NationStates Jolt Archive

Standard Spelling Alphabet and Vehicle Indentification Codes
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Believing that a standard, easily used and understood system of identifying vehicles used for international travel and transportation can promote both safety and efficient management of air, space, sea, and land travel, which in its turn will reduce bureaucracy and costs of cross-border commerce;

Recognizing that a wide variety of writing systems, using varied alphabets, syllabaries, and number systems are in use among the nations of the United Nations;

Further recognizing that, even when languages use the same alphabet, differing names may be used for the same letter or numeral;

Understanding that, exempting the circumstances detailed below, nations will continue to use their own alphabets, number systems and pronounciations in most situations.

Also understanding that member nations may already have effective systems established for identifying vehicles operated within their nations and that mandated replacement of these systems could be costly and inefficient;

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, "identification code" as a unique set of symbols (letters and numbers) used to identify specific vehicles;

Defining "standard symbology" as a standard set of symbols to be used in constructing identification codes (For the purposes of this resolution, the standard symbology will consist of the 26 letters of the English ("Roman") alphabet plus the Arabic numerals 0 through 9.);

Defining "spelling alphabet" as a sequence of easily pronounced, easily distinguished, two-syllable words representing letters of the alphabet, for example, "ALFA" for "A", "BRAVO" for "B", plus easily pronounced and distinguished pronunciations for numerals, and

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, an "international vehicle" as any air, space, sea, land, or amphibious vehicle that is designed, intended, or likely to be used for international travel.

The United Nations will:

1. Devise and publish a standard spelling alphabet for use by all operators of international vehicles.

2. Assist member nations, as required and requested, in installing the standard spelling alphabet in their nations.

Member Nations:

1. Shall assign an identification code, using the standard symbology, to all international vehicles registered within their nations.

2. Shall include instruction in the standard spelling alphabet in the training of all operators of international vehicles.

3. Are urged to implement standard spelling alphabet identification codes within their national vehicle identification system.

4. May continue to use existing systems of vehicle identification on all vehicles within their jurisdictions. Note, however, that the identification code required by this resolution must either replace or be added to such identification of international vehicles, at the nation's sole discretion.

5. May deny access to their lands, territorial waters, and air space to any vehicle which does not bear an identification code in conformance with this resolution or whose operator fails or refuses to use the standard spelling alphabet.

6. Must share information concerning identification codes necessary to give efficacy to the international organizations or organizations in relevant foreign nations which provide air traffic control, rescue, traffic safety, or similar services.

7. Are encouraged to comply with clause 6 where it is not necessary but helpful to international and foreign nations' organizations.

Co-author: Ausserland

OOC: presumably "the English ("Roman") alphabet plus the Arabic numerals 0 through 9" doesn't count as RL references?

I think that you [i]really need to get a Category decided on before continuing with this...

I would if I knew what the categories were. But as my nation currently only has one endorsement my department can't get access to the right paperwork and you'll find the categories are only to be found on the submission forms.
However we have submitted an appeal to the Management to allow us mere authors access to the category list. In the meantime any suggestions to what category it would be under would be most appreciated.

OOC:

Thanks much for raising those issues.

On the English/Roman alphabet and Arabic numerals question, I really don't believe those would be illegal. I'd be hard-pressed to know how to otherwise describe the things. The Moderators may disagree. If so, we can handle that fairly easily.

On the category question.... Your advice is appreciated. I know the Moderators have repeatedly urged people to "write to a category". That's good advice that can save a lot of frustration, especially for inexperienced authors. When I saw Randomea's first draft of this, my immediate reaction was to wonder what category it could possibly be shoehorned into. Maybe it won't fit any of them. If that's the case, we'll have to live with it.

The problem is that I'm a hard-headed old curmudgeon who happens to despise the category system. I recognize that it's a part of the game and necessary for the workings of the ranking business. But, as far as I'm concerned, it does nothing for the NSUN aspect of the game but stifle creativity and keep interesting and worthwhile topics from being considered. In my considerable time playing in the UN, I've seen many good, solid, interesting, worthwhile proposals tossed away because of the category system. I've seen others jammed into categories where their fit was highly questionable.

If this effort comes to naught because of the category system, I'll accept that (with considerable grumbling under my breath). But maybe it will at least start us thinking whether there are ways to change the system so that it won't impede things. Maybe a value-neutral category? Could that be done and would it be worthwhile? Discussing this would be more suited to Technical or Moderation, but I thought I'd mention it here since you raised the issue.

Thanks again for your comments.

I would if I knew what the categories were. But as my nation currently only has one endorsement my department can't get access to the right paperwork and you'll find the categories are only to be found on the submission forms.
However we have submitted an appeal to the Management to allow us mere authors access to the category list. In the meantime any suggestions to what category it would be under would be most appreciated.

Look up at the top of the UN Forum. Find the stickied thread, "Rules for UN Proposals". If you page down through that a ways, you'll find a listing and explanation of the categories.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

ooc: I'm certain I looked over every single article of that post

Oh and the chemical transport proposal uses the term 'Arabic numbering' too. So precedent says yes.

Edit: jeez I've been dumb. Didn't scroll far enough down. *goes and punishes self*

Well 'Free Trade' was the one I invisiged before and having had a look at the other categories seems the best option - by reducing problems with identification it reduces beaurocracy and there eases movement of commercial vehicles.

If necessary the first paragraph of the preamble can emphasise that.

The Logopian Government Applauds this proposal, we should certainly support it if it reaches quorum

Those who use a different alphabet ((OOC: NSG equivalent of china/japan/india/etc.)) may have trouble understanding their system. It's also an insult to said foreign nations who adopted one languages that they are forced to use letters of a completely different alphabet.

And, of course, the conspiracy nut who'll assume that (because the government is using a foreign alphabet) they're allowing cars with driver-insulting terms they don't understand.

There is no need to understand it. It is not as if the codes mean anything more than what they are - a mixture of letters and sounds.

Plus all documents within the building have to be filled in using standard letters plus a few accented ones anyway, if the nation can provide people who can fill in these then the nation can find people who can make phonetic spellings in their own alphabets of the spelling alphabet. That's the key, it is not the spelling that matters of the word but the sound.

And the conspiracy theory is irrelevant. I believe that you were a genetic experiment by devilspirits. I still have to listen to you talk.
Oh wait I don't...*finds the mute button*

Ambassador G. Jawey

Scotchpinestan is intrigued by this proposal, but unsure of its fitness for passage at this time. We are particularly troubled by the references to the Roman letter system and Arabic numeral system (and the letter example using the letters A and B). These references appear to endorse the A-Z alphabet and 0-9 number system as the standard system to be adopted and used. This may not be intentional.

In order to eliminate any semblance of favoritism towards one system or another, we recommend removing any references to a particular system.

On the English/Roman alphabet and Arabic numerals question, I really don't believe those would be illegal. I'd be hard-pressed to know how to otherwise describe the things.Meh. It's fine. There's not really any other term to describe them, aside from using more real world references ("Hindu-Arabic numerals"). I'd lump this in with other things like "metric system", "imperial system", and, frankly, "inch"*.


*Remember when people were bitching about "defining meter"? And people started seriously wanting to have the text include that the meter was "equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum"? Yeah... I'm thinking it's just easier to use the terms.

*Remember when people were bitching about "defining meter"? And people started seriously wanting to have the text include that the meter was "equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum"? Yeah... I'm thinking it's just easier to use the terms.

Oh but come on, having that in the books would make the UN look so smart!

Scotchpinestan is intrigued by this proposal, but unsure of its fitness for passage at this time. We are particularly troubled by the references to the Roman letter system and Arabic numeral system (and the letter example using the letters A and B). These references appear to endorse the A-Z alphabet and 0-9 number system as the standard system to be adopted and used. This may not be intentional.

In order to eliminate any semblance of favoritism towards one system or another, we recommend removing any references to a particular system.

If we did not pick a system it would not be a standard system would it?
These systems are the most common and therefore the most obvious choice. I repeat, no-one is being told to use the Spelling Alphabet beyond the identification codes.

ooc: and thanks for the clarification of the Roman/Arabic issue.

Changes to the draft in bold.

I missed this before and I apologize for the slight thread-jack.

Maybe a value-neutral category? Could that be done and would it be worthwhile?While further debate can, and should, be carried out in the Technical forum, the short answer is 'no'. Since all UN Resolutions modify national statistics, there cannot be a null category, as it wouldn't actually do anything. While it could be done from a coding standpoint (or so I would assume), it would go against the intent of the game, which is to have the UN alter member nations.

While I suppose it could cause a massive boost to voter apathy and unhappiness ("There goes the UN again..."), that kinda runs against the grain and intent, too. And we'd still need to be sure the text did something to piss off people and make them apathetic (how's that for an oxymoron?).

OOC:

Umm, why not get all "Star Wars-ish?"
Make RL English equivalent to NS Basic? Since all proposals have to be written in English (Basic), and all business don't in this forum is in Englsih (Basic), it may be easier to just say Basic...

ooc:
You could but that would mean including accented letters. And I don't want to make it even more confusing than it has to be, especially if we're already having 'universal language' allegations made against it.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/English

A few comments based on practicalities and some RL comparisons:

There are several standard phoenetic alphabets (which is the term that should be used instead of "spelling alphabet" since it's more correct and doesn't give the impression that this resolution is actually tampering with languages themselves); the standards of ICAO (the real UN's aviation authority) and NATO come to mind, which are practically identical and go "Alfa Bravo Charlie Delta Echo". That's the one being used internationally for aviation and shipping.

As to the language imperialism thing, ICAO also declared English as the international language for air traffic control, meaning all pilots and controllers are expected to be able to communicate in English, although of course in some places this really is only the case around international airports with international traffic - and even then pilots from some airlines are notorious for their difficult accents and the difficulty in understanding them. However, all the pilots and controllers at Schipol or Frankfurt or Narita airport will be expected to use English, for instance, even though in all likelihood it isn't the native language of the vast majority of the people on the frequencies. Regardless, it's important that everyone be able to mostly understand each other and in response all those who are upset about it imposing the Roman alphabet, I say we should impose English too. Think of the children!

In addition it is also worth noting that the currently most commonly used phoenetic alphabet isn't all two-syllable words: "Juliet", "November" or "Golf" for instance. Forcing them to all go two-syllables really doesn't make sense. Also there are some deviations for practical reasons. For instance, in Malaysia and Indonesia they don't use "Lima" for L because lima is Malay for "five", and at Atlanta Hartsfield airport "Dixie" is used instead of "Delta" to avoid confusion with the callsign of the airport's biggest user. I point this out mainly to be a pendantic asshole but also to warn against getting too rigid with what this phonetic alphabet actually is.

beaurocracy
The correct spelling is "buerocracy", of course.

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, "identification code" as a unique set of symbols (letters and numbers) used to identify specific vehicles;
This should be a "sequence" instead of a "set" of symbols, and the parenthetical comment is not needed given the next point. Further, the proposal should describe how international uniqueness is to be achieved -- presumably by adding codes identifying individual nations, but this must be made explicit.

Defining "standard symbology" as a standard set of symbols to be used in constructing identification codes (For the purposes of this resolution, the standard symbology will consist of the 26 letters of the English ("Roman") alphabet plus the Arabic numerals 0 through 9.);
The definition of the alphabet should not be hidden in parentheses; I suggest replacing the entire paragraph by something more like: 'Defining "the NSUN Vehicle Identification Symbol Set" as the set of the 26 letters of the English ("Roman") alphabet plus the Arabic numerals 0 through 9'.

Defining "spelling alphabet" as a set of easily pronounced, easily distinguished, two-syllable words representing letters of the alphabet, for example, "ALFA" for "A", "BRAVO" for "B", plus easily pronounced and distinguished pronunciations for numerals
I concur with Kelssek's comments regarding the details of this point.

3. Are urged to implement the standard spelling alphabet in their dometic transportation systems.
It is not clear what a "transportation system" in this context is supposed to be. Surely this point is not meant to apply to road signs, for instance (or is it?). If "... implement the standard spelling alphabet [or whatever it will be called finally] as the basis of national vehicle identification systems" was meant, then that is what the resolution should say.

7. Are encouraged to do the above where it is not necessary but helpful to international and foreign nations' organizations.
If "the above" refers only to the previous point (article? paragraph?), it should probably be referenced by number, otherwise someone might (deliberately) misread it as "all of the above".

All that said, I feel this proposal is important and useful, and will support it when it is up for vote. (The Council of Ministers of The People's Republic of Livermoria permitting, of course.)


OOC: This is my first post, so if I am not behaving according to local customs, please be gentle :-)

Can I also add that I don't think "Free Trade: Significant" is the correct strength for a proposal of this nature. Also, the public safety category would probably be a better fit.

*Remember when people were bitching about "defining meter"? And people started seriously wanting to have the text include that the meter was "equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum"? Yeah... I'm thinking it's just easier to use the terms.

Don't remind me, it makes me feel old.

The correct spelling is "buerocracy", of course.If by "correct" you mean "wrong", of course. The word is "bureaucracy (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bureaucracy)".

Defining "standard symbology" as a standard set of symbols to be used in constructing identification codes (For the purposes of this resolution, the standard symbology will consist of the 26 letters of the English ("Roman") alphabet plus the Arabic numerals 0 through 9.);

Defining "spelling alphabet" as a set of easily pronounced, easily distinguished, two-syllable words representing letters of the alphabet, for example, "ALFA" for "A", "BRAVO" for "B", plus easily pronounced and distinguished pronunciations for numerals, and

.
.
.

The United Nations will:

1. Devise and publish a standard spelling alphabet for use by all operators of international vehicles.



If the standard alphabet has already been defined earlier in the resolution, then there's nothing to devise, is there?

Moreover, the resolution starts out sounding as if a standard alphabet should be established (within such-and-such a time, though this is not explicitly stated) but it stays away from the details of what the alphabet should be; rather, it allows the gnomes to hammer that out. But the part that defines the alphabet as A-Z "for the purposes of this resolution" sounds like an endorsement of the A-Z alphabet.

So, the basic question is: Is A-Z being mandated here, or is a standard being ordered, the details of which are to be hammered out later? Scotchpinestan prefers the latter approach. Either way, this proposal needs to be rewritten to avoid any confusion as to just how far this resolution goes in the creation of the standard alphabet.

Also the (apparent) endorsement of A-Z, followed by the use of alpha and beta as mere examples, also lends an inconsistent tone to the resolution.

We'd like to thank the honorable representatives of Kelssek and Livermoria for their constructive and useful comments. We guarantee that they'll all be carefully considered as work on the draft progresses. A few preliminary comments....

We cannot agree that phonetic alphabet is a more accurate term for what we've included here than spelling alphabet. Although NATO does use the term for its spelling alphabet, a true phonetic alphabet is one that provides symbols representing phonemes -- the individual sounds of human speech (e.g., the International Phonetic Alphabet). We'd note that the NATO Phonetic Alphabet is also known as the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet.

With regard to defining the spelling alphabet as consisting of two-syllable words, we don't currently see any reason not to do that. Consistant use of two syllables should promote communications efficiency. This is certainly open to further discussion.

Could the representative of Livermoria please explain why "sequence" would be preferable to "set"? We're puzzled.

The representative of Livermoria's last two points are well taken and will be kept in mind as we revise the draft.

To the honorable representative of Scotchpinestan.... We believe you've confused the symbology and the spelling alphabet. They're two separate things. As the draft stands, the symbology would be set by the resolution itself. The spelling alphabet would be devised by the ever-popular gnomes.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Could the representative of Livermoria please explain why "sequence" would be preferable to "set"?
Certainly; the reason is that Livermorian government officials are required to undergo a large amount of mathematical training before taking office. (They are so mathematical, in fact, that sometimes they forget basic knowledge of other areas, like how to spell "bureocracy".)

The issue is that "sequence", at least to pedantic nit-pickers like Livermorians, implies that some sort of order is imposed on the elements, while this is not the case for a "set". For example, whether the collection (to use a neutral word) of symbols permissible for vehicle IDs is "the set of English letters and Arabic numerals" or "the set of Arabic numerals and English letters" is irrelevant; these both denote the same set of symbols. It does, however, make a difference whether a vehicle ID is reported to law enforcement authorities as composed of "A", "B", and "C", or of "C", "B", and "A". Most people would interpret these as the two different IDs "ABC" and "CBA", respectively; the order in which the elements are named matters.

This might be an irrelevant issue to most, but we feel that it would improve the quality of legislation to those that do take such distinctions (too) seriously.

ooc:
With your definition I think 'set' would be better as the order of the letters and numbers is unimportant to the resolution as long as it is unique. Countries are free to make rules if they so wish.

When I started this I used 'Phonetic' instead of 'Spelling'. The reason NATO's is called that is to do with its history. Visual Alphabet for flags. I forget the name of the Morse code's alphabet. But it stood to reason that the new one (to the Navy anyway) as it was spoken should be the voice or 'phonetic' alphabet.
Ausserland originally mistook my purpose when I said 'phonetic' and thought I meant 'aay' 'ee' 'ei' 'oh' 'yoo' style 46 letter phonetic alphabet. So 'Spelling' was thought to be more descriptive.

My decision to go 'two-syllable' was mainly from forgetting there were 3-syllable words, then deciding that 2>3 anyway, and as this is presumably created from scratch with every country's vocabulary in mind it would not matter. Hopefully this would mean Kelssek's issue with word confusion would hopefully not arise. I did not include it for the numbers however, as 'won' seems fine for describing 1.
I did not want to go as far as mandating English. From the complaints already about 'endorsing a language' already I really don't now. There's always one country that insists they should use their language. *cough*France*cough*

I've edited in my less flowery fashion the draft with Livermoria's points on clause 3 & 7 in italics. I originally tried to make 7 clearer but couldn't think of the words I was looking for. (So Auss, if you wish to opaque-ify it further, feel free)

The purpose of using as 'standard symbology' is that it's a lot shorter than writing 'the NSUN Vehicle Identification Symbol Set' every time. There is a character limit and I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Oh and Kelssek - 'public safety' category? Do you mean:
"International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets."
The description explains why not that.

Nice work for a first post Livermoria.

I don't think the requirement of "efficiency" necessarily mandates a rule of two syllables, only that the words used be short, easily recognisable, and not easily confused with other words. If simply this "communicative efficiency" were the concern it would be illogical to double the number of syllables for the words used in Kelssek for G and M, which are "golf" and "mike", respectively.

I do think "International Security" would be a better fit since such a proposal has more to do with safety than anything else. It is doubtful that international trade would be boosted much by this, or conversely, that it suffers from a lack of this resolution.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

Personally when reading something out over the phone I use 'G for giraffe' and 'M for mother'. But then I use 'D for dog'. I suppose I could extend to to 'one to three syllable words' but it's an insignificant issue. I'm sure the UN could find two-syllable word for each letter.

Look at the definition for IS. It would therefore infringe the category rule and head to Management's waste paper basket.

I understand what you're getting at category wise, but this wouldn't really have any effect on trade barriers either. It's a matter of what fits best and I just happen to have a different opinion on what does in this case.

I do think "International Security" would be a better fit since such a proposal has more to do with safety than anything else.IS requires more than just safety. It involves a boost to police and military budgets. I don't see this Proposal doing that.

IS requires more than just safety. It involves a boost to police and military budgets. I don't see this Proposal doing that.

Well, it might if you consider the possibility that police and military forces may have to be retrained to learn this new system.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This sounds good, but seacraft, aircraft, spacecraft, and autmobiles (land vehciles) should all be grouped into different catagories. For instance, Class A could refer to aircraft, Class B could refer to seacraft, whatever etc.

Secondly, NSUN should create a crown (state) corporation [all shares owned by the NSU] for handling this measure with a name something along the lines of the Nation State United Nations Vehicle Commission.

Profits earned by this business would go to the NSUN in the form of a dividend while some can be reinvested.

Lastly, armies, navies (both sea and space), and airforces should be given the right to use whatever indentification system for vehicles they choose, for strategic and NatSov reasons.

This idea was strange to me at first, but it will save governments some money if it was handled by the NSUN, and avoid confusion in emergencies.

We thank you for your comments but do not see how they are advantageous to implement.

If a nation decides to differentiate between types of vehicle is up to them.

How would the corporation make a profit?

Armed forces do not have to identify themselves if they're invading. However, in peace I'm sure a foreign nation would really want a destroyer class warship to identify itself!

The corporation will make profits by charging people and businesses for license plates, and the corporation can use prisoner labour to manufacture them in order to keep production costs down.

License plates are not free you know.

The corporation can also make additional money if people want to make personalized license plates.

Like all crown corporations it will be owned the SNUN and be required to pay the SNUN a substancial divendend (60% is usally the norm for such businesses).

im afraid the nation cannot support such a proposal that would effectively curb the security services effectiveness at fighting those who seek to cause damage and killing whoever gets in their way.

the government practices overseas intel operations, when tracking and spying targets who are a threat to the nations security, and do this without harming any countries that thecraigzone ventures forth into. also diplomatic cars move silently and covertly in order to maximise the security of these cars.

whilst you may condemn this, the CZIA have free reign politically to protect the state, and any overt way of identiying the cars would jepoarise those agents and diplomats.these cars are only identifiable by transponder placed within, and is encrypted with 500+kb protection, therefore it would not be in the zones interests to adopt these measures.

also, in some areas of the country, there is a strong presence of parthians and vikings, who only communicate in their runes.

when it comes to armed forces there are already existing protocols for identifying each other, which acts like your code. rather than using standard symbology, countires in some alliances and groups use identifying beacons that contain all the data about the vehicle in them.

for example all NATO sea and air assets can be picked up by each other, and sokme heavy armoured vehicles.

spacecraft all have a system too.

maybe this system should be limited to privately owned vehicles and civilian ASR units + emergency services.

in the zone, we invest in this technology, in particular partnership with melsonland, a country we stand shouder to shoulder with, usually becuase its quite cramped..........

As regards category, we have seen repeatedly that the UN does not really have a category suitable for cross-border harmonisation of regulations. Most draft proposals we have observed attempt to position themselves as Free Trade resolutions, and in this case we would agree that it is the least worst option. Consider for a moment that the likely primary affect of the legislation would be increased mutual comprehension resulting in accident reduction, most obviously in the case of aircraft. That would seem to give a minor economic boost, which is what Free Trade seems to be primarily concerned with.


ooc:
With your definition I think 'set' would be better as the order of the letters and numbers is unimportant to the resolution as long as it is unique. Countries are free to make rules if they so wish.

On the contrary, the Ambassador of Livermoria is quite correct. It is the identification code that is the definition at issue, not the alphabet or symbology. That code is most assuredly ordered in nature, as the ambassador demonstrated, and therefore better defined as a sequence.

On the contrary, the Ambassador of Livermoria is quite correct. It is the identification code that is the definition at issue, not the alphabet or symbology. That code is most assuredly ordered in nature, as the ambassador demonstrated, and therefore better defined as a sequence.

Sorry, that's incorrect. The symbology and spelling alphabet are very much at issue. Nowhere does the proposal mandate the composition of the identification code. It would instead specify the elements that would be permissible in constructing the code. No sequence is specified. If the proposal continued to specify the English/Roman alphabet and Arabic numerals, "AAF2004", "GHV", "398557" and "465GS" would all be perfectly legal.

While we thank the honorable representative of Livermoria for his suggestion and his patience in explaining it to us non-mathematical folks, we believe "set" is the appropriate word to be used in describing the symbology. We're still pondering the "set/sequence" issue with regard to the spelling alphabet.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ambassader Invader I would like to address your points sequentially.

If indentification exists surely it would be easier to identify suspects who travel in an identifiable vehicle from one nation to another?

I do not see how having an identification code assigned to a vehicle will effect diplomatic and espionage programs. There is no clause mandating the display of such a code, although a nation may legislate this, and you can simply use one of the foreign state's vehicles. Any espionage service worth its salt can work around identification issue seeing most nations have this funny thing known as 'border control'.

We already noted that some nations use their own alphabets. However, last time I looked Vikings did not talk by waving runes at each other did they? They have a tongue in their heads can when their longship travels to another nation's port they can use the 'spelling alphabet' which is what the codes are designed to use. A novel idea I know having two parts of a resolution that actually relate to each other!

We have said this does not replace pre-existing systems and merely supplements them. I do not want to be repeating myself ad finitum or I'll lose my voice and would have trouble exiting the car park!

This applies to all vehicles, including spacecraft.

Melsonland is not part of the UN. It is irrelevant what your interaction is with them
(ooc: or if it isn't, get it out of the UN. You are only allowed one state. Or it is dead. Which is more likely and therefore not relevant either.)

Returning to the Gobbanium Ambassador's point, I agree with my colleague Ambss. Ahlmann, and will look into using sequence for the definition of the alphabet and not the identification codes.

unfortunately, the ambassador rejects your points as it doesnt understand the nature of the CZIA's work. For one thing it uses CZ made vehicles, as it doesnt lioke silly foriegn made vehivles of inferior quality. therefore they would stick out lik a sore thumb in a foriegn land. and to use an identity code belonging to a foreign land, it would lead a paper trail that may possibly lead to our agents being compromised. as for sspects, if we're following suspects, weve already identified them, and trust me, the CZIA operatives are among the best in the world, so wouldnt lose them, well except for that embarassing episode in 1997 where they got muddled up and followed some latino guy into the metro network.....

as for having several codes national and international, that would mean unnecessary bureaucracy *disputed spelling*.

as for larger vessels in the zone, the IX-529 is commonplace. as a stealth boat, its identity should remain secret and should neve rhave to identify itself. infact it would wish to keep its whereabouts so secret, it would destroy whoever stumbled across it. with an international identity code, this would mean the ship would bem more visible and more vessels would be destroyed, in order to keep its whereabouts secret.

Well I'm sorry that your stealth boats and other spy-vehicles are so poor that they get spotted by ATC, Harbour police, Border police or any other border control and have to identify themselves. Please send my condolences to your espionage bodies and perhaps a suggestion that they contact a nation who supplies superior vehicles. I've heard that Perimeter Defense (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536729)'s aircraft cloaking systems are to die for...which you will if you get spotted I'm sure.

well it happens sometimes, planes get spotted but i think one is stryaing fromn the issues of international symbolsit's not an issue of quality, its an issue of training and minimising risk to the zones military and intelligence assets. and all those who have located any of the stealth boats fleet have been destroyed. these asets are good and can go undetected BECAUSE of these protocols of plausible deniability and the fact that they act like ghosts. a code would highight them.

it is a shame, but stealth boat captains have had to destroy several vessels who have seen them, and this destruction would have to be extended to any police/military/ATC/ASR/customs/CG/radar teams/ARP staff/ or any personnel that located them. This is because the anonymity and knoweledge of these craft are worth thouands of peoples lives. if this code woas introduced, we would be have to kill more people which would inevitably lead to open conflict, all because of this code.

and where does it end? what claasifies as a vehicle?

there are numerous vehicles like unmanned drones, golf carts, skateboards, would these need to have the same code in place to protect them?

I think you'll find our answer already.

Moreover mentioning all those other methods of transport means you have forgotten something important - only a vehicle that is international and registerable in nations A & B needs to be identified. And international is defined to exclude skateboard and golf carts as they are unlikely to be used for cross-border transport.
Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is our last word to you concerning military and espionage vehicles. any more questions by you on the topic shall be ignored forthwith!

im only highlighting how this wld affect ppl in the world.

its a nice idea to harmonise and simpliofy, but for many people and processes, they wld hav to fill in more forms and stuff.

for example, international competitors in various sports, that involve getting from a to b. thousands of boarders/bmxers/bladers/skiiers/lugers/race drivers/bob sleigh/ would have to go through even more breacracy. it is not making a mountain, as it would affect alot of people. how can boarders who are already two prawns short of a prawn sandwich be able to fill in these forms?

it seems a little out of touch to place this on people and companies, when im sure there are a million other issues for the UN to deal with.

as for the military vehicles, it is esential for the security of the state that our fleets are kept hidden, so it is a huge deal in the zone.

* ooc: I've never before seen the first letter of the Greek alphabet spelt 'alfa'. Surely 'alpha' is in more widespread use? Regardless, doesn't this (alongside the points made by Kelssek and others) emphasis(z)e that language standardis(z)ation is pretty much guaranteed to put people's backs up for no good reason? I'm not persuaded this degree of beaureauoeauoeaucracy is worth the effort. *

OOC response to an OOC post:

Alpha is the preferred spelling for the Greek letter and is used by NATO in its spelling alphabet. But the simplified spelling ALFA is used by the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, the International Maritime Organization, and the US Federal Aviation Administration.

Two good points in one sentence.... The first is that attempts to standardize language are "pretty much guaranteed to put people's backs up". The second is that this happens "for no good reason". The linguistic chauvinists will surely groan and moan about this proposal, even though it's in no way an attempt to standardiz[s]e any language. It's an attempt to develop a mechanism to be used for a very specific and limited purpose.

In addition it is also worth noting that the currently most commonly used phoenetic alphabet isn't all two-syllable words: "Juliet", "November" or "Golf" for instance. Forcing them to all go two-syllables really doesn't make sense. Also there are some deviations for practical reasons. For instance, in Malaysia and Indonesia they don't use "Lima" for L because lima is Malay for "five", and at Atlanta Hartsfield airport "Dixie" is used instead of "Delta" to avoid confusion with the callsign of the airport's biggest user. I point this out mainly to be a pendantic asshole but also to warn against getting too rigid with what this phonetic alphabet actually is.

I think the ICAO has incorporated a number of work-arounds, and some nations use their own variations, as you mentioned. Airports will frequently use "Dixie" in place of the name of a major airline, the British often use "Indigo" to avoid confusion with a part of their empire, and some of the other official uses are "Alfa" and "Juliett" to avoid confusion for Spanish-speakers (and French-speakers.)

That said, nations should be allowed to use their own alphabets to a point. If I'm saying that my coordinates are Alfa Yankee Foxtrot Fower Seven Niner, and someone comes back at me with coordinates of Able Young Freedom Four Seven Nueve, then we're not communicating any more than we would be if we said the same thing in two different languages.

I support the proposal, and if it reaches quorum, it can count on my vote.

To the honorable representative of Scotchpinestan.... We believe you've confused the symbology and the spelling alphabet. They're two separate things. As the draft stands, the symbology would be set by the resolution itself. The spelling alphabet would be devised by the ever-popular gnomes.



We thank the Ausserland representative for clearing that up. We still believe the resolution would be better served if it created a commission (of gnomes) to develop the symbology. It's quite possible (maybe likely) that such a commission would wind up recommending the use of A-Z and 0-9. But at least in that instance, a healthy debate on the specifics of the symbology will have ensued. Mandating a symbology in the resolution is a rather heavy-handed way of going about things, and we are not comfortable with the heavy-handedness of the current resolution.

Sorry, that's incorrect. The symbology and spelling alphabet are very much at issue. Nowhere does the proposal mandate the composition of the identification code.
We believe that Ambassador Ahlmann may have failed to note that while the proposal does not mandate the composition of the identification code, it does define it thus:

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, "identification code" as a unique set of symbols (letters and numbers) used to identify specific vehicles;
Amusingly, both the alphabet and the symbology are defined in the following paragraphs as sequences, when they might well be more properly termed sets.

We're glad that our honorable colleague from Gobbannium is amused. We'd remind him that this draft is a work-in-progress, being revised by the author periodically to accommodate good points raised in this discussion.

As for the "set/sequence" business, we'd really be glad to see it laid to rest. It's a valid issue, but it's had a whole lot more attention than it merits. So here's our final word on the subject:

The identification code is a sequence.
The standard symbology is a set.
The spelling alphabet is a set.

Now, whether the author chooses to listen to our final word is up to her.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

ooc: it was originally three 'set's. I just changed it yesterday to 'sequence...sequence...set' with much internal debate over the middle one as it's a set of two sequences. It is probable the second will return to 'set'.

It is currently alfa on the NATO set too due to the pronounciation confusion with the 'ph' sound.

On people requesting variants perhaps you should look at it this way:
Everyone has to have an indentification code which can be spelled using the standard spelling alphabet on their international vehicles.
----(Noting an international vehicle is a vehicle that crosses borders, not a vehicle, inside another vehicle/being carried that happens to cross a border for use in the other nation if you're going to be pedantic)----
However, if they negotiate with another nation to use a different word it is not illegal, simply that if the ATC of Nation B does not understand they can use the standard word.

ic: I would like to remind Scotchpineistan that English is the most widely spoken language in this world and the many others floating out there. As English is also the language of dipolmacy and international politics you'll find most countries able to comprehend and use the Roman alphabet. I feel it is not worth making yet another committee to the already beleaguered gnomes and wasting the UN's limited resources when they are likely to conclude on an identical set.

unfortunately, it's only the official langauge of diplomacy in the west.

most diplomacy happens through interpreters.

again i believe that this should be limited to haulage and international frieght,and maybe private vehicles, as there is simply too much national interest and controversy to impose a standard code.

unless you went neutral and imposed a silly code that does not get used anymore, like ancient aztec.......

and have any provisions been made for the transferring of this code, especially for the hearing impaired or the blind......

unfortunately, it's only the official langauge of diplomacy in the west.

OOC:...in the present time. A couple of centuries ago, French was the language of diplomacy, which is why so many diplomatic terms are of French origin.

IC: We trust that the authors will take our amusement in the spirit it is given, and take heart from the fact that aside from the eternal musings over the correct category, such small details of terminology are all that catch our notice. (OOC: and accept my apologies as someone who has had to read far too many ISO and CCITT standards over the last decade or two.)

I'd vote for this. Well-written and most remaining quibbles seem to me to be somewhat pedantic. Further, we have no objection to the General Assembly, via resolution, determining the symbology, rather than yet another committee.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/anotheruselesscommittee.jpg

Darren Funkel
Acting Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder, Democratic Underground region

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/homer.jpg

17 to go....

no i wont approve...hahaaha


ooc: imagining the orcs in lotr; rotk in a rome total war siege. and its kinda realistic, they're head hurling.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Having attained the necessary 118 proposals, the proposal "Spelling Alphabet and ID Codes" has reached quorum and is now in the queue.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png
After a long TG campaign and not a few insults including 'not unless you join my region' and being accused of spamming. Apparently most proposal writers do not do that and I'll be reported to the M/Gods...funny how most proposals fail.

I'll start a new topic for Quorum/Vote as this one hasn't got the last version.

If you've been thinking about adding an approval for this proposal, please go ahead and do it. Just because a proposal reaches the queue doesn't mean it will stay there. It can "fall out" of the queue if delegates are unseated or their nations disappear.

And thanks to all who have approved or will approve it.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

its a rite pain in the anus lol 2 get 1 2 go fwd. i mean endorsemets, annoying...

Oh where are my manners? Gone in apple and caramel soup and caffeine it appears.

I would like to echo my esteemed co-worker Ambassador Thwerdock's thanks to everyone who approved and hope we may have many successful outcomes in the future, not least, passing this at vote.

Gohn Jawey
UN Ambassador for the Gaffa Territories

ooc: Yes thecraigzone, it takes a lot of work. I did tell you this. I remember someone saying they didn't need this re-drafting crap and all this tagging effort....

I think this thread's served its purpose. Lock please!

nah, just offer regional delegates sex with 50 of each nations most supple and pleasant loking whores and they love it. in the ass. than they vote for you. isnt democracy great?

that is diplomacy.