NationStates Jolt Archive

Tiny, huge-eyed, Iris Fairchild steps into the debating hall. and in her thickly-accented high-pitched voice says:

Honored colleagues, We put forward to your kind consideration, the following draft (the first our delegation to write) .

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

International Media Rating and Classification
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

I- Defining media, for the purposes of this resolution as those audible, visual or audiovisual works; such as movies, television broadcasts, radio programs, videogames, internet websites etc; which are either:
-Broadcast through the public electromagnetic spectrum
-Made publicly available through electronic means, such as the Internet or public electronic bulletin boards.
-Available for purchase to the general public
-Exhibited for the general public in theaters, movie projection rooms, cinemas or any such other places.

II- Recognizing the benefits of labeling media according to its content
-Making it easier for consumers to make adequate selections according to their preferences
-Aiding parents, guardians and educators in selecting media which is appropriate for minors
-Helping governments enforce censorship laws and regulations when such exist
-Aiding media distributors in complying with national and international censorship and/or content laws and regulations

III- Recognizing that international media distribution and broadcast has a very important and ever growing role in the world’s economy.

1-Affirms the importance of the proper classification and rating for the international commerce in media works, and as such, for the world economy.

2-Creates the United Nations Media Rating and Classification Committee (UNMERCCO).

3-Establishes the duties of UNMERCCO as
a- Creating an international media labeling and rating system (IMELARSY)
b- Publishing, publicizing and helping the adoption of IMELARSY in member nations of the UN
c- Aiding media creators in the labeling and rating of their works according to IMELARSY

4-Establishes that IMELARSY will define a series of easily readable characters, legends, and/or pictograms (Rating Symbols); as well as the rules to combine them to create a Rating Tag for a work of media.

5-Defines the purpose of The Rating Symbols and Rating Tag as:
a- Identify the broad genre in which the media work belongs
b- Identify the age group for which the media work is intended.
c- State the age group for which the media work is appropriate.
d- Objectively identify the amount of content the media work contains in the following categories:
i. Depictions of physical violence
ii. Nudity and or sexual situations
iii. Use of offensive language
iv. Any other category UMERCO might determine

6- Requires IMERLASY to define a method for transforming the Rating Tag to a suitable substitute to use in broadcasted audio works.

7-Further Requires that IMERLASY define the time and/or place in which the Rating Tag or its abbreviation will be displayed or announced according to the media type and/or distribution medium.

5-Mandates that all member states enact and enforce laws which guarantee that all media works created under their jurisdiction and internationally broadcasted or distributed are labeled according to IMELARSY.

6- Recommends that once it is published, member nations adopt IMERLASY as their national media rating and classification system.

-------

Akin to establishing the metric system as an international standard, we believe creating an international system for the description of media works will no doubt bring important benefits to free trade. (And incidentally to moral decency)

We look forward to receiving your valuable feedback

Write your Proposal to the category, don't trying to spin it into one after it's done. I'm not seeing this as Free Trade, and it's pretty weak on the Moral Decency side, too.

I fear your proposed system is too broad, due to its blanket coverage of all media. Surely such censorship should only be applied to works of fiction? These regulations suggest that such classifications would be applied to non-fiction media, such as news and current affairs reporting on television and radio and in newspapers and magazines. The potential for misuse of such a system for political ends presents an unacceptable threat to legitimate journalism and freedom of the press, and as such The People's Republic of Staffsilvania cannot support this regulatory system in it's current form.

Ambassador Jandek Sladgrov
The People's Republic of Staffsilvania

(OOC) I did try to write the proposal to the category... although maybe i didn't make a great job about it. Granted, media classification does not seem like a natural way to approach free trade. I however believe that standarizing the packagin, description or otherwise labeling of any product or service (specially one that is traded internationally) is at the very least convenient for trade and commerce.

As you see the rationale behind the free trade category for this draft is "standarization = good for commerce and trade". Of course if the moderator ruling is that this is not enough, or there are other reasons that make the draft definitely not fit for the trade category.... well then no hard feelings and I certainly won't be pushing the issue any further.

Anyway, Id much appreciate it if you'd point out why the draft doesn't fit in the free trade category. Maybe the proposal can be worded differently or if not, I'll be sure to consider yuor feedback in any other propsal I write.

Basically, I don't see how an international MPAA will reduce barriers to trade or commerce, especially since such ratings are always subjective and cultural taboos vary from nation to nation.

This looks like it should be Mild, at best. It's not like it sets limits on NC-17 (or whatever rating we'll use) movies or anything -- it streamlines the rating system.

Also, it doesn't really seem to fit *any* of the categories. Maybe there'll be a "miscellaneous" category one day, but until then...

Maybe there'll be a "miscellaneous" category one day, but until then...

No, there never will be. UN resolutions have an effect on your nation. There's no way to code "miscellaneous" so that it accurately reflects the text someone has written.

While real legislatures can afford to legislate meaningless fluff on a regular basis, we can't really do that here.

Aaaaand that's why this one (which really wouldn't have an effect on any of the nations) needs to be canned. Sorry, Logopia.

Basically, I don't see how an international MPAA will reduce barriers to trade or commerce, especially since such ratings are always subjective and cultural taboos vary from nation to nation.

Actually, we would support a resolution setting up some sort of international MPAA. However, the Glorious Hack is quite correct; this should be written as a "Moral Decency" proposal. Perhaps a re-draft is in order?

Honoured Colleagues

I thank you for taking the time to read and reply to our draft. We understand how our idea for media rating is not the best way to reduce barriers to free trade. Perhaps such a scheme will have more important effect on moral decency. We'll be drafting a new proposal with the intent of improving moral decency through media classification, and we will submit it for your consideration as sson as it is ready.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to the U.N

Honored Colleagues

The Logopian Government puts forward for your consideration the following draft proposal.


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

International Media Rating and Classification
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

The United Nations

UNDERSTANDING the importance that keeping minors from accessing inappropriate material has in their education and in their learning of the values upheld by their families and communities,

RECOGNIZING the right of sovereign nations to censor the content and/or regulate the distribution, sale and exhibition of those works of fiction or entertainment which are contrary to the nation’s values or otherwise detrimental to its social structure,

NOTING that current media distribution is an international endeavor which moves an immense number and variety of media works at an unprecedented speed.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the current speed and variety of the distribution of media works is an important catalyst for cultural understanding and scientific advancements,

RECOGNIZING that this same speed and variety posses an increased challenge to those caring for minors in making sure minors get access only to appropriate materials, and that the proper classification and rating of media works is of undeniable help in identifying appropriate materials,

NOTING the benefits a unified media rating and classification system would have in helping governments enforce; and media distributors comply with national and international censorship and/or content laws and regulations:

AWARE of the greater emotional and psychological impact of visual and audiovisual works over “text” media,

1. AFFIRMS the importance of the proper classification and rating of media in aiding families, communities and nations to uphold their particular rules and values.

2. DEFINES media, for the purposes of this resolution, as those audible, visual or audiovisual works; such as movies, television broadcasts, radio programs, videogames, internet websites, etc; which are either:
-Broadcast through the public electromagnetic spectrum,
-Made publicly available through electronic means, such as the Internet or public electronic bulletin boards,
-Made available to the general public in a physical medium, such as print, optical or magnetic data storage devices.
-Exhibited for the general public in theaters, movie projection rooms, cinemas or any such other places.

3. CREATES the United Nations Media Rating and Classification Committee (UNMERCCO).

4. ESTABLISHES the duties of UNMERCCO as
a- Creating an international media labeling and rating system (IMELARSY)
b- Publishing, publicizing and helping the adoption of IMELARSY in member nations of the UN
c- Aiding media creators, and or the organizations so charged by local governments, in the labeling and rating of their works according to IMELARSY

5. ESTABLISHES that IMELARSY will define a series of easily readable characters, legends, and/or pictograms (Rating Symbols); as well as the rules to combine them to create a Rating Tag for a work of media.

6. DEFINES the purpose of The Rating Symbols and Rating Tag as:
a- Identify the broad genre in which the media work belongs
b- Identify the age group for which the media work is intended.
c- State the age group for which the media work is appropriate.
d- Objectively identify the amount of content the media work contains in the following categories:
i. Depictions of physical violence
ii. Nudity and or sexual situations
iii. Use of offensive language
iv. Any other category UMERCO might determine

7. ESTABLISHES that IMELARSY will define guidelines and general rules for the actual classification, rating and thus symbol/tag assignment.

8. REQUIRES IMERLASY to define method for
a. Transforming the Rating Tag to a suitable substitute to use in broadcasted audio works.
b. Abbreviating the Rating Tag to a form suitable to use when space or time constraints make the use of the full Rating Tag impractical.

9. FURHTER REQUIRES that IMERLASY define the time and/or place in which the Rating Tag, its abbreviation, or its audible substitute will be displayed or announced according to the media type and/or distribution medium.

10. DECLARES that IMERLASY shall not include any tagging requirements that alter the media work being tagged or otherwise compromise its artistic integrity.

11. MANDATES that member states take the necessary actions to guarantee that any entertainment or fiction media which is created under their jurisdiction and internationally broadcasted or distributed is labeled according to IMELARSY.

12. RECOMENDS that once it is published, member nations adopt IMERLASY as their national media rating and classification system.

13. EXEMPTS from the rating requirements set by this resolution:
a. Political, scientific, educational, religious and journalistic works
b. Works where the visual or audiovisual content is nonexistent or negligible; such as books or any other similar “text-based” works.

-----

We thank your valuable feedback and opinions.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian UN Representative

1.) Sorry, as much as I hate the NatSov stuff, I think this isn't an international issue.

2.) Rating systems are inherently objective, and what may be acceptable for three-year-olds in Kedalfax might be considered offensively mature in Audland. Also, words that are offensive in one nation might be part of common vernacular in another. That might make it hard to keep the system across international boundaries.

I applaud the Logopian Government for its admirable proposal. This is an issue that we are rather concerned about. This draft shall be ardently supported by the Most Serene Republic of the Narnian Council, in an effort to pass it through legislation.

The Narnian Council is concerned as to: Where is the line between 'liberty' and morality? There is a line there - although for the sake of continuity and social stability, it must be more clearly defined. I believe this draft will do well to assist in the drawing of that boundary. As for the differences of language/morality between different nations: this problem arises with every legislation. Simply put, ideals, values and beliefs vary widely between the nations of the UN, which is why of course we employ voting to determine the majority's beliefs. The aim of the UN is to bring the nations involved closer.

Subtle differences such as offensive language between nations is what we aim for. We aim to create a common boundary for all members in the UN. Those that disagree, are non-conformists but claim membership in the UN - in my opinion - will do better independently.

Despite the minor grammatical/spelling errors, and the possible lack of identification concerning minor details of the proposal:

The Narnian Council would like to highly recommend a finished draft of this proposal to the United Nations.

~UN Member~

Lord Caelryck de Carpathia of the Narnian Council

We apologise for not being present in this chamber to comment on Ambassador Fairchild's first draft. We should say up front that while we understand that a unified rating system would offer advantages in making easier the review work of parents, guardians and educators amongst others, we are not especially enamoured of this particular attempt to provide one. It has a number of faults, not least in the assumptions of shared values embedded in the description of the Rating Tag (which, it should be noted, is a grammatical mess of a clause).

First things first, though. We have not checked, but we suspect that this proposal is considerably in excess of the character limit.

From a personal point of view, we find the acronyms employed in this proposal both loathesome and unmemorable. Apparently Ambassador Fairchild also finds them unmemorable, since they are frequently misspelled. If the good ambassador truly finds it necessary to inflict such abbreviations upon us, may we plea for something that looks a little less like an explosion in a typesetting factory?

To return to the issue of the Rating Tag, let us now examine it in detail. We have issues with almost all of these ratings, since all of them are culturally subjective regardless of the claims made by the proposal.

6. DEFINES the purpose of The Rating Symbols and Rating Tag as:
a- Identify the broad genre in which the media work belongs
Genre is the least culturally biased of the criteria, but is also the most nebulously defined in general usage. What does constitute a genre? What of overlapping genres? Are factors such as 'comedy' or 'horror' genres or metagenres modifying the underlying primary genre? We suspect that this rating would generate the greatest amount of individual differences of opinion, as distinct from cultural disagreements.

b- Identify the age group for which the media work is intended.
This, at least, is safe. It is also entirely useless outside its native culture, but the opinion of the author (when they have one) is clearly the final definition here.

c- State the age group for which the media work is appropriate.
Here we enter culturally subjective territory. Some works considered fit only for adults in Logopia might be deemed entirely appropriate for adolescents in Gobbannium, or vice versa. Worse, the cultural referents are time-variant; one generation's blasphemous utterance is another generation's verbal punctuation.

The assessing of an age group is a radical oversimplification of the various factors in the next section, culturally weighted, and as such we suspect cannot straightforwardly be internationally informative.

d- Objectively identify the amount of content the media work contains in the following categories:
i. Depictions of physical violence
ii. Nudity and or sexual situations
iii. Use of offensive language
iv. Any other category UMERCO might determine
The problem with this otherwise laudible aim is that we do not believe that objective measures of such subjective issues actually exist. We made the point earlier concerning offensive language, where different people will find different words and phrases offensive, but each of the other listed categories also suffers from this. Something as simple as a man slapping a woman in the face may be considered unacceptable in some cultures and barely noticable as violence in others. What constitutes sex and the differences between kinkiness and depravity are issues on which we suspect no two societies will entirely agree.

We also object to the ungrammatical construct "and or", but frankly that pales into insignificance in comparison with the rest of the clause, and the semicolon abuse which can be found elsewhere in the proposal.

We are somewhat bemused by the inexplicable exclusions in clause 13. Would the Ambassador care to enlighten us as to the reason for their inclusions?

Finally, given that the proposal mandates the use of this likely culturally incompatible system in member nations, we find ourselves questioning whether this is in fact a mild proposal. We are by no means certain of our ground here, given that nations are free to permit their citizens to ignore the labelling, but an unasked question gathers no answers.

Merged into the original thread.

I'm afraid that although that Gobbannium makes some good points, the Narnian Council does not endorse its statement, and deplores the tone at which the people of Logopia are addressed.

Apparently Ambassador Fairchild also finds them unmemorable, since they are frequently misspelled. If the good ambassador truly finds it necessary to inflict such abbreviations upon us, may we plea for something that looks a little less like an explosion in a typesetting factory?

It seems that the prince is more informed in the way of grammatical nuances as opposed to courteous eloquence, affability and sociability. Perhaps it would be more advantageous to his cause if the prince of Gobbannium would start whistling a different tune, to put it quite frankly.

The problem with this otherwise laudible aim...

The Narnian Council would like to know if the prince of Gobbannium was actually laughing when writing this statement. If so, I suggest that he forget bringing forward grammatical errors and instead simply state his outright disagreement with the proposal. If not, I suggest that Gobbannium employ the usage of more accurate adjectives.

We also object to the ungrammatical construct "and or", but frankly that pales into insignificance in comparison with the rest of the clause, and the semicolon abuse which can be found elsewhere in the proposal.

Am I right to assume that you have attended scholarly grammatical lessons since the days of primary education? The Narnian Council believes that there are more important issues to discuss relating the proposal without raising issues that shall be rectified during the last draft. You may like to cease looking down your nose at the people of Logopia, and assume a mantle of a more effective, but courteous, speaker.

Please, Logopia, although the Narnian Council does not favour the very poor way that Gobbanium handled this situation - we do recognize the importance of some of the issues raised by Gobbannium - do not be hesitant to answer them - we remain in support of your cause.

~ Lord Caelryck de Carpathia of the Narnian Council

the Narnian Council ...deplores the tone at which the people of Logopia are addressed.Tone? Are the Narnian knickers so easily twisted that they look for insult behind every hedge and shrubbery? If tone is their concern, they should look critically at their own statements.

Logopia posted a draft for comment. Grammar is frequently a major problem with proposals and thus delegates will review such, whether you personally consider it important or not. There are indeed many of Prince Mawr's other points that need to be seriously considered before moving forward with this proposal. The Narnians should heed their advice and make comment only on items they consider relevant to the text.

I will echo the prince's objection to the "and or" construction and point out that there is no indication that its presence is a matter of waiting for a future decision as to which one is the most appropriate. "And or" relationships are sloppy and indicate an inability to decide which connector is truly needed; they are also rampantly used. The prince's criticism is valid. We would also suggest a good spelling check.

His main criticism of the proposal (upon which you, Lord Caelryck, carefully did not comment) should ring the death knell of this culturally-blind, moralistic, assumptive abortion of a proposal, the likes of which we haven't seen since that harridan Lori Jiffjeff darkened these halls. Not that this proposal is constructed as solidly as Ms. Jiffjeff's. Logopia has a high standard to meet for moralistic authoritarianism.

The world is not composed of cookie cutter nations that look, believe and behave the same as Logopians. No single set of criteria is sufficient to identify and designate the appropriate age group when there is a more fundamental difficulty: how exactly do you express "age" where different species, with different physiological developments (not to mention cultural) are involved?

Our other comments are irrelevant to the drafting process in that they would remain regardless of the wording of the proposal so we will not include them here.

Begging pardon, we also meant to point out that the current version of the proposal is approximately 1300 words too long. Though we recognize this is a draft, culling that many words will make for some significant changes.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

There's a few bones we have to pick with this draft.

NOTING the benefits a unified media rating and classification system would have in helping governments enforce; and media distributors comply with national and international censorship and/or content laws and regulations:

We don't agree with this. The member states of the UN represent a mind-bogglingly wide array of cultures and moral values. A unified system, in our opinion, could never possibly take that wide variance into proper account, and thus would have no hope of fulfilling the goal of helping nations keep undesired media content from their people - which is something they can do already, with their own domestic laws.

AWARE of the greater emotional and psychological impact of visual and audiovisual works over “text” media,

On a personal level, I don't agree with this either. I know for myself, a well-written book has a great deal more impact to me than some mass-produced televised schlock like "Bowling for Solaris" or the like. Why the exclusion of text media, if you really feel the need to provide a ratings system?

1. AFFIRMS the importance of the proper classification and rating of media in aiding families, communities and nations to uphold their particular rules and values.

We do agree with this, but again, we don't see why individual nations can't do that for themselves as they have been all this time.

10. DECLARES that IMERLASY shall not include any tagging requirements that alter the media work being tagged or otherwise compromise its artistic integrity.

One could very well argue that de-facto censorship of content, which is what you seem to be calling for here, compromises its artistic integrity by default.

11. MANDATES that member states take the necessary actions to guarantee that any entertainment or fiction media which is created under their jurisdiction and internationally broadcasted or distributed is labeled according to IMELARSY.

Another issue we have - I'd hate to be the poor soul at some Altanari media producer who has to make sure that their content fits into the mold demanded by the Agency With The Horrible Acronym (i.e. IMELARSY). More to the point, I'd hate to be someone who has to guarantee that it does. What exactly will be the punishment for media producers who make a mistake under this system?

12. RECOMENDS that once it is published, member nations adopt IMERLASY as their national media rating and classification system.

You're asking nations to adopt a ratings system that, in our view, has no hope whatsoever of ever accomodating every culture and nation properly. We see that as something destined to fail.

On one final note, the use of the word "censorship" repeatedly in this draft raises our hackles a bit. There is one bad word that Altanari media don't like to even utter, and the c-word is it. We feel that this draft seems to condone the use of censorship by repressive governments, a practice we aren't in favor of.

We're not entirely opposed to this kind of system, but as this draft stands now, we couldn't support it.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Honored Lord Caelryck

We appreciate your support for our proposal and our delegation. Surely we'll be able to work together in the advancement of our common interests.

That being said, be assured that the Logopian delegation takes no offence on the tone of Gobbannium's or Rubina’s comments. In fact we see nothing rude or impolite in said comments. While there are some strong and maybe derogatory terms, they are aimed at the proposal and never to the government or people of Logopia, or to me personally.

When posting a draft for public scrutiny, it is understood that there is a chance that it will be torn to pieces, sometimes even using language the author might not want to read. This, however, is a desirable trait of healthy debate.

We do try to show common courtesy and politeness to our colleagues, and expect to receive it in return. We, however, do not expect our fellow ambassadors to be gentle with our proposals, nor even sociable or amicable to ourselves. (Though we are most happy that most times our fellow ambassadors are in fact social and amicable)

Iris Fairchild
Logopian ambassador to the UN

. (OOC: I’m sorry for any grammar errors, and typos. English is in fact not my native language, and any amount of computer spell-checking will not guarantee that there are no errors.)

Most distinguished ambassadors

I would first like to thank you for taking the time to read and reply to our lengthy proposal. Be them supporting or critical of it, your comments will surely result in the improvement of this draft and, hopefully, in a text worthy of submission.

I’ll do my best to address the issues raised by our honored colleagues from Gobbannium, and Rubina.

As for the length of this proposal, we were not aware there was a character limit. we appreciate ambassador’s Thalone’s clarification in this matter and we'll shorten our following draft accordingly

As for grammar and spelling errors, I can only ask four your leniency during the drafting process and your help in correcting the errors in the final draft. English is not the native language of Logopia. Though we make our best effort to write as professionally as possible, we don’t always completely succeed.

We understand how the issue of subjectivity is very important to this proposal. We will try to address your comments in this respect. Please bear in mind that the goal of the rating tag is not to be scientifically accurate or consensual, but to be helpful in determining if a work is appropriate for a certain audience. Perhaps this should be explicitly stated in the proposal.

We agree that “genre” is a vague term. However, we still believe that it is possible to reach an agreement in how to determine the genre of a particular work that is both practical and useful. Clearly descriptions such as “Children’s”, “Horror”, “Comedy”, “Drama” or “Action” have a meaning universal enough to be useful. Furthermore, these genres could be combined to give a more meaningful description.

The intended audience as stated by the author of a work is clearly most useful inside the author’s culture. However, we don’t believe cultural differences are so vast that this criterion would be completely useless at the international level. Clearly if a movie produced in Rubina is intended for adults, it at the very least a hint that it is not the most appropriate for children in Logopia.

Though not stated explicitly in the proposal, the age group in the rating tag would in fact a simplification of the points under 6.d. We believe that these points can be, if not completely objectively, at least meaningfully measured. Allow me to exemplify:
-Offensive Language: Measuring the offensiveness of wouldn’t take in account only words and expressions, but also the context in which the language is used. What expressions are being used? In what situation are they used? Who utters them? What is the intent of the language used? We believe these criterions could meaningfully determine if a work has offensive language.
-Nudity: We believe this is easy to measure objectively. For how long is nudity being displayed? How much and what parts of a naked body is being displayed?
-Sexual situations: We also believe there are at least some measures that are meaningful enough as to be helpful for international classification: Is sexual intercourse absent, hinted at, implied or displayed? Is there cross-species sexual intercourse? Are there scenes with the clear intent to arouse the audience? Are there depictions of characters in activities with the intent of sexual arousal or gratification?
-Violence: The case being the same as for language, context must be taken into account when measuring how violent a work is. That being said, the description of violence in a work could include a qualitative attribute of the violence being displayed: cartoon violence, blood and gore, slapstick comedy, martial arts, etc.

These for points are explicitly stated not because they are particularly important to Logopian society, but assuming that they are matters that most societies find controversial to some extent.

One again, these are only examples. The intent of the proposal is not to say what measures should be used. It does however assume that meaningful, helpful measures can be determined and that a UN committee could do that.

It is not our belief that every, or even most nations in the world think act or speak the same way as Logopians. We believe however that a meaningful agreement on the rating of media can be reached.

The question of how to determine the age group for different species is indeed an interesting one. I must admit wasn’t considered in the drafting of this proposal. Our first thought is that if there aren’t so many sapient species in the UN that would make it impractical, then age groups should simply be determined for every sapient species there is and displayed accordingly in the different nations.

As for cultural referents being time variant, the rating system would have to be updated regularly. As for the rating of present works that will survive into the future, surely future generations will have the historical background to interpret historical rating tags.

The works defined under clause 13 are exempted from rating requirements since they are presumably or historically of the greatest importance for the overall advancement of a society. As such we believe its creation and distribution should be as unencumbered as possible.

This proposal would affect a fairly narrow area of policy. but it does use strong language to require action from member states. We too aren’t sure of it’s being mild. Hopefully we’ll be better able to determine its actual strength before and if it is submitted.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Honored Ambassador Askanabath

We agree the variety of cultural views represented in the UN is too wide for any international system to completely include. It is however our belief that the majority of this cultures are not so profoundly dissimilar that a meaningful rating system could not be reached. If an international rating system represents the “cultural mean”, perhaps some nations close enough to this “mean” will find it useful enough to use in some aspects of their media regulations. That being said, I agree that the NOTING clause you refer to could use some rewording.

On a personal level, a good book has more impact for me than, lets say, a reality show. Sadly we believe this cannot be assumed for the world at large. Given the historical importance of books in the cultural advancement of societies and the greater impact of audiovisual media, especially in younger audiences, we believe text media should not be subject to the same encumbrances as other media

While we agree in that national governments could do the job of media rating and classification without an international rating system; we maintain that having media rated according to an international system could still be valuable for informative and regulatory purposes. We believe this is especially true with regards to media from foreign countries.

Would you bee so kind as to elaborate on how the proposed rating system would compromise the artistic integrity of the works being rated? The intent of clause 10 is precisely to guarantee that the placing and timing of the rating tag is as unobtrusive as possible.

Clause 11 does not require content to fit into any category. It only requires that content be labeled according to the rules established by the rating system. Furthermore, clause 11 places the responsibility of rating in national governments, not on media creators. If a national agency is required to do the rating or if the rating job can be left to media creators would be entirely up to individual states. As for the penalty for non compliance, we see no reason to suggest one in this proposal.

After careful consideration, we have to agree with you on your comment on clause 12. It would only make sense to request the system’s adoption at a national level if it could reasonably accommodate the nation’s cultural views. Clause 12 will definitely not appear in the final draft.

We can see how our use of the c word affects our draft. While we maintain that a government has the right to regulate the sale and distribution of media, we do not condone, nor believe the NSUN should condone the use of repressive censorship by authoritarian states.

Finally, given the complains raised by our choice of acronyms, we’ll be sure to modify them in subsequent drafts.

Thanking once more your valuable insight
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to the NSUN

Thanks for the civil reply. I'm glad to see you don't take these critiques personally, and I'll return the favor.

We agree the variety of cultural views represented in the UN is too wide for any international system to completely include. It is however our belief that the majority of this cultures are not so profoundly dissimilar that a meaningful rating system could not be reached. If an international rating system represents the “cultural mean”, perhaps some nations close enough to this “mean” will find it useful enough to use in some aspects of their media regulations.

They might, but given how many nations there are in the UN, and the fact that they represent multiple species, races, eras in time and even planets, I don't see how there can really be a "cultural mean" in such a diverse assemblage. I don't mean to discount your idea, I just feel the same way about that idea that I do about the word "normal". Who, after all, gets to define what's considered "normal"?

On a personal level, a good book has more impact for me than, lets say, a reality show. Sadly we believe this cannot be assumed for the world at large. Given the historical importance of books in the cultural advancement of societies and the greater impact of audiovisual media, especially in younger audiences, we believe text media should not be subject to the same encumbrances as other media

Ah, but audiovisual media has the same importance as far as an effect on advancement of societies. Their development may be a more recent phenomenon than, say, putting ink on paper, but both have a major influence in directing, and being directed in turn by, the societies they are a product of. If we're going to rate things at all, we just don't see the reason in excluding print media from audiovisual media.

While we agree in that national governments could do the job of media rating and classification without an international rating system; we maintain that having media rated according to an international system could still be valuable for informative and regulatory purposes. We believe this is especially true with regards to media from foreign countries.

Again, this works if you believe in the "cultural mean" idea you mentioned earlier. Without that, the usefulness of this ratings system is very limited, as something that might be considered offensive, or inappropriate for a certain age group, in Altanar might not be so in Logopia or some other nation.

Would you bee so kind as to elaborate on how the proposed rating system would compromise the artistic integrity of the works being rated? The intent of clause 10 is precisely to guarantee that the placing and timing of the rating tag is as unobtrusive as possible.

Well, having one's content labeled as "offensive" or "inappropriate", and thus subject to censorship, would be taken as an attack on artistic integrity by at least some of my artist friends back home. I'm not an artist, though, so I can't pretend to comprehend their thinking...

Clause 11 does not require content to fit into any category. It only requires that content be labeled according to the rules established by the rating system. Furthermore, clause 11 places the responsibility of rating in national governments, not on media creators. If a national agency is required to do the rating or if the rating job can be left to media creators would be entirely up to individual states. As for the penalty for non compliance, we see no reason to suggest one in this proposal.

Hmm, I do need to grant you credit for the fact that I was wrong about who would need to do the rating. As much as I hate to say it though (being a civil servant and all), I have little faith in national governments to get it right when it comes to rating media content...after all, they screw up so many other things they do...

(a sharp jab in the ribs from Markus Paulanus, sitting next to him, causes a cough from Askanabath)

Um, right, moving on...

We can see how our use of the c word affects our draft. While we maintain that a government has the right to regulate the sale and distribution of media, we do not condone, nor believe the NSUN should condone the use of repressive censorship by authoritarian states.

That's good to know, and I'm probably reading too much into the c-word being used here....I just hate that word, being a former journalist and all...I'd still suggest changing the c-word, where it appears, to something more benign to help your chances at getting support.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Once again, not an international issue.


M. Diegaus III

Once again, not an international issue.


M. Diegaus III

Is the representative seriously trying to tell us that establishing an international standard is not an international issue?

If the representative believes the subject does not rise to the level of importance deserving the Assembly's attention, he should say so. Then we'll look forward to his proposing legislation which does meet his rigorous standards.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Once again, not an international issue.

Once again, this is clearly an incorrect assessment. We believe that Ambassadors Fairchild and Askanabath are doing an excellent job of demonstrating why it is in fact a difficult international issue. They should be commended for the serious consideration they are giving to this thorny problem, not sniped at with lazy appeals to self-interest that we would not sully the label of National Sovereignty with.

We suspect that the only way forward with this proposal is a certain degree of agreement outside the bounds of any resolution (in terms of reference to the organising committee, for example) as to the nature of the tags. We suspect that something could be worked out by way of annotations to overall ratings, so that for example one film might be labeled "Low Violence (high cartoony violence)" and another as "High Violence (blood and gore)". There is a risk of such annotations becoming unreasonably long for completeness' sake, but it seems an avenue worth investigating.

Similarly, issues of age can be avoided by refering instead to stages of development. Whether that be the traditional infant/child/adolescent/adult chain or something else entirely is a subject that perhaps we should turn to trained sociologists for advice over.

(OOC: Logopia, I hadn't registered that English isn't your first language. For all my moans, you write in it better than a good many for whom it is their only language!)

