NationStates Jolt Archive

Kind and wise delegates, it gives me great pleasure to present to you the repeal of a resolution afflicted with the most grievous flaws: intellectual, moral, logical and aesthetic.

The case against Resolution 30 is as follows:

Repeal "Common Sense Act II"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #30

Proposed by: Dashanzi

Description: UN Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

REGRETFULLY ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals may be reckless, irresponsible, ignorant and/or foolish, and

SOBERLY MINDFUL of the potential for the waste of time and resources represented by such individuals,

NONETHELESS REMAINS AGOG at the chutzpah exhibited in crafting a resolution that seeks to legislate against stupidity, yet which simultaneously fails to account for the myriad factors involved in personal decision-making, and furthermore

RAILS MOST FURIOUSLY at those who seek to undermine the lofty goals of this institution by assailing it with such egregious trivialities and alarmist pettifoggery, and consequently

RIGHTEOUSLY PURIFIES the UN statute of this most disingenuous resolution by

REPEALING United Nations Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II.
The discussion thread can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509772).

I beg you to look gently upon this humble nation's efforts and lend your support for what I feel is amost worthy and righteous endeavour.

Benedictions,

Ahhh...stupidity. I love your choice of wording. We will support this repeal, as the resolution is somewhat...stupid in its shortsightedness.

My only complaint is that it will delay the InstaRepeal™: Max Barry Day! by four or five days.

Dirty, scheming Dashanzians. So that's why this proposal was submitted out of the blue! You can't delay the inevitable, Minister Qiang! Bah!

~Susa Batko-Yovino

Common Sense Act II
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Fantasan

Description: : Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This proposal will lower the tax burden on all citizens, it will make the jobs of Judges and Juries easier, and will help restore a modicum of common sense to the world.

Votes For: 8,627
Votes Against: 4,776

Implemented: Fri Sep 12 2003

The nation of Subistratica will support this proposal when it reaches voting.

Good day.

Eros Tatriel
UN Rep. for Subistratica

My only complaint is that it will delay the InstaRepeal™: Max Barry Day! by four or five days.

It's not the first time, the same thing happened with the repeal of Promotion of Solar Panels too.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

A cloaked figure walks into the General Assembly, and begins to speak in a vaguely familiar voice.

Madam Secretary-General,

I have opposed Resolution #30 since it was a mere proposal, submitted by the onetime delegate from Maine, my old foe. I personaly approved the "Crybaby Act", the Tisonican "Repeal Common Sense Act II", and our own "Common Sense Code", all early attempts to annul this resolution. Sadly, these could not be adopted at the time due to different United Nations regulations at the time.

Although I do not believe resolutions that guarantee personal rights overstep the UN mandate, I find the claims of Common Sense Act II repugnant to the rights of the person; meanwhile, the deference it grants to certain privileged members of society is ludicrous. While frivolous lawsuits are indeed stupid, the broad categorizations declaimed by Fantasan are too general, thereby including in their sweep lawsuits that may be perfectly valid.

May the United Nations revoke an unjust resolution that has been on the books for four years too long. I, for myself, Tisonica, Stephistan, and others that have long departed, urge a vote for this resolution.

Madam Secretary-General, I yield the floor.

The cloaked figure bows to the presiding officer and walks out of the chamber.

Intangelon and Cascadia are overwhelmingly (or as overwhelming as we can be with four votes) FOR this resolution.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/7830/tureilauruit7.jpg

"Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed representatives, honourable delegates,

As newly elected (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13123455&postcount=170) leader of the People's Democratic Social Republic of Ariddia, it is my pleasure to address this distinguished Assembly for the first time.

Regarding the proposal at hand, my government was initially uncertain what position to adopt. Strong measures intended to prevent the incitement of stupidity -nay, the encouraging of profiting from one's own imbecility, feigned or real- are something we are loathe to condemn. A large portion of this General Assembly is, as we all know, proof enough that stupidity surrounds us, and that encouraging it can be remarkably damaging to the well-being of our multiverse and its inhabitants, whose collective vital rights and interests it is our task to uphold.

Nonetheless, Ariddia agrees in substance with the valid points raised within this repeal, and consequently supports it.

Ladies and gentlemen, and genderqueer, asexual and other beings, a brief moment longer of your time, now that I am here. My predecessor (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuriyah_bint_Rashad_Khadhim) once addressed you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11798570&postcount=79) in this very hall, establishing a tradition for newly elected leaders in my country to bring Ariddia's perspective to the United Nations as they begin their term in office. I shall be brief.

The points raised by my esteemed predecessor remain of significant concern. It would be a platitude, a self-evident truth now to say that this Assembly is dominated by semi-literate primary school drop-outs who bring shame not only to the nations they represent, but to this entire organisation. I can only call once again upon the representatives here present to give careful consideration to proposals brought to their attention, and to weigh the importance of their duty as delegates contributing to the establishment of internationally binding legislation.

So, rather than dwell on this organisation's shortcomings, I will conclude by commending those of you who restore some meaning, dignity and reason to its endeavours by your well-considered contributions to legislation and debates. The world stands grateful.

And I, in turn, thank you for your indulgence in listening. Under my government, Ariddia will continue to take a close interest in the workings of these United Nations. We regret the failure of this Assembly to adopt our Climate Refugee Commission, and I wish to assure you that my government is considering whether to present a fresh draft to this Assembly's learned -or, for the most part, ranting, off-topic and ignorant- consideration.

Thank you."


Turei Lauru (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Turei_Lauru),
Second Secretary (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddian_government_and_judiciary#The_Council_of_Secretaries), PDSRA

I am supposed to stand up here and merely re-state the opinion expressed by my President some time ago, to wit,The nation of Ardchoille FLORIDLY and WITH JOYOUS ABANDON supports this repeal, GUSHINGLY ADMIRES its legislative style and EMPHATICALLY URGES similar mellifluous loquacity upon neophyte drafters.

However, as repeating that felt like speaking through a mouthful of marshmallows, I would like to support our position with something vaguely approaching argument.

I have committed all four of the acts described as "idiotic negligence", including cutting myself on a pane of glass while burglarising a bakery to steal bread for widows and orphans. Admittedly, I committed the theft solely so that I could be sent to join the UN delegation, which my nation's eccentric legal system considers a suitable punishment for my crime, but I still did it.

Now I am impressed that the UN, with all its awesome responsibilities, has taken time out to scold me for my misdeeds in this nannyish fashion, yet I can't help but feel it's a little too much legislation -- someone less august, such as a passing copper, could have done the job equally well.

But when I have committed other misdeeds even more obviously the result of idiotic negligence, not excluding my marriage, the UN has not felt constrained to reprove me for them at all, even though some of them could and did result in (in my opinion) unnecessary legal action.

Thus the legislation is both too specific, in that it targets particular fields of idiocy, and not specific enough, in that it leaves untrammelled whole areas of stupidity which, I am sure, I am not the only delegate to have thoroughly explored.

Thus, for once, the Ardchoillean delegation is united in its approach and I am content to cast our vote in favour of the repeal.

--William Edward Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

My only complaint is that it will delay the InstaRepeal™: Max Barry Day! by four or five days.

At least we have until March 18th (whatever that is) to repeal the thing :)

Ambassador Prince Rhodri steps up to the microphone wearing something looking more like worn and stained hunting clothes than his usual formal robes. Possibly they look that way because they are worn and stained hunting clothes. The impression is certainly added to by the low-powered hunting rifle slung over one shoulder.

"We apologise for our sub-standard dress for this chamber, but open season appears to have been declared on sub-standard resolutions and a change of garb seemed appropriate." He looks with distaste over at the UN's Big Book of Laws, where the ink is still drying on 'Max Barry Day'.

"That said, we are here to speak in support of the original resolution, and against the repeal. While we are delighted to see an effort of such charm and wit as Ambassador Gao has presented to this assembly, we also find ourselves greatly taken by Common Sense Act II. It too has an elegance and appositeness, and speaks clearly to the concept of fairness that should pervade law. While it has its faults -- clearly the definition of idiotic negligence is itself negligent in many details -- it does put forth a template which all nations should consider and improve on in their national implementations.

"We firmly believe as a nation that stupidity should not be encouraged. Allowing the wilfully obtuse to profit by making legal claims for compensation against others for their own acts of incompetance is against natural justice in our eyes, and one of the few cases whereby we unhesitatingly support businesses being pestered by such frivolous lawsuits.

"We freely admit that Resolution 30 is not perfect, but contend that it is good enough for its purpose. Were there an intent to use this repeal in order to replace the resolution with something closer to perfection we might, and we must stress that it is only a 'might', support it. Given that Ambassador Gao has made it abundantly clear -- and for such clarity we thank him -- that there is no such intention, and we have no inclination to do such drafting ourselves, we shall be voting against this repeal."

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden,

STRONGLY BELIEVING that every person has the right to remain stupid, while

CONCURRENTLY UPHOLDING that stupidity is not an excuse for raking large amounts of money through the justice system;

PROUDLY ACKNOWLEDGING that fortunately, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden does not have these kinds of lawsuits,

SHAMELESSLY ADMITTING that we have no use for this resolution and thus is another redundant thing on the books; while

SILENTLY RUMINATING that other countries might have problems on frivolous lawsuits; but

TIGHTLY HOLDING that the stupidity of some people (and arguably of some nations) is not a UN issue;

EMBARRASSINGLY NOTING that the resolution at vote in mistitled, as "common sense" is not common at all; AND

RUTHLESSLY NITPICKING that the resolution for repeal also contains some "neglegence" in spelling,

VOTES FOR the Repeal of Common Sense Act II.

Adam di Sadalucco
The Translator at the Nord-Brutlandese Mission to the UN

Lanteana wishes to commend the author of this resolution for his highly effective (and quite humorous) word choice. The word "chutzpah" is highly regarded among the Lantean populace; unfortunately, the context in which it is used typically refers derogatorily to the Lantean government.

We do not wish to waste the delegates' time with such boring topics, however, so we will get straight to our point. Lanteana will support this resolution, on the simple grounds that people have an inalienable right to stupidity, though perhaps not as such. We would like to incorporate "stupidity" into the right of "liberty," which Lanteana has long believed is extremely important to the individual determination of its citizens. Certainly, frivolous lawsuits are an annoyance and a waste of taxpayer money; we hope, however, that observers of such trivialities will learn from the "glittering jewels of colossal ignorance" who take the role of plaintiff in such trials, and avoid spilling their hot coffee all down their front in the future. Furthermore, Lanteana does not believe that forcing one group of people to comply with regulations, in this case the defendants -- in effect, restraining their own rights -- is the best method to advance the rights of another group, in this case the plaintiffs; rather, a means of recompense from the former to the latter should be established. (I would like to add my personal opinion here that the plaintiffs should simply avoid stupidity in the first place, then we wouldn't have to worry about petty quibbles such as this disrupting our busy schedule. *sideways glance at newly-printed "Max Barry Day" resolution*)

One further item we wish to note: a recommendation that the author of this resolution keep up the good work. Thank you for your time. *attempts to remove fluffy feeling from mouth*

I do not believe the way the repeal goes about repealing it is just. The Act is good and bad. The good is that lawsuits like that should be banned, but the bad is the reason why they should be banned, civil liberties! That is stupid my friends, these lawsuites do not hurt civil liberties, but they are still bad.

The reason we should not repeal this act is because its approch on how it does not acount for behavoir and that the bill is craking down on stupidity is worng. the act is doing no such thing, it says nothing about controlling stupidity of people, only bad lawsuites. Also behavior is what got these bad lawsuites started in the first place, behavior has been acounted for, it is the greadyness of the those proposing these lawsuits that is bad.

Imperiolisom will not vote for this bill, if, in the future, and better repeal, stating that the bill should be repealed based on the supposed clame it makes than we will repeal it, but not anytime sooner

have a good day

Esteemed Delegate from the glorious realm of Dashanzi: The nations of my region, small though it is, offer what support we can for your proposal, and would further like to state that we think you're brilliant. :)

I, the Dominator of Kalashnivoka, feel this is a brilliant resolution. We must stop having oppurtunists and degenerates to our genepool taking advantage of our hardest working citizens who commit so much to our societies.

Now the stupidity of some cannot possibly have such a detrimental effect on hard-working, innocent others. Too many times have criminals, committing blatantly criminal acts, won out in massive lawsuits when their own stupidity sees them hurting themselves in said criminal act.

I will not support this repeal. I feel this resolution should remain. This chain of lawsuits is coming to absurd levels, and is degrading our societies, and must be stopped.

I, the Dominator of Kalashnivoka, have Spoken!

Altanar wholeheartedly supports this repeal. The original resolution strikes us as an unwarranted interference in the judicial practices of member states, and adds the 'bonus' of infringing upon citizens' rights to pursue their day in court. Neither is something we find acceptable.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

I will not support this repeal. I feel this resolution should remain. This chain of lawsuits is coming to absurd levels, and is degrading our societies, and must be stopped.

Then pass your own national legislation forbidding frivolous lawsuits. Nothing would be stopping you from doing that, even once (fingers crossed) resolution #30 is repealed. There is no reason presented in the original resolution that justifies imposing a mandate upon all UN member states when individual nations can just pass their own legislation on this subject without the need for forcing it upon nations that might not want it.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

The Government of Vindrstoc supports this repeal, as we are a strong believer in freedom of the people, and thus they should be allowed to make 'stupid' appeals, for they are only citizens of Vindrille, the same as others. We will hold important trials, such as murder cases, primarily, however, we do not find it right for the judgement of an appeal as 'stupid' until it has been decided on by a Judge after a trial, as if it could be implemented, we will still attempt to prevent the same thing happening again by enforcing safety warnings on the product in question, unless it will obstruct the use of it, and the mistake is not common.

-Vindrstoc

yea go stupid descisions! i am in full support of this

yea go stupid descisions! i am in full support of this

We believe our point is made?

The Palentine fully supports this repeal.
excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

why repeal it when it stops people sueing when they are commiting a crime? for instance say some prat was riding a motorized two-wheeled vehicle (eg moped) along a cycle path through a park and the authorities tell him/her to stop and he falls off and damage himself in some way he then sues the police force for personal injury and possibly damage to a vehicle which isn't legal to ride on a public cycle way!?

:sniper:

of course the police would naturally go for an out of court settlement which is even more ridiculus.....

As the delegate of Rustopia, I am proud to support what we see as the wisdom of our U.N. predecessors as we have no grievances with the original resolution we will stand against the opportunity for people anywhere to gain or profit from their own negligence or general stupidity. Personal responsibility is something that the many people of Rustopia take very very serious and would expect the same from people from all over the world.

*The Great Prophet Zarquon approaches the podium for the very first time as the UN delegate for The Empire of Zarquon Froods. Somewhate mysterious with his hooded black robe draped over him, hiding his face. He faces the micropone, clears his throat and lowers the hood from his head. He speaks.*

"Esteemed delegates of this audatious body. I come to you now as the leader of the great Empire of Zarquon Froods, my home. I have watched in earnest the debates that have taken place in this hall, but I feel compelled to speak against the current.

I do not feel that this is the correct course of action. The civil injustice caused by the unintelligent seeking legal restituion for their own incompetence is a slap in the face to not only the legal system, but to humanity itself. The world has long existed on the theory of survival of the fitest, and I feel that letting these people get the upper hand is a step in the wrong direction. It is as if we are punishing those who know better by handing everything they have worked for over to someone who has no idea what they are doing or could care less. My people do not think it is right.

In closing, the Empire of Zarquon Froods do not support the measure. However, realizing that this was never a madate to all nations, we will vote in the affirmative towards the repeal of 'Common Sence ACT III', and will also seek to have our own laws instituted within our borders over the matter.

I thank the chamber for it's time."

*Pulling the hood back over his head, Zarquon steps down and returns to his chair.*

I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and therefor Magick and Witchcraft does too. If people are stupid enough to hurt themselves, it's their own doggone fault. They should at least be granted the right to a trial to see if it was there fault that they got hurt or the fault of the product/business/organization.

Autumn Pantherpaw
Dictator of Magick and Witchcraft

To my fellow members of the United Nations;

UN Resolution #30 was put in place to prevent self-indulgent lawsuits, not to infringe on anyone's liberties. It was adopted as a way to end the exploitation of those greedy, thoughtless individuals who had much more to gain than to lose. It is our role as political leaders to defend the targets of these civil suits, and through the Common Sense Act II, we have done so. It was never about preventing someone from making their own decisions, be they wrong or otherwise-- rather, it was to block the efforts of such a person from laying their own choices on someone else, and taking as much as they could on the way.

I don't deny the fact that the resolution is old, and our policies on such proposals have changed, but it is my hope that in case UN Resolution #30 is repealed, that an updated, broader, and more comprehensive version take its place.

Yours,
The people of Shaggard

Then pass your own national legislation forbidding frivolous lawsuits. Nothing would be stopping you from doing that, even once (fingers crossed) resolution #30 is repealed. There is no reason presented in the original resolution that justifies imposing a mandate upon all UN member states when individual nations can just pass their own legislation on this subject without the need for forcing it upon nations that might not want it.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

When we became member of the UN, it was explained that we were being given a voice in the world. In exchange, we have to follow the rules of the United Nations, and that undoubtedly includes "imposing a mandate upon all UN member states", regardless of whether or not we agree on the issue. The fact is, all of us with a vote agreed to that.

I don't deny the fact that the resolution is old, and our policies on such proposals have changed, but it is my hope that in case UN Resolution #30 is repealed, that an updated, broader, and more comprehensive version take its place.

Yours,
The people of Shaggard

If such a resolution should come up, I would endorse it without question. The one problem I have with Res. 30 is that it is too vague.

The Commonwealth of Waitesland wholeheartedly supports the repeal proposed for the Common Sense Act II. The restriction of tort law through legislation is commendable, but this Act restrict wide swaths of wrongs for which remedies are merited. Any such legislative restriction in the future should reflect caps (indexed for inflation) on remedies allowed, and not an outright ban on particular wrongs.

How do, ambassadors of elsewhere?

We are delighted at this repeal as it will remove more purile legislation from the already horrendously bloated statute book of the UN.

Fortunately stupid people were exiled, bred or educated out of Putzi several generations ago by a mixture of deportation, elementary eugenics and grammar schooling. It is true that there was a shortage of telephone sanitisers at first, until of course we invented the self-cleaning telephone...

The repeal of this legislation would encourage those nations still entertaining the presence of the stupid and foolish in their midst to take measures to eliminate them or face the full legal bill and the ruin of their economies.

For once, Putzi takes delight in supporting a resolution, saddened only by the fact that aside from the forthcoming repeal of Max Barry Day there is absolutely nothing else to look forward to voting FOR for.

What ho, and with much aplomb,

The Ambassador from Putzi

Realizing both the benefits and the failings of Common Sense Act II, the government of Twafflonia is forced to abstain on this proposal.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

Valinor can understand the case being made here against poorly written resolutions, or perhaps simply poorly thought-out ones; but are we really helping ourselves by removing protection against frivolous lawsuits? Granted, Common Sense II probably doesn't go far enough with its definitions, but unless someone's proposing more comprehensive legislation to replace it, Valinor cannot and will not support any measure which removes it entirely.

:cool:
The Act is not well written and should be improved upon. Frivolities should not be allowed in the courts, this repeal should hopefully inspire a better worded act that follows the spirit while being more explicit in its wording. We agree to a repeal! :)

The idea that people would ALLOW others to throw away their common sense makes me sick. Vote against this idiotic repeal. Keep this act in effect.

Lawyers in Tanular have started lobbying against this proposal in recent weeks over one specific issues. The original proposal says that one cannot file a lawsuit for injuries obtained during the commission of a crime. In recent years, it has been pointed out that this sweeping clause prevents filing lawsuits for police brutality if the suspect is injured during arrest. It also prevents lawsuits from being filed for causes unrelated to the crime being committed, but might actually hurt the criminal anyway. This bill does protect against frivolous suits, but its sweeping generalizations cover many other non-frivolous suits as well, and we lobbying for our regional delegate to vote for this repeal.

The Delegation from Akimonad and Conservative Paradise:

FINDING Common Sense Act II to be a piece of utter rubbish;

NOTICING that a very ambitious repeal is at vote;

COMPLETELY REJOICING in the fact that this waste of waste is being RIGHTEOUSLY PURIFIED;

DEFENESTRATING the ambassador from Putzi;

DEVOURING several delicious infant marzipan confectioneries;

DRINKING three liters of bourbon whiskey to wash it down;

Does hereby vote FOR the proposal "Repeal Common Sense Act II".

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Delegate, Conservative Paradise

:D
Do you not have confidence in your own judges to decide if an issue is even worthy of a court's attention without having to make an explicit law out of it? The repeal seems like a great idea, but these Churchians want to have a "better" one?

In our country the judges are given some leeway to decide if an issue is worthy of consideration so that when laws sabotage justice it is time to put the written word aside and use human judgment. We educate our citizens to know what is right and wrong by thinking things through as opposed to letting a piece of paper dictate real world experiences. You can not play an orchestral assembly with just one instrument, whereas life is the orchestra and the written law is but one instrument.

Great move to repeal this insult. :p

:(
The written rules allow us to know what should be done so we never deviate from the rule of law. There are some who love to sue over every little thing so perhaps a law stating explicitly what is a proper suing and what is not will prevent people from suing if they are in the wrong category.

Perhaps a better worded law should be implemented if the current one is not up to everyone's satisfaction but should we not wait for that law to be written before we repeal this one? Of course we have no idea how to better word the document. We need the proper law expert to let us know what the better law is so then we can follow the proper law with intelligence.

Intelligent people follow written laws, airheads make them up as they go along. So blah to Truthmongers. :mad:

We're very much in favor of protecting our citizens against frivolous and vindictive litigation. In Ausserland, we have very strict laws on the subject, including heavy fines imposed by a panel of judges on attorneys who advise their clients to engage in such litigation. We would probably support a carefully thought out, well drafted resolution on the subject which focused on cross-border litigation.

Unfortunately, the definition of "idiotic negligence" in NSUNR #30 is so badly written that it simply doesn't cut the proverbial mustard. Ausserland has voted FOR the repeal.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ambassador Gardner speaks more energetically and jovially than he is usually seen.

"The verbose stylings of the proposal under discussion are most inspiring and resurrect indefinitely dormant hopes that this governing body may indeed comport itself with a dignity most worthy of a global union.

Nevertheless, I am currently ambivalent as to whether these merits are sufficient to warrant support for said legislation. Perhaps some minor clarification as to its intent would alleviate said concern. For example, does it seek to uphold the rights of victims in acknowledging that Resolution 30 fails to adequately address exceptions to actions in general deemed unintelligent? In that case, would not the classification of Resolution 30 as significantly strengthening human rights be wholly unjustified?

Also, I deeply regret to admit that the Goobergunchian speech (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13125461&postcount=7) absolutely stymied me. Were the speaker's references to "this resolution" in the first and penultimate sentence intended to signify Resolution 30? If not, what explains the seemingly odd juxtaposition of the penultimate sentence and its predecessor?

Thank you for your time."

When we became member of the UN, it was explained that we were being given a voice in the world. In exchange, we have to follow the rules of the United Nations, and that undoubtedly includes "imposing a mandate upon all UN member states", regardless of whether or not we agree on the issue. The fact is, all of us with a vote agreed to that.

I'm not sure why your nation chose to join the UN, nor do I care, honestly. Altanar chose to join the UN in order to have a voice in the world, and produce legislation that would affect all member states, when it was truly needed and warranted. I have yet to hear an argument that truly convinces me that "Common Sense Act II" offers anything at all that makes it truly needed and warranted. Entirely too many nations, in our opinion, seem to view the UN as a nanny/lazy way to establish legislation for their own nations, rather than going through the effort of doing it themselves.

If you want to ban frivolous lawsuits in your nation, feel free to do so. There's no reason I can see to force that decision on every UN member state, other than a paternalistic need to "protect people from themselves", even if they don't want it and didn't ask for it.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

If you want to ban frivolous lawsuits in your nation, feel free to do so. There's no reason I can see to force that decision on every UN member state, other than a paternalistic need to "protect people from themselves", even if they don't want it and didn't ask for it.
Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

The peoples of Roseariea fully share Abmassador Askanabath's sentiment and applaud the ambassador's eloquence and directness in stating it.

We of Roseariea, while recognizing the seemingly noble intentions of the act's author, believe that the act is drastically flawed and as such fully support its repeal.

- Gordon Tills, acting ambassador

In our inaugural address to the United Nations, The Grand Duchy of Federalo would like to express their wholehearted support for the "Common Sense Act II".

The repealing of this act would be a travesty and would result in large amounts of valuable resources being wasted on frivolous lawsuits and compensation claims caused by the "victims" own bumblings. It could collapse many small business' and potentially cripple the economies of developing countries, such as ourselves.

We must protect our citizens and industries against these idiotic lawsuits.


My friends, I urge you all the reject this repeal without delay. Thank you

Its simple, this act infringes on my states rights. It is my right and my right alone to take care of the issue of Frivolous lawsuits inbetween the citizens of my nation.

On the other hand how do we deal with lawsuits between citizens of different nations?

I vote against repealing the act simply because you did not examine all the angles or simply decided to ignore them.

Well, well. I feel as if the fire of passion and joy has been extinguished by the waters of mediocrity. It saddens me that the opponents of this repeal have chosen to articulate their concerns in such flaccid, unimaginative terms. I suspect that, buried deep beneath the limp barely-invective, there are sincere and considerate arguments against repeal. Yet what is this worth when these arguments are presented with so little grace? Bland, stodgy and tiresome: surely you can do better than this?

The vast majority of complainants rail feebly against the potential for frivolous ne'er-do-wells undermining their legal system, ignoring the simple truth that repealing this legislation reduces their capacity to thwart such behaviour not one jot. How, then, is this repeal a threat to domestic and international economic stability? Try again, please.

Where, prey tell, is the international standing of the resolution I seek to vanquish? What, do explicate, is 'common sense'? Why, please illuminate, is the legislation so obtuse in its definitions?

I would be most grateful if the assembled naysayers would deign to raise their game. And please, in the name of all you regard holy, criticise and condemn with some style.

Maledictions,

The repealing of this act would be a travesty and would result in large amounts of valuable resources being wasted on frivolous lawsuits and compensation claims caused by the "victims" own bumblings. It could collapse many small business' and potentially cripple the economies of developing countries, such as ourselves.


I see the honourable representative of Federalo is new to these distinguished halls. I'd like first to welcome him - or her; I can't quite make out your gender from this distance.

That done, allow me to explain briefly why you are wrong. Repealing a resolution merely means that the contents of said resolution are no longer mandated by the United Nations. However, a repeal does not, by any means, force your country to remove the resolution from your lawbacks. You're perfectly entitled to retain the Common Sense Act (II) as part of your national legislation.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ok nonsense. This repeal makes room for legal manipulation only and has little to do with one's personal right to be stupid. Common Sense II is there to prevent rampant law suiting. I'm not sure most people voting on this have actually read Common Sense II

As one of the supporters of this Repeal, the Incorporated States of Corporate Russia pledges the full support of the Federation of Corporate States, as its founder and delegate, full support for this Repeal. We see the original Mandate as a waste of time and effort.

We people of The Echo Vector will most wholeheartedly support this repeal measure of a resolution that so grievously flies in the face of natural selection and the promotion of intelligence and sanity.

Said repeal dovetails nicely with our beliefs that sanity, morality and common sense can not, and should not be legislated.

May this repeal aid in our quest of ridding the human gene pool of the obvious mental defectives, thus saving those more worthy of survival the burden of carrying such an obscene, needless load.

I think Dashanzi is correct; it's nearly pointless trying to create legislation against stupidity and recklessness (you will always have stupid and reckless people). The original resolution attempts to define negligence, but its definition is so limited and narrow; it doesn't define negligence in any proper context. There are certainly more examples of negligence than spilling hot coffee on yourself or misusing tools and equipment, etc., and the repeal acknowledges that.

The original resolution tries to do the impossible, and its attempt falls far too short.

The other problem I have with the original Common Sense Act II resolution (and another reason I support the repeal) revolves around the issue of national sovereignty. Laws dealing with remedies due to negligence are typically in the domain of state or provincial governments; rarely do they comprise national law and even more rarely do they serve as the substance of international law. I believe a number of my esteemed UN colleagues have stated the same.

The current Common Sense Act II resolution is an example of an international law in an area that should be (at best) national in scope. It should be up to the courts of individual UN nations to attempt any legislation that defines negligence.

Perhaps a more appropriate course of action (assuming the repeal passes) would be to deal with international standards for industrial products or craft stronger worker safety legislation. But don't try to define negligence in such a narrow way, and don't try to create a law that tries to define something so abstract as 'common sense.'

Therefore, I support the repeal of Resolution #30.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

Esteemed representatives, what can I say? Our nation is all for the righteous purification of UN statutes; in fact, the more righteous purification around here, the better. So we rise in support of this proposal.

I pledge my unyieldingly firm support, my undying devotion, and my unmentionably puissant underwear collection to the imminent stoppage of the aforementioned perverse resolution "Common Sense Act II".

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

After much pondering, Scotchpinestan has decided to vote AGAINST this repeal. While it is true that resolution 30 has flaws, we feel that the repeal of resolution 30 without a suitable replacement at the ready could lead to severe financial repercussions in nations which already have ridiculously high tax rates (read: almost all UN nations).

We also question the judgement of the ambassador from Akimonad...why would it be necessary to defenestrate the ambassador from Putzi when you are actually on the same side of this issue?

As old Evif opposed this resolution, I support its repeal. Burn in righteous fire!

Darren Funkel
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Sponsor, "Outlaw Pedophilia"

[ooc:

Also, I deeply regret to admit that the Goobergunchian speech (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13125461&postcount=7) absolutely stymied me. Were the speaker's references to "this resolution" in the first and penultimate sentence intended to signify Resolution 30? If not, what explains the seemingly odd juxtaposition of the penultimate sentence and its predecessor?

Yeah, I wrote that at 4 AM. Fixed.]

I cast my vote FOR the repeal because I find it absolutly stupid to have a Common Sense Act II when there isn't a Common Sense Act I.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We also question the judgement of the ambassador from Akimonad...why would it be necessary to defenestrate the ambassador from Putzi when you are actually on the same side of this issue?

It is always necessary to defenstrate the ambassador from Putzi.

After much pondering, Scotchpinestan has decided to vote AGAINST this repeal. While it is true that resolution 30 has flaws, we feel that the repeal of resolution 30 without a suitable replacement at the ready could lead to severe financial repercussions in nations which already have ridiculously high tax rates (read: almost all UN nations).


I direct the Scotchpinestani representative's attention to the point I made a few moments ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13129574&postcount=48). You're mistaken.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Surely this repeal makes sense? :cool:

for anyone who disagrees, i have but a simple smilie for you.... :sniper:

for anyone who disagrees, i have but a simple smilie for you.... :sniper:

This is the General Assembly of the United Nations. The children's playground and toy gun shop are outside.

Christophe Boco,
etc...

The Goverment of the People's Republic of Ocisoria desires to indicate the awfully real situation that made some people to abuse our legal systems. It's completely impossible for us to understand how a court can be convinced for ordering a Company to pay to someone that has tried to stop, with his bare hands, an electric device designed for cutting stone! :headbang:

In respect to justice HERself, our representaton must admitt that the language used in the resolution (with terms as "Stupidity" or "Common Sense") is not the proper words for an oficcial document aproved by the United Nations. :(

Howewer, we must consider that our legal courts must use their time and our money in solving the REAL problems. Courting cannot be, as it is now for much people, an expensive -for the tax payers- hobby or a way to earn easy money. :upyours:

Now I return the word to the cámera. :D

The Plutonian delegation:

REINSTATED as a regional delegate,
MORE PENETRATINGLY COMPREHENDING the purpose of this proposal,
INSPIRED by the language thereof,
PROFOUNDLY AMUSED by the capacity for sentient beings to commit immeasurably unintelligent actions,
ANNOUNCING to anyone who didn't know that nations are allowed to pass similar legislation within their country,

DOES HEREBY SUPPORT the repeal under discussion.

-Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner

We also question the judgement of the ambassador from Akimonad...why would it be necessary to defenestrate the ambassador from Putzi when you are actually on the same side of this issue?

It is always necessary to defenstrate the ambassador from Putzi.

Prince Rhodri Mawr has got the right idea. He will receive a free drink on me.

You, on the other hand, will receive a free defenestration for questioning my judgment.

*heaves the ambassador from Scotchpinestan out a very expensive window*

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I, as of yet, have not cast my votes on this resolution. However, the repeal seems to be worded in a very strange way that makes me question its reasoning.

As far as my interpretation goes, the repeal's argument is only that the resolution in question is:

1) Attempting to regulate the stupidity of others
2) Not worth the time of the UN

I have, in the past, voted to remove resolutions that waste the time and power of the UN, so I can easily relate to this argument. But I honestly can't see how the resolution causes any bad by stopping lawsuits with specific types and situations (such as the famous "hot coffee" incident). Since these instances are so precisely defined, that the resolution does, in fact, help.

So right now I am leaning towards voting against this, since I do see benefit in the legislation. If anyone can correct me otherwise, I will vote in favor of repealing this resolution

Thank you

We in HawaiianFreedom were about to vote against this resolution, realizing that frivolous lawsuits are a nuisance and a hindrance to the Judicial systems of every nation, when we realized, we actually agreed with the proposer of this resolution that such laws are meant to be dealt with internally in each nation.

It is not up to the United Nations to decide how each nation handles their own bureaucracy and court cases unless they have an impact on the world as a whole. People instigating lawsuits after realizing they did something stupid and trying to tear down the nearest bystander that might be in charge of the land they stand on is not something to be handled on a Global scale. Each nation is fully capable of handling it themselves.

Therefore we are voting in favor of this repeal.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

Our nation of Anarchadria will not support this repeal. Forgive me for not being very formal here, but please...I mean come on!

If we repeal this act, you realize that a burglar could impale himself on somebodies fence while escaping, then he can sue the owner of the house?

Or maybe falls down the stairs while trying to escape through the basement.
"OW, I broke my leg!"
"Stop, Burglar!"
"You can arrest me, but I will sue for this!"

*one week later*
"Man I'm glad I robbed that house, maybe I should try that house down the street tonight..."

Our nation of Anarchadria will not support this repeal. Forgive me for not being very formal here, but please...I mean come on!

If we repeal this act, you realize that a burglar could impale himself on somebodies fence while escaping, then he can sue the owner of the house?

Or maybe falls down the stairs while trying to escape through the basement.
"OW, I broke my leg!"
"Stop, Burglar!"
"You can arrest me, but I will sue for this!"

*one week later*
"Man I'm glad I robbed that house, maybe I should try that house down the street tonight..."

Thanks, appreciated colleague: that's exactly what my very goverment wants to expose over the table: our legal systems have a trouble in their daily work. It's up to us to solve it, and this repeal will not help at all.

Ocisoria'a goverment will only accept an extended and modificated resolution, but not the repeal of the only legislation we actually have today about it.

Our nation of Anarchadria will not support this repeal. Forgive me for not being very formal here, but please...I mean come on!

If we repeal this act, you realize that a burglar could impale himself on somebodies fence while escaping, then he can sue the owner of the house?

Or maybe falls down the stairs while trying to escape through the basement.
"OW, I broke my leg!"
"Stop, Burglar!"
"You can arrest me, but I will sue for this!"

*one week later*
"Man I'm glad I robbed that house, maybe I should try that house down the street tonight..."

No, no, NO! Yet again, I direct the distinguished representative's attention to the point I made a short while ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13129574&postcount=48). You're entirely wrong.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

we will be supporting this repeal

I the President of The Republic of Viavaldi believe that using this to repeal a previous resolution is to be blunt foolish. Resolution #30 helped stop frivolous lawsuits, but what does this current resolution do to restrict said lawsuits over a persons own stupidity? Nothing. While I do note that resolution #30 is by no means perfect this current resolution does nothing to fix the problem. The fact is resolution does nothing but protect any good natured citizen whose country is a member of the UN. Say for example that someone is trying to rob a house but falls through a skylight and lands on a knife. Now one can easily tell that thanks to resolution #30 that the would be thief cannot sue the owner of the home they attempted to rob, but without resolution #30 some of that protection would be taken away. I and The Republic of Viavaldi say NO to Ignorance and Stupidity.

I vote firmly against this and will do so every time it comes up without some sort of solution to the problem addressed in resolution #30.

I the President of The Republic of Viavaldi believe that using this to repeal a previous resolution is to be blunt foolish. Resolution #30 helped stop frivolous lawsuits, but what does this current resolution do to restrict said lawsuits over a persons own stupidity? Nothing. While I do note that resolution #30 is by no means perfect this current resolution does nothing to fix the problem. The fact is resolution does nothing but protect any good natured citizen whose country is a member of the UN. Say for example that someone is trying to rob a house but falls through a skylight and