly minor point, we would question whether the quotation marks around "Judiciary" are merited any more.

With respect to the honoured ambassador, while we understand (given the preceeding explanations) the terms being used, we must point out that they are by no means international in scope.

The problem we have in offering useful comments to Dr Hodz specific question on this clause is that after due consideration, we still aren't worried. We apologise, but there seems nothing useful to say from that position.

The preceding clause is eloquently and clearly expressed now, and we thank you for taking on board the concerns raised by the initial statement. On a truly minor point, we would question whether the quotation marks around "Judiciary" are merited any more.

So, the terms are okay? Or do they need to be modified?:confused:

I think the quotation marks may be merited as they are meant to reference the entity mentioned in UNR#10.

This is way more successful than I thought it'd be. I thought the repeal would fail outright.

Gee, Thanks!,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Undersecretary of Akimonad
Master of the Perpetually
Changing Signature

So, the terms are okay? Or do they need to be modified?:confused:
We apologise for our unclarity. We suspect that the Ambassador of Schwartzchild was musing on a possible replacement, and wished to point out that the term "Clear and Convincing" is not of itself any better defined than "serious evidence" (OOC: I don't think it has any meaning in UK law, for instance). The way that you have expressed it in your repeal case is admirably clear, Dr Hodz. That does not mean that we agree, merely that the argument is well-put.

This is way more successful than I thought it'd be. I thought the repeal would fail outright.
It likely will. Welcome to the United Nations.

The Ambassador from Schwarzchild was musing upon the various standards each nation applies to "serious evidence" and privately wondering if it might do some good to consider a replacement (not written by Dr. Hodz, but himself) with the intent to clarify such terminology and tighten up the language.

Lynniston

ooc: Clear and Convincing is a burden of proof level directly from the UK system. C&C does not exist to my knowledge in the US except in Law School and on said Law School's exams.

"Probable cause" is the usual standard U.S. courts set for granting warrants. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing evidence" are the standards for criminal conviction, which is obviously an entirely different aspect of criminal law.

"Probable cause" is the usual standard U.S. courts set for granting warrants. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing evidence" are the standards for criminal conviction, which is obviously an entirely different aspect of criminal law.

I am perfectly aware of the differences.

There are two legal standards adhered by investigators in the US. "Reasonable Suspicion" and "Probable Cause." The triggering threshold for these standards are low.

The other three burdens of proof are used in jury trials. The triggering standards start at 50+1 at the civil trial level and range up to "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" at the criminal trial level.

"Clear and Convincing" is the middling of the three and is used in the UK, not the US.

Yes, but we're discussing warrants for criminal investigation here, not criminal burden of proof.

So, as far I as can tell, the wording's fine.

Barring any future concerns, this may be submitted next week.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Wearing a Flat Cap

Dammit, Dr. Hodz, we had just special-ordered that soapbox.

*mumbles about grown men setting fires inside occupied buildings*

--L.T.

IC: A large and strange box is delivered to the Rubina box. It sits, waiting to be opened. Inside is a solid bronze soapbox. It cost extra to ship.

OOC: Okay, so I gearing up to submit this. It should be in sometime soon.

*mutters about TG campaigns being tools of evil*

I support this it's pretty clearly spelled out and short, sweet and to the point.


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador

IC: A large and strange box is delivered to the Rubina box. It sits, waiting to be opened. Inside is a solid bronze soapbox. It cost extra to ship.

OOC: Okay, so I gearing up to submit this. It should be in sometime soon.

*mutters about TG campaigns being tools of evil*Leetha carefully opens the box. With great surprise, she turns and bows slightly toward the Akimonad delegation.

Why, Dr. Hodz, it's beautiful. And so thoughtful. I promise to use it wisely. :)

OOC: Evil indeed. Or at least painful.

Hmmm. I don't really see that the United Nations has the right to dictate which measures my government uses to ensure it's internal security. Whether this is repealed or not, Dakaristan's Ministry of Security shall continue to closely monitor the actions of certain radical elements within our borders, and take whatever actions are necessary to neutralize threats to the Republic and secure the peace.

Submitted. Final version was this:
The United Nations;

Recognizing the intent of UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion” in its stated goal;

Noting the failure of the UNR#10 to provide competent oversight over the "Judiciary" when judicial powers are vested in an executive entity;

Worried that UNR#10 does not define “serious evidence” in a manner to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and a burden of proof;

Believing UNR#10, though well-intentioned, fails to adequately protect the communications it outlines;

Hereby repeals UNR#10 “Stop privacy intrusion”.

Gee, did I write that? That's impressive.