I'm afraid that although that Gobbannium makes some good points, the Narnian Council does not endorse its statement, and deplores the tone at which the people of Logopia are addressed.Well, better you hear it from me (or the lovely Rubinan consul) than some raving defenestrating lunatic, but you are likely to encounter far worse in your dealings in these halls. For instance, you may hear from time to time the simpering, sniveling tone of a righteously indignant diplomat, self-assured in some supremely arrogant assumption that the arguments his fellow diplomats are making need not be addressed if they are conveyed in a manner unbefitting a properly pompous gasbag, sneering with affected horror, "I don't like your tone."

It doesn't offend me as it once did.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Acting Ambassador to the United Nations

The People's Republic of Staffsilvania's Ambassador Jandek Sladgrov stands nervously and prepares to speak. In his hand the stocky, middle aged public servant holds what is no doubt a fairly srtongly worded telegram from the tiny soviet republic's hot tempered Premier, Communist Party Secretary Vladimir Politma.

The People's Republic of Staffsilvania is pleased that our concerns regarding the freedom of the press have been taken seriously. As such we are now prepared, in principle, to give this proposal our support.

We are a little concerned at the following clause...

13. EXEMPTS from the rating requirements set by this resolution:
a. Political, scientific, educational, religious and journalistic works


Now... we are a little, shall we say, apprehensive as to what this could mean in practice. I use the example of an... The diplomat's discomfort is quite clearly apparent how to put this politely... He squirms and screws up his face an EXTREMELY devout theocracy. They could potentially regard all publications as religious and have them classed as such. The same could be true of any nation with a persistant and... antagonistic or... xenophobic view of the world could distribute propaganda freely throughout the world regardless of it's content. We feel this is improper; a porno about Moses parting the Red Sea is still a porno... as it were...

The prudish ambassador is now a brilliant shade of red. He resumes his seat and sighs heavily. Treading the diffucult line between diplomacy and serving his masters in Politmagrad is tiring work.

Frankly, if a person cannot explain to me in two sentences why this is an international issue, then it ain't that important.

If the assembly votes for it, fine. But I don't think so.


M. Diegaus III

Frankly, if a person cannot explain to me in two sentences why this is an international issue, then it ain't that important.

It's good to know your delegation approaches issues debated here in such a simplistic and intellectually stunted manner. I sincerely hope you don't draft your domestic laws that way.

If the assembly votes for it, fine. But I don't think so.

Did you think at all, before either of your statements? Just wondering.

Incidentally, the honorable ambassador from Staffsilvania does raise a good point; clause 13 does seem to leave a rather large loophole for nations to sneak around the ratings with. I'd delete that clause; I honestly don't see the point in not rating "political, scientific, educational, religious and journalistic works". In the case of political, religious and journalistic items, at least, those can be as offensive and obscene as anything out there...

(another sharp jab in the ribs from Paulanus)

*cough* Well, you get my point.

Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Firstly we recognise the motivation behind this proposal. Indeed it is admirable to want to keep immoral behaviour away from the people. However, there are the aforementioned issues.
Moreover we wonder if radio broadcasts are really relevant? Must the 'deejay' read out a description before broadcasting? I can just imagine it..."welcome back to the Sunday Slowtime Show! Next we're playing a hiphop song by 2cool, it features violence, including gun references, sexual references, and Hello Kitty. Swear words have been censored so is suitable for 12 years and over."

Perhaps what is needed is a standardised format. All media purchaseable in a store needs an easily recogniseable age certificate and list of content that could potentially be considered offensive, but decided by the authorities of that country. Mandating that such certification be legally enforcable and the seller of such goods liable for the sale to below that age limit. Moreover that imports are sold under the importing country's age certification laws.
We feel that this would fit the 'mild' nature of your proposal yet keep the 'natsov' group happy.

It's not an international issue, and it is not needed. Nations are already empowered not to let any materials they deem inappropriate past their borders, and the materials they do allow they can label and classify all on their own.

Grousings to the effect, "I don't like NatSov!" do not change that.

Honored Ambassadors

As always, you fill these august halls with most valuable insight.

I must admit that our reason to exclude “text” media from the rating requirements came not from a completely logical rationale, but from the love the Logopian people has for books. In any case we believe the objections made to our excluding text media are completely valid. We’ll remove that part of the resolution from following drafts.

We can see how artists could feel attacked when their worked is labeled. We believe, however, that the benefits of an international rating system would be enough to justify the risk of offending media creators. We see clause 10 as a necessary addition in order to prevent the rating requirements from altering the media work. However I must grant it’d benefit from more precise terminology.

I agree with the excellent points made by our colleagues from Gobbannium and Staffsilvania. We will certainly give them the most serious consideration in the writing of our following draft. Hopefully we will have it ready before the end of this week.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
UN Ambassador

It's not an international issue, and it is not needed. Nations are already empowered not to let any materials they deem inappropriate past their borders, and the materials they do allow they can label and classify all on their own.

Grousings to the effect, "I don't like NatSov!" do not change that.

Simple logic would tell anyone who cared to use it that this most certainly is an international issue. The resolution would set an international standard for ratings which could be applied and could be recognized and understood throughout the nations of the NSUN. One nation cannot establish an international standard. It requires participation by more than one nation. It is, almost by definition, an international issue.

Whether it's an issue important enough to deserve the attention of this Assembly is another matter altogether. That should be discussed and carefully considered.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Simple logic would tell anyone who cared to use it that this most certainly is an international issue. The resolution would set an international standard for ratings which could be applied and could be recognized and understood throughout the nations of the NSUN. One nation cannot establish an international standard. It requires participation by more than one nation. It is, almost by definition, an international issue.By that token, an International Jaywalking Standards proposal would be every bit the international issue that Chemical Transport Standards is. The jaywalking proposal, after all, would set an "international standard" by which a person can be charged with jaywalking. All UN proposals set international standards one way or the other; just because someone can propose an international law on any subject does not make that subject a worthy issue for international consideration.

Whether it's an issue important enough to deserve the attention of this Assembly is another matter altogether. That should be discussed and carefully considered.Yes, thank you. We have already stated why we don't think this is an issue deserving the attention of this Assembly.

~Cdr. Chiang

We give up, Commander Chiang. You're obviously incapable of telling the difference between an issue which has no international implications and one which isn't important enough for international attention. So be it.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We must find that this issue is not worthy of the attention of the United Nations. Though clearly having international implications, as the honorable delegate from Ausserland explains, we concur with the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny in believing that the ability of nations to restrict or allow according to their pleasure is already extant, not needing any UN legislation.

Certainly, this issue does not rise to the importance that Chemical Transport Standards did. Taking such a tack, we are forced to conclude that insufficiently necessary proposals which unnecessarily engage in bureacracy, are unneeded.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotentiary

Honored Ambassadors

We now put for your consideration a new draft or our Media Rating proposal
----
International Media Rating and Classification
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

The United Nations

UNDERSTANDING the impact of media exposure to minors in their academic, emotional, psychological, and moral development,

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of sovereign nations to regulate media broadcast, distribution, sale and exhibition,

NOTING that current media distribution is an international endeavor which moves an immense number and variety of media works at an unprecedented speed,

RECOGNIZING that the current speed and variety of the media distribution is an important catalyst for cultural understanding and scientific advancements,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that this same speed and variety posses an increased challenge to those caring for minors in making sure they get access only to appropriate materials, and that the proper classification and rating of media works is of undeniable help in identifying appropriate materials,

NOTING the benefits an international media rating and classification system could have in helping governments regulate media distribution, sale, and exhibition,

AWARE of the biological and cultural differences that exist among the members of the United Nations,

BELIEVING that member nations of the U.N. share enough moral principles and values to make an international media rating system possible:

1. DEFINES media, for the purposes of this resolution, as those works in print, audio, visual, or audiovisual format which are publicly distributed, broadcast, exhibited, or otherwise made available to the general public; be gratis or for a fee.

2. CREATES the International Media Rating and Classification Committee (IMRCC).

3. DECLARES the duties of the IMRCC as:
a- Creating and maintaining an International Entertainment Media Rating System (IEMRS) that is useful and practical for informative purposes.
b Defining and periodically updating criteria to be used in determining if a media work falls in the entertainment category
b- Publishing and helping the adoption of the rating system in member nations of the UN.

4. ESTABLISHES that the rating system will be used to meaningfully determine for a media work:
a- The genre in which it belongs
b- The target audience for which it is intended.
c- The amount and qualitative characteristics of the content it contains in the categories the IMRCC determines to be sensitive or generally objectionable.
d The target audience for which it is appropriate.

5. DECLARES that the rating system shall state the target audience in terms indicative of emotional, psychological and intellectual maturity.

6. ESTABLISHES that the rating system will define labeling rules according to the media type and distribution medium such that:
a-As much rating information as possible is displayed without it becoming impractical or unreasonably obtrusive.
b-The labeling does not alter the media work, or when this is absolutely impossible, labeling requirements have the smallest possible impact.

7. MANDATES that member states take the necessary actions to guarantee that any entertainment media which is created under their jurisdiction and internationally broadcasted or distributed is rated and labeled according to the IEMRS at the time of its initial release for distribution.
----

As you'll notice this is version is significantly shorter than the previous one.

We have to grant that this piece of legislation is probably not strictly necessary. We however maintain that it is useful enough to be submitted for delegate approval.

We respect those opinions stating that there is not enough cultural accord among the U.N. nations to make a rating system meaningful or even possible. Are we being too naïve in this matter? Is our proposal culturally blind (as it has previously being labeled)? We have to accept that it is possible, yet we believe the delegates or general assembly would be the ones fit to resolve this matter.

As always, constructive criticism is more than welcome.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Foreign Service
NSUN Representative

Again, we feel that this entire proposition is an unnecessary one. An international ratings system serves only to homogenize the varied cultures of the United Nations; byt reducing the amount of dialogue needed to understand, interpret, and purvey differing forms of media.

The entire premise, that nations need to be told what is appropriate for what audiences, is frankly ludicrous. Management of media happens daily without the help of the United Nations to oversee it.

Consider- Nation A has a well-developed film industry, and often shows nudity and graphic sexual acts. They also make children's movies with stuffed animals. Nation B has cultural taboos that object to graphic depictions of sex, but often purchase children's movies from Nation A's film industry. Clearly, and without and UN involvement, Nation B may decide for themselves what is appropriate for their own audiences. Nudity? No. Stuffed animals? Yes. Stuffed animal nudity? Possibly.

The simple answer is that our time can be spent much better on other issues. Moral Decency is a dead-end when it comes to internationalism; and the Tuhran Bel would sooner leave the United Nations than see our culture supplanted.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotentiary

For once, I find myself agreeing with Cdr. Chiang.
It's all well and good for the ambassador with the unpronouncable name from Altanar to say "International standards are important for an international body"...

But it has nothing to do with the governance of the multiverse of NS.

And, yes, Miss (or Mister) X from Altanar, I do think before I speak. I do it quite often. Perhaps you should do the same.


And PM von Aschenbach, if the multiverse is in dire need of a change to warrant a proposal (UN Funding, Treatment of POWs and Enemy Combatants, Chemical Transport Standards, etc) where the resolution will create a higher standard of living for all members, then it should be considered before the international body. A resolution such as this will go down as a useless law.

Spare me the "anti-NatSov" rhetoric (translation: bullsh*t), because it isn't the basis of my argument.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Again, we feel that this entire proposition is an unnecessary one. An international ratings system serves only to homogenize the varied cultures of the United Nations; byt reducing the amount of dialogue needed to understand, interpret, and purvey differing forms of media.

The entire premise, that nations need to be told what is appropriate for what audiences, is frankly ludicrous. Management of media happens daily without the help of the United Nations to oversee it.

Consider- Nation A has a well-developed film industry, and often shows nudity and graphic sexual acts. They also make children's movies with stuffed animals. Nation B has cultural taboos that object to graphic depictions of sex, but often purchase children's movies from Nation A's film industry. Clearly, and without and UN involvement, Nation B may decide for themselves what is appropriate for their own audiences. Nudity? No. Stuffed animals? Yes. Stuffed animal nudity? Possibly.

The simple answer is that our time can be spent much better on other issues. Moral Decency is a dead-end when it comes to internationalism; and the Tuhran Bel would sooner leave the United Nations than see our culture supplanted.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotentiary

While we appreciate the thoughtful comments of the honorable representative, we're afraid we have a far different view of the intent and effect of the proposal. We cannot agree that the basic premise of the proposal is that "that nations need to be told what is appropriate for what audiences". We don't see this as being aimed at telling nations anything at all. The standardized rating system would provide information to potential consumers in a way that would eliminate confusion about interpreting the rating symbols. An example....

I go into a video rental store to rent a video for my family to watch. There's an interesting looking sci-fi flic from The Palentine. It's labeled XCG12. That does me no good at all, since my nation uses a completely different rrating system, which would have labeled it AA09C. With this proposal in effect, videos produced in Ausserland and The Palentine would be labeled according to the same standards. Consumers throughout the NSUN could easily learn the standard labeling scheme, and could understand the labels on all products, no matter where produced.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I go into a video rental store to rent a video for my family to watch. There's an interesting looking sci-fi flic from The Palentine. It's labeled XCG12. That does me no good at all, since my nation uses a completely different rrating system, which would have labeled it AA09C. With this proposal in effect, videos produced in Ausserland and The Palentine would be labeled according to the same standards. Consumers throughout the NSUN could easily learn the standard labeling scheme, and could understand the labels on all products, no matter where produced.Or, you know, you could simply have the people who rate movies in Ausserland review the material for themselves before it's approved for sale in your nation (and why these people wouldn't review the material before it's put on the shelves is beyond me), and they could decide what Ausserlander rating would apply to each foreign movie. Potential customers in your nation are familiar with the Ausserland rating system, am I right?

~Cdr. Chiang

Setting aside the worthiness debate for a moment, I'm still not thrilled with the category. The moral implications seem to be grafted on for shoe-horning potential. I'll entertain arguments, etc. of course, but I'm just not sure.

Or, you know, you could simply have the people who rate movies in Ausserland review the material for themselves before it's approved for sale in your nation (and why these people wouldn't review the material before it's put on the shelves is beyond me), and they could decide what Ausserlander rating would apply to each foreign movie. Potential customers in your nation are familiar with the Ausserland rating system, am I right?

~Cdr. Chiang

Of course we could, Commander Chiang. And if we liked throwing money away on grotesquely inefficient systems, we'd do just that. And every nation that wanted to have rated products could throw their money away, too. We'd have people in Ausserland rating a video, and there would be people in Altanar rating the same product, and people in Ardchoille doing the exact same thing. Wasteful, inefficient, and nonsensical.

Or we could have a system established where products are rated once, by the producing organization, according to an internationally accepted standard. Standardization breeds efficiency. That's Management 101. And that's exactly what this proposal attempts to promote.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Or we could have a system established where products are rated once, by the producing organization, according to an internationally accepted standard. Standardization breeds efficiency. That's Management 101. And that's exactly what this proposal attempts to promote.


Ambassador Ahlmann,
That is a bureaucratic nightmare, in taking every movie/documentary/piece of entertaining garbage that every one of our 21,586 member nations produces in a year, and categorizing them into neat little piles.

It's ludicrous, and once again, not worth bringing to the attention of the international body.

-- M. Diegaus III

Ambassador Jawey makes his GA debut, clearing his throat he begins...
Firstly we recognise the motivation behind this proposal. Indeed it is admirable to want to keep immoral behaviour away from the people. However, there are the aforementioned issues.
Moreover we wonder if radio broadcasts are really relevant? Must the 'deejay' read out a description before broadcasting? I can just imagine it..."welcome back to the Sunday Slowtime Show! Next we're playing a hiphop song by 2cool, it features violence, including gun references, sexual references, and Hello Kitty. Swear words have been censored so is suitable for 12 years and over."

Perhaps what is needed is a standardised format. All media purchaseable in a store needs an easily recogniseable age certificate and list of content that could potentially be considered offensive, but decided by the authorities of that country. Mandating that such certification be legally enforcable and the seller of such goods liable for the sale to below that age limit. Moreover that imports are sold under the importing country's age certification laws.
We feel that this would fit the 'mild' nature of your proposal yet keep the 'natsov' group happy.

ooc: stupid moderated post thing meant this got lost.

ooc: stupid moderated post thing meant this got lost.You do realize that we regularly approve posts and that your post is quite visible, right?

Standardization breeds efficiency.

Unfortunately, standardization also breeds bureaucracy, which breeds itself, again and again, until every hint of efficiency is erased, and it requires two tons of paperwork to get a cup of coffee.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

We don’t see how this proposal would imply an impractical amount of bureaucracy. Only works distributed internationally would have to be rated, and no single body would have to do the rating. Granted, a work might have to be rated more than once (once for the national level and once for the international), however this could potentially prevent thousands of other nations from having to rate the same work all over again.

As for the concerns about radio raised by ambassador Jawey; those are precisely the reasons for our inclusion of clause 6 in our latest draft. Clearly, the example being proposed would be impractical an unreasonable obtrusive, and thus unacceptable under clause 6. The IMRCC would have to define an appropriate way to “announce” the rating information according to the media type (audio) and the distribution medium (radio). Perhaps simply an announcement of “this program rated M-17” at the beginning of the DJ’s shift would be more than sufficient. This of course, is only an example of what the IMRCC could determine.

The primary goals of this proposal are: helping parents, guardians, teachers etc in selecting the appropriate materials for minors and helping governments in their media regulatory efforts. We hope this is clear enough in our proposal. We believe these selection and regulation efforts have the upholding of moral values as one of their main purposes. We therefore believe this proposal would indeed help the upholding of moral values. As for the effect in civil liberties, we see the rating requirement as an encumbrance for media distribution. It would place an additional burden (of rating) on creators and distributors or at the very least slow down the release of media works (while the agency in charge of rating does its work).

We grant that the effects of this proposal are neither direct nor explicitly stated; still we hope they suffice to place the proposal in the moral decency category.

Ambassador Ahlmann,
That is a bureaucratic nightmare, in taking every movie/documentary/piece of entertaining garbage that every one of our 21,586 member nations produces in a year, and categorizing them into neat little piles.

You'd have a point, if you were in fact paying attention to the actual draft. This statement shows once again that you're not. To quote the draft:

7. MANDATES that member states take the necessary actions to guarantee that any entertainment media which is created under their jurisdiction and internationally broadcasted or distributed is rated and labeled according to the IEMRS at the time of its initial release for distribution.

This indicates, as Ambassador Fairchild has already pointed out once, that individual member states would be responsible for labeling and rating the media content produced under their jurisdiction using the proposed system. While the specter of a nation having to rate everything produced by 21,586 nations no doubt will play well to the easily scared, since nations would only have to rate their domestically produced media content under this system, it's a specter easily dismissed as the smoky flatulence that it is. We also feel compelled to note that having to rate their domestically produced content under an international system shouldn't be too much of a burden to most nations, since (as many delegates, including myself) have pointed out, many nations already rate their content under a local system.

It's ludicrous, and once again, not worth bringing to the attention of the international body.

While the delegation of Altanar has not yet decided whether or not we feel this matter truly merits international legislation, we find the increasingly shrill statements against it a bit amusing.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador (pronounced ek-ear ask-anna-baaaath for the culturally deficient)

Of course we could, Commander Chiang. And if we liked throwing money away on grotesquely inefficient systems, we'd do just that. And every nation that wanted to have rated products could throw their money away, too. We'd have people in Ausserland rating a video, and there would be people in Altanar rating the same product, and people in Ardchoille doing the exact same thing. Wasteful, inefficient, and nonsensical.

We respectfully disagree. Clearly, nations having ratings systems of their own, independent of other nations, is not wasteful and ineffecient. Having your ratings boards view and rate all movies coming in from The Palentine is in no way nonesensical- in fact, those raters are doing their job, getting a paycheck, and supporting their families so I hardly see a downside.

Or we could have a system established where products are rated once, by the producing organization, according to an internationally accepted standard. Standardization breeds efficiency. That's Management 101. And that's exactly what this proposal attempts to promote.

We would tend to agree on other subjects, but the cultural nature of media is different. I hesitate to use the word censor, but national ratings boards are quite capable of deciding what is appropriate, what is not, and how to rank it accordingly. This is a case where national governments are completely capable.

I will again reference Transport Standards. We, though not members of the UN at that time, are in support of such standardization, because it relates directly to safety and international peace. Media ratings are in no way as materially threatening as toxic waste or mislabeled chemicals.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotentiary

Of course we could, Commander Chiang. And if we liked throwing money away on grotesquely inefficient systems, we'd do just that. And every nation that wanted to have rated products could throw their money away, too. We'd have people in Ausserland rating a video, and there would be people in Altanar rating the same product, and people in Ardchoille doing the exact same thing. Wasteful, inefficient, and nonsensical.Then there's the wasteful, inefficient and nonsensical system wherein unaccountable international bureaucrats shoulder all the responsibility for rating every internationally traded media product under this proposal. You're not getting rid of inefficiency with this proposal; you're simply shifting it over to international watchdogs, who as stated before are not accountable to consumers, and are not funded by anything. National bureaucrats appointed for this very purpose are at least accountable to the government and the citizens they serve. And besides, bureaucrats are already reviewing foreign materials for sale in Ausserland (I mean, I would have to assume they are; you wouldn't simply send materials through to the record stores without making sure they comport with national distribution laws, copyright statutes, and local decency ordinances, would you?), and as long as they are, they could simply re-rate the products according to the Ausserlander system as they review them. What's more, a lot of this work is already worked out under bilateral and multilateral trade conventions to which Ausserland is party.

~Cdr. Chiang

This indicates, as Ambassador Fairchild has already pointed out once, that individual member states would be responsible for labeling and rating the media content produced under their jurisdiction using the proposed system. While the specter of a nation having to rate everything produced by 21,586 nations no doubt will play well to the easily scared, since nations would only have to rate their domestically produced media content under this system, it's a specter easily dismissed as the smoky flatulence that it is. We also feel compelled to note that having to rate their domestically produced content under an international system shouldn't be too much of a burden to most nations, since (as many delegates, including myself) have pointed out, many nations already rate their content under a local system.
So, if it's ALREADY rated under a current local system, why the need for an international one? If I produce a movie here in the Isles that makes it viewable for ages 14+ in MY country, why couldn't you take the same movie, view it yourself, and decide which category you want to place it yourself? What is the point of an international system? To make it simple? Or to minimize the thinking faculties needed?
Everyone who's all gung-ho to have an international basis for everything, prove that you cannot think for yourselves.


While the delegation of Altanar has not yet decided whether or not we feel this matter truly merits international legislation, we find the increasingly shrill statements against it a bit amusing.
If you yourself are undecided about which why you're gonna vote, why be rude to those who have the decisive capabilities to do so?

Case in point: this resolution does nothing but create a "need" out of thin air.
A waste of space.


- Marcus Diegaus III

So, if it's ALREADY rated under a current local system, why the need for an international one? If I produce a movie here in the Isles that makes it viewable for ages 14+ in MY country, why couldn't you take the same movie, view it yourself, and decide which category you want to place it yourself? What is the point of an international system? To make it simple? Or to minimize the thinking faculties needed?

I believe that the idea behind this draft is to provide a simple, standardized system that nations could use to rate media without the inevitable duplication and effort involved in 21,586 nations potentially all having their own separate systems. Whether or not such a system is needed, or even desirable, is not something we've made a conclusion on as of yet. We're still observing the debate. Right now, honestly, we're not sure there's a need, but we don't see the harm in such a system either. We frankly wonder why so many people seem to be getting so worked up about what seems like a really mild proposal to us.

If you yourself are undecided about which why you're gonna vote, why be rude to those who have the decisive capabilities to do so?

I'll address this with two points:

1) I wasn't aware I was being rude. Is this more complaining about "tone"?

2) Being decisive is all well and good, but if you're decisive without debating (or even pondering) the matter at hand, as you were when you first jumped into this debate so clumsily, then it's a path to disaster. The reason we haven't yet made a decision on how we are going to vote on this matter is because we'd actually like to ponder the matter, see both sides of the debate, and then decide based on that, instead of just sniffing haughtily and declaring the proposal unworthy right off the bat. You might want to try that sometime.

Case in point: this resolution does nothing but create a "need" out of thin air. A waste of space.

If there was no need, why would individual nations bother to rate any media content? Just arbitrarily declaring there is no need for this proposal doesn't make it so.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Ambassador Fairchild,

We appreciate your efforts to work toward an agreeable compromise. We're not particularly confident in an assured success.

Indeed, the continued use by yourself and other delegates in this debate of judgmental, age-based ratings make it unlikely that a good compromise can be reached (your “this program rated M-17” suggestion). M-17? Granted you may not be aware, but Rubinans are sexually mature and admitted into adulthood at the age of 11.

Ratings systems by their nature have a chilling effect on the creative process. Producers of non-print media, like publishers of printed works, are ever on the alert to threats to their bottom line and frequently have no qualms toward altering works of art (and even more so mere "entertainment") in order to pander to a ratings system.

Specific comments relative to your most recent draft...

UNDERSTANDING the impact of media exposure to minors in their academic, emotional, psychological, and moral development,To our knowledge there is a distinct lack of scientific understanding of this very thing. If anything, research has shown little in the way of a measurable impact on minors of exposure to various media. Neither violence nor sex as portrayed on television or video games (to name two) has been proven to elicit similar behavior in minors.
RECOGNIZING that the current speed and variety of the media distribution is an important catalyst for cultural understanding and scientific advancements,It certainly should be, but there seems to be an exquisite lack of understanding in this very body that there are irreconcilable cultural differences between its members.FURTHER RECOGNIZING that this same speed and variety posses an increased challenge to those caring for minors in making sure they get access only to appropriate materials, and that the proper classification and rating of media works is of undeniable help in identifying appropriate materials,We question whether the responsibility for raising one's children is best placed in the hands of an international body over which one has no control or whether it is best for it to remain the responsibility of the parental figure. We do understand those caregivers are busy, but for a parent or teacher to expose a child to anything without first having thorough knowledge of the work seems ... well, irresponsible.NOTING the benefits an international media rating and classification system could have in helping governments regulate media distribution, sale, and exhibition,Somehow encouraging government censorship doesn't sound like an honorable thing for the UN to be engaging in.BELIEVING that member nations of the U.N. share enough moral principles and valuesOh dear. Perhaps an excursion to Rubina would be enlightening.4. ESTABLISHES that the rating system will be used to meaningfully determine for a media work:
c- The amount and qualitative characteristics of the content it contains in the categories the IMRCC determines to be sensitive or generally objectionable.So the gnomes are to be the moral arbiters for the member states? And they'll be labeling "sensitive" issues as well as "objectionable"? As difficult as determining objectionable content is going to be, one shudders at the prospect of defining "sensitive" content sufficiently to implement the rating system.

While the specter of a nation having to rate everything produced by 21,586 nations no doubt will play well to the easily scared, since nations would only have to rate their domestically produced media content under this system, it's a specter easily dismissed as the smoky flatulence that it is. We also feel compelled to note that having to rate their domestically produced content under an international system shouldn't be too much of a burden to most nations, since (as many delegates, including myself) have pointed out, many nations already rate their content under a local system.Indeed the specter, flatulent or not, is that we will have 21,586 different interpretations of whatever guidelines are adopted by the ratings committee, regardless of how many thousand-page implementation manuals are issued by the IMRCC.

The difficulty which you've ignored, Ambassador Askanabath, is the application by a local body of a rating system whose logic is alien to it.

The entire premise, that nations need to be told what is appropriate for what audiences, is frankly ludicrous.We strongly agree with this statement. Stuffed animal nudity? Possibly.If it's the one we're thinking of, that was a very good film.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

I believe that the idea behind this draft is to provide a simple, standardized system that nations could use to rate media without the inevitable duplication and effort involved in 21,586 nations potentially all having their own separate systems.
The problem though is that New Leicestershire, along with most of those 21,586 nations, will continue to use its own native rating system. We're not going to scrap our own Ratings Board and begin following the directives of this UN panel. In the end, all it will amount to is an extra sticker on the carton.

What's considered suitable for viewing in New Leicestershire might not be considered suitable in Altanar, or Omigodtheykilledkenny, or Ausserland, so it makes sense for individual nations to maintain their own systems for rating media.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We don't know whether the representatives of Omigodtheykilledkenny and The Genoshan Isles are being deliberately obtuse or whether they're really incapable of applying simple logic to this situation. We'll make one more attempt to explain this extremely simple matter in a very simple hypothetical....

Ausserland, Altanar, and Ardchoille each produce 1000 videos a year which are internationally distributed among those nations. Each has reviewers to apply ratings. Each reviewer can review 1000 videos a year.

Current system with non-standard ratings: Each nation has to pay three reviewers, since there are 1000 domestic and 2000 imported videos to be reviewed.

Proposed system, with standardized, mutually-accepted ratings: Each nation pays one reviewer to review its 1000 domestically-produced videos.

If you can't see how saving the costs of salaries and benefits for six reviewers is an increase in efficiency, there's no sense going on with this discussion.

Now for some specific comments by Commander Chiang:

Then there's the wasteful, inefficient and nonsensical system wherein unaccountable international bureaucrats shoulder all the responsibility for rating every internationally traded media product under this proposal. You're not getting rid of inefficiency with this proposal; you're simply shifting it over to international watchdogs, who as stated before are not accountable to consumers, and are not funded by anything. National bureaucrats appointed for this very purpose are at least accountable to the government and the citizens they serve.

You'll have to show us just where in the proposal it says that the "international bureaucrats" would do any rating. They'll devise the standard and aid in its installation. You did read the proposal, didn't you?

And besides, bureaucrats are already reviewing foreign materials for sale in Ausserland (I mean, I would have to assume they are; you wouldn't simply send materials through to the record stores without making sure they comport with national distribution laws, copyright statutes, and local decency ordinances, would you?), and as long as they are, they could simply re-rate the products according to the Ausserlander system as they review them.

You're assumption is correct only in small part. Our customs personnel check incoming shipments to assure that any import duties are paid. They certainly don't review the products themselves for rating purposes. That wouldn't change under the proposal. We do not review incoming material for copyright matters. As the co-author of the "UN Copyright Convention", we're having a problem figuring out what purpose such a review would serve, since enforcement of copyright is a civil matter. And compliance with "local decency ordinances" is a matter for enforcement at the local level.

What's more, a lot of this work is already worked out under bilateral and multilateral trade conventions to which Ausserland is party.

Please let us know exactly which agreements to which we are a party you're talking about. We must be having a "senior moment" because we can't remember any. We'd be particularly interested in knowing which agreements specifically address the subject at hand.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Indeed the specter, flatulent or not, is that we will have 21,586 different interpretations of whatever guidelines are adopted by the ratings committee, regardless of how many thousand-page implementation manuals are issued by the IMRCC. The difficulty which you've ignored, Ambassador Askanabath, is the application by a local body of a rating system whose logic is alien to it.

I'll admit, you do have a point there. I suppose it hinges on whether or not one believes that a "cultural mean" could really be established, and thus ratings criteria that can be commonly understood and agreed upon by the majority of UN nations is something that's even possible. That may be a rather tall order. I appreciate the fact that you at least seem to have a reason for your objection, though.

The problem though is that New Leicestershire, along with most of those 21,586 nations, will continue to use its own native rating system. We're not going to scrap our own Ratings Board and begin following the directives of this UN panel. In the end, all it will amount to is an extra sticker on the carton.

What's considered suitable for viewing in New Leicestershire might not be considered suitable in Altanar, or Omigodtheykilledkenny, or Ausserland, so it makes sense for individual nations to maintain their own systems for rating media.

Another valid point. Again, I suppose it depends on whether or not one agrees that nations can come to enough agreement on ratings criteria that would be acceptable to their individual cultures, and agree that the IEMRS ratings would be an acceptable replacement for their own ratings systems. Based on the fact that we can't even seem to come to agreement within this relatively simple debate, I'm starting to wonder.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Ambassador Talone

We appreciate the time you’ve taken to participate in this debate, Ill try to address the points you make with the same amount of thought you’ve clearly put in making them.

We agree that there is no absolute proof or measure of the impact that media exposure has on the development of minors. However, we are neither aware of any research that proves that said impact definitely does not exist. In any case, we grant that our first clause should probably be worded in terms less assertive of a fact and more indicative of a possibility.

The intent of our proposal is most definitely not giving the responsibility of raising minors to an international body. If there is something in the text that suggests otherwise, we’d much appreciate if you pointed it out; we’d be sure to correct it. What we are trying to do is creating an international body that would help parents and guardians in their jobs.

My M-17 (interpreted as Mature – Age 17) example was a terrible one; in fact it would be contrary to the requirements set in the proposal. Clause 5 requires target audiences to be expressed in terms indicative of emotional, psychological, and intellectual development. Given the biological and cultural differences among U.N nations, age would not be so indicative.

The Logopian Government does not condone censorship, and we certainly do not believe that the UN should do so. You will notice that we speak of regulation. We believe, for instance, that enacting rules restricting the broadcast of mature TV shows to certain time slots, or prohibiting the exhibition of pornographic material to minors is certainly within the rights of any nation. However we can see how it is easy to make the “jump” from regulation to censorship. We will try to reword the clause in question to eliminate the censorship connotations.

While we maintain that there are enough shared moral principles among UN members, we can see how some or even an important number of nations could be well outside these principles. We believe the similarities are substantial enough (at least among an important majority of UN members) that the gnomes at the IMRCC will be able to come up with a meaningful rating system.

Clearly we have profoundly dissimilar views with Rubina, The Genoshan Isles and Omigodtheykilledkenny in this matter. We respect your opinions and we grant that this proposal is based on arguably naive assumptions (Not to say that they can’t be right!). If this proposal fails to reach quorum or fails before the G.A, Ill be the first to recognize our error…. and just to prove no hard feelings, I’ll be sure to treat my honored colleagues (both supportive and critical or this proposal) to a round of Logopias finest agavedis at the Strangers Bar.

On a side note, I won’t be able to attend these halls in the following two days, I’ll be sure to answer any comments as soon as I return.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Foreign Service
UN Ambassador

You do realize that we regularly approve posts and that your post is quite visible, right?

Yes, but by the time it was visible there was a whole other page of posts and I doubt anyone noticed it. Or they're ignoring it, which is quite possible as no-one has made any other comments relating to it as of yet.
When I said 'lost' I was using a so-called figure of speech. I'm sure moderation is regular, but when a topic is popular + the space of about 8hrs = a waterfall of posts.
I thank you for your efforts and as I'm now into my teens will probably never have to trouble you to moderate my posts again...unless I restart NS once more.

this short intermission is rated OC for child-friendly, but is too complex for younger listeners. It has out of character content and a trace of sarcasm.

What's considered suitable for viewing in New Leicestershire might not be considered suitable in Altanar, or Omigodtheykilledkenny, or Ausserland, so it makes sense for individual nations to maintain their own systems for rating media.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I'm glad to know someone sees the point I'm trying to make.

And Ikir, you are beginning to annoy me.
I can be decisive without having to debate, because I AUTOMATICALLY see the lack of need for this resolution. Why debate and waste my breath on it? If you feel the need to ponder, chew on it, take the proposal and stick it under your pillow to sleep on it, before you make a decision, be my guest. However, you waste time that way. The quicker you can make decisions, the more decisive you are in conflict, the more successful you'll become. You want to see both sides? Okay. I can see both sides as well. But the other side (for this proposal) does not hold a candle to the side I represent. There is zero evidence that this will "help" the nations. In fact, with the Ausserlander ambassador's example, people would be losing jobs, in the name of "efficiency".

If nations have their own rating systems, and their entertainment industries haven't faltered, then obviously the systems work.

Make up your mind, and be done with it already.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

And Ikir, you are beginning to annoy me.

I can't say I'll lose a great deal of sleep over that.

I can be decisive without having to debate, because I AUTOMATICALLY see the lack of need for this resolution. Why debate and waste my breath on it? If you feel the need to ponder, chew on it, take the proposal and stick it under your pillow to sleep on it, before you make a decision, be my guest. However, you waste time that way. The quicker you can make decisions, the more decisive you are in conflict, the more successful you'll become.

I'm amazed that someone who a nation has designated their representative to the international community would consider spending some time to think about their votes here a "waste of time". It takes all kinds, I suppose. But in Altanar, we don't automatically equate speed with success. It often works quite the opposite way.

You want to see both sides? Okay. I can see both sides as well. But the other side (for this proposal) does not hold a candle to the side I represent.

The only word I can think of to describe that attitude is "arrogant".

There is zero evidence that this will "help" the nations. In fact, with the Ausserlander ambassador's example, people would be losing jobs, in the name of "efficiency".

There is no evidence that this will hurt our member states either. In fact, one could argue that with the example posited by Ambassador Thwerdock, nations would benefit due to the savings to the public coffers created by said efficiency, and thus the taxpayers of those states would benefit. I know taxpayers in Altanar, at least, would consider that sort of thing quite helpful.

If nations have their own rating systems, and their entertainment industries haven't faltered, then obviously the systems work.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that the national systems didn't work (although I do find it hard to believe that every single national rating system out there works flawlessly, or couldn't potentially be improved upon with international advice).

Make up your mind, and be done with it already.

We'll do that in our own good time, and not at your behest or anyone else's.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

I can be decisive without having to debate, because I AUTOMATICALLY see the lack of need for this resolution. Why debate and waste my breath on it? If you feel the need to ponder, chew on it, take the proposal and stick it under your pillow to sleep on it, before you make a decision, be my guest. However, you waste time that way. The quicker you can make decisions, the more decisive you are in conflict, the more successful you'll become. You want to see both sides? Okay. I can see both sides as well. But the other side (for this proposal) does not hold a candle to the side I represent. There is zero evidence that this will "help" the nations. In fact, with the Ausserlander ambassador's example, people would be losing jobs, in the name of "efficiency".

The arrogance of the representative from the Genoshan Isles is positively breathtaking. There's another term for such "automatic decision-making". It's called a knee-jerk reaction. Why bother giving the proposal reasonable consideration? The representative's knee-jerk reaction couldn't possibly, ever be mistaken. Why bother paying any attention to what others might have to say? Obviously, no one else in this Assembly can "hold a candle" to the brilliance of this representative. And it's quite obvious the representative can't tell the difference between "conflict" and collegial consideration of legislation. Understandable, since he quite obviously considers us unworthy of being his colleagues.

Now we're told that we should perpetuate inefficiency for the sake of employment. Of course, the representative probably didn't bother thinking that the number of jobs lost might be small contrasted with the total workforce in each nation and the persons involved could find other employment. We're waiting for him to suggest that every nation should ban power tools so more laborers could be employed. Complete, utter nonsense -- just what we've come to expect from this monumentally arrogant, disgustingly disdainful representative.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Looks like I pushed some buttons.
I'm not losing sleep over it.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

International Media Laws do seem good on paper, but how do you plan to enforce these laws? or even come up with the funds to do it? Establish a TV tax?
Several of the points you make are good ones, I really do hope that we can find a way to keep children from waching inopropreate Movies, shows etc...but there is no way to inforce these laws because people will do what they want in their homes.

(I appologies for any mistakes in my post, i am a new UN member)

The Republic of Ganzland thanks Logotopia for it's thoughtful proposal. Our government is however strongly opposed to this proposal on a number of grounds.


I will not dwell too much on the bureaucratic problems alluded to by other honourable members of the Assembly, but there is one point that I must address. The esteemed representative from Logotopia notes in the proposal the current ease and speed of international distribution of media. The Republic of Ganzland recognises this is largely due to the internet and satellite communications. The internet does indeed render national boundaries almost meaningless in terms of media distribution, but not entirely so. It is possible for nations concerned about 'moral decency'.....

*The representative from Ganzland looks positively green at the very concept*

.....to establish a national firewall to regulate what media their citizens have access to. Discounting this option, ALL media produced in every nation would have to be rated.


The Republic of Ganzland is strongly of the view that media classification or rating is strongly akin to censorship.....

*The representative visibly retches as he is forced to use the 'c' word*

.....a concept as repugnant to our national culture as promiscuity, homosexuality or intoxication would be to certain other cultures.


Even concepts of nudity would be almost impossible to classify objectively on an international basis. Ganzland has statutes guaranteeing full freedom of choice in terms of clothing. This arise out of the fact that we have national minorities with widely diverging ideas of what part of the body is most 'offensive'. Our traditionalist Varganastikavtian minority considers the exposure of the forehead to the sun to be a sin worthy of eternal damnation, the Llanmwchfairwyrchian mountain people consider it to be a grave discourtesy not to rub one another's genitalia in greeting, whilst our Shchylkovskayan delta fisherman consider the knees to be a work of 'Gorputstinvilli', their version of the Devil, or elemental dark force.....

*Other representative notice that the ambassador is wearing a long heavy kilt-like garment entirely hiding the legs and has unconsciously turned a circle on the spot to ward off malign forces*

.....Our government therefore rejects the notion that an international standard can or should be achieved for media classification.

The final draft of our proposal only includes modifications in the first two paragraphs. The modified paragraphs will now say:

AWARE of the potential media exposure has to influence the academic, emotional, psychological, and moral development of minors,

ACKNOWLEDGING the right of sovereign nations to the fair and reasonable regulation of media broadcast, distribution, sale, and exhibition within their territories,

---

As It has been said, this proposal is only valid if the notion of “cultural mean” that has been mentioned here is valid. Furthermore, it would only be valid if a large majority of nations are close enough to this “cultural mean” (small cultural standard deviation?) to make an international rating possible and meaningful.

Let us imagine for a moment that the aforementioned assumptions about “cultural mean” are correct. This proposal would still be of no benefit to those nations whose culture is significantly dissimilar from the mean. One could even argue that the proposal would be harmful to them, since it would impose an obligation without any gain whatsoever. It could even be said that the proposal is discriminatory against culturally different nations.

That being said, I present you with the following question. Is it right for the U.N. to pass a resolution that is inherently not beneficial, and potentially harmful to some of its member states?

The Logopian Government has not decided its official position in this matter, and we cannot in good conscience, submit this proposal for delegate approval before so deciding. We’ll be most grateful for your valuable insight and opinion.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Foregin Relations
UN Ambassador

What's considered suitable for viewing in New Leicestershire might not be considered suitable in Altanar, or Omigodtheykilledkenny, or Ausserland, so it makes sense for individual nations to maintain their own systems for rating media.
I'm glad to know someone sees the point I'm trying to make.

With all due respect to Ambassador Watts, if that is the point that Ambassador Diegus has been attempting to get across then it is utterly irrelevant to the proposal under discussion. Nowhere is it suggested that the International Media Rating System would replace national ratings systems. The intention, as Ambassador Fairchild has unfolded it, it to provide an internationally recognisable rating system so that viewers in New Leicestershire will not have to learn Altenari ratings in order to assess whether a particular film is suitable for the purpose they have in mind, and Ausserlanders need not be kept in suspense as to the presence of unacceptably heightist comments in an otherwise unassuming Kennyite rap recording.

As such, it is quite clear that this is a matter of international standardisation, to use the word somewhat inexactly, and thus an international issue. We are inclined to think it a sufficiently important issue to merit discussion and potentially legislation.

As Ambassador Fairchild has indicated, the practicality of legislating on media rating systems hinges on the existence of a cultural mean on which to base them. Regrettably, having spent some time observing the different mores and values exhibited in this chamber and the bar alone, we are not inclined to believe that such a mean usefully exists. Unless some comprehensive and comprehensible system can be determined to exist, we find ourself sadly recommending against this proposal.

Nowhere is it suggested that the International Media Rating System would replace national ratings systems.Although it's true the proposal doesn't carry such language, I believe the Ausserlanders have been arguing that one of the advantages would be the efficiencies gained by eliminating the 21,000+ separate systems.

Either way, we will be joining you in recommending against the proposal for similar reasons.

--L.T.

With all due respect to Ambassador Watts, if that is the point that Ambassador Diegus has been attempting to get across then it is utterly irrelevant to the proposal under discussion. Nowhere is it suggested that the International Media Rating System would replace national ratings systems. The intention, as Ambassador Fairchild has unfolded it, it to provide an internationally recognisable rating system so that viewers in New Leicestershire will not have to learn Altenari ratings in order to assess whether a particular film is suitable for the purpose they have in mind, and Ausserlanders need not be kept in suspense as to the presence of unacceptably heightist comments in an otherwise unassuming Kennyite rap recording.

As such, it is quite clear that this is a matter of international standardisation, to use the word somewhat inexactly, and thus an international issue. We are inclined to think it a sufficiently important issue to merit discussion and potentially legislation.

As Ambassador Fairchild has indicated, the practicality of legislating on media rating systems hinges on the existence of a cultural mean on which to base them. Regrettably, having spent some time observing the different mores and values exhibited in this chamber and the bar alone, we are not inclined to believe that such a mean usefully exists. Unless some comprehensive and comprehensible system can be determined to exist, we find ourself sadly recommending against this proposal.

First of all, it's DIEGAUS.

Second of all, it would replace current systems. The very act of the United Nations making an international standard, requires member nations to abide by it, effectively making their local standard null and void, or be in violation of the UN charter.

Thirdly, while international standards are important, it doesn't play a part in entertainment, unless it deals specifically with privacy acts or copyright/right of ownership laws.

In addition, you've outlined it yourself: the member nations of the UN only have one definite commonality, membership in the UN! There is no cultural mean on which to base this International Media Rating System, and there never will be.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

Second of all, it would replace current systems. The very act of the United Nations making an international standard, requires member nations to abide by it, effectively making their local standard null and void, or be in violation of the UN charter.Or, you could simply print both ratings on the box.

Thirdly, while international standards are important, it doesn't play a part in entertainment, unless it deals specifically with privacy acts or copyright/right of ownership laws. Gah! PLEASE don't mention that word.http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/paranoid.gif

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Or, you could simply print both ratings on the box.

And add to the confusion? Which standard will we abide by? There can be no "dual standard" if the UN decides on a matter.

Gah! PLEASE don't mention that word.http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/paranoid.gif

Which word, Mr. Flibble. I'm not clear as to which one you're speaking of.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

I fear my economy will colapse under these things and my economy is the best i have!

Peace trough power!
Herrebrugh

Which word, Mr. Flibble. I'm not clear as to which one you're speaking of.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

The word starts with "c" and ends with "right."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The word starts with "c" and ends with "right."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Why are you so afraid of that word, Mr Flibble?

-- M. Diegaus

Honored Ambassadors

I’d like to take a moment to analyze the possible scenarios if this proposal were to become a resolution and then pass. I believe we can agree that the following scenarios are all at least possible.

1.A nation finds the international system to be quite appropriate for its purposes. Then everyone is happy. The efficiency argument holds true. There is no need to re-rate the works coming from abroad. Furthermore, they can simply use the international system as their domestic system.

2.A nation finds the international system useful, but not comprehensive or close enough to its own cultural views to be used exclusively. In this case, the international system might reduce the number of works that have to be re-rated according to the international system (e.g. only works “for children” have to be re-rated to ensure they are in fact appropriate for children in this nation). There is still the potential that some works will have to carry dual labeling, with the confusion, annoyance and additional expense this can imply. Depending on how close the international system is to the domestic need, this nation could

a.Gain more from the international system than it looses
b.Loose so much from the international system, that it cannot compensate the expense of implementing it.

3.A nation with its own rating requirements finds the international system completely alien and useless. In this case no one is happy. Someone in this nation has to make sure anything that’s going to the international market carries the required labels; this of course means some additional expense. Works coming from abroad still need to be rated according to the domestic system. This nation would be forced to incur in expenses for absolutely no gain at all. Furthermore, works coming from abroad would carry 2 labels, the international and the domestic one. Since the international label is meaningless in this nation, the dual labeling would be annoying at best and outright confusing at worst.

4.A nation has no rating requirements whatsoever. The nation has to incur in the expense of rating their works going abroad, and they would gain nothing from international labeling. The labeling of works coming from abroad could be annoying for consumers.

We are aware that these are “ideal” scenarios, in that they assume that the rating is always done correctly and it does not take in consideration works distributed from non members of the UN. This, however, does not change the conclusions we have reached.

After carefully considering the arguments presented in this hall and seriously reviewing the assumptions behind this draft proposal, we realize that:

We cannot be sure that the majority or UN members would be in scenarios 1 or 2.a

There is no reason to discount the possibility that, even if a minority, a substantial number of UN members would still fall under those scenarios (2b, 3, 4).

The subject matter of this proposal is of no sufficient importance to pass a resolution that will inherently harm any UN members, let alone an important number of them.

We, therefore, cannot in good conscience, (and thus we certainly won't!)submit this draft for delegate approval.

The Logopian UN Mission and I personally, thank our honored colleagues for the time they’ve spent debating this proposal. We do not see this exercise as a waste of time, and we sincerely hope you are of the same opinion.

Iris Fairchild
UN Representative

Why are you so afraid of that word, Mr Flibble?It's an inside joke, and you're slaughtering it. Please stop.

Seeing Ambss. Fairchild has decided to abandon this project this is merely out of personal love of clarification.

We do not see that situation 3 would really happen. It is fairly regular that exports have different covers etc and it would be fairly easy to omit the domestic rating. All systems when new require an adjustment period, but the import would be better having a system with an explanation readily at hand, even if not entirely familiar, than one with no explanation at all. Moreover surely the purpose would be to phase out the domestic?

Presumeably nation 4 would still have to add a rating system of sorts when exporting to a country with a rating? It would cost more to do 30 different covers (presuming the speak universal) than one international cover?

Just my 2 claws.

Ambss. Gohn Jawey

ooc: If my trousers are loose, I may lose them!
And Kenny...he's not still around is he?

Ambassador Jawey

Id be more than happy to try and address the points you make.

Given the arguments presented in this forum, we believe that it is quite possible that the international rating system would be so alien to certain nations that it could not be used instead of the domestic one. Furthermore they could simply not want to get rid of their domestic system. Therefore we think scenario 3 is quite possible.

As for scen. 4, you are quite right. That nation could still need to rate its products when exporting them to countries that require so. However, we belive the rating in this case would most likely be done at the destination country, not at the origin.

Although it's true the proposal doesn't carry such language, I believe the Ausserlanders have been arguing that one of the advantages would be the efficiencies gained by eliminating the 21,000+ separate systems.
We believe that the honourable ambassador for Ausserland has be arguing that there would be efficiences gained through not having to re-rate an individual item 21,000+ times, which even adjusted for the smaller number of nations into which individual media productions are actually sold is a patently obvious saving. We personally suspect that any truly useful international rating system would be sufficiently cumbersome that national rating systems would likely remain in place.

First of all, it's DIEGAUS.
We apologise for our misspelling, and plead the lateness of the hour.

Second of all, it would replace current systems. The very act of the United Nations making an international standard, requires member nations to abide by it, effectively making their local standard null and void, or be in violation of the UN charter.
This is quite simply untrue. The UN charter, such as exists, does not require the adoption of any international standard as a local standard unless that requirement is made explicitly in a resolution. The proposal makes no such requirement. It states that the international standard ratings must be present, but makes no mention of national standard ratings. Therefore national ratings may, and for reasons we outlined above almost certainly will, be present.

The ambassador later suggests that this double rating will cause confusion. We submit that it will cause less confusion than the current circumstances, wherein either the grossly inefficient re-rating of films and media content previously referred to must be undertaken, or citizens of more lax nations would find themselves expected to comprehend the nuances of (say) Rubinan and Kennyite rating systems unaided.

Thirdly, while international standards are important, it doesn't play a part in entertainment, unless it deals specifically with privacy acts or copyright/right of ownership laws.
We suspect that the honoured ambassador must have elided several sentences here, for we find ourselves unable to distil meaning from what remains. The connection between international standards and privacy laws or copyright (or indeed singular and plural in this instance) wholly escapes us, whereas the connection between international standards and international dissemination of entertainment has been made abundantly clear repeatedly throughout this discussion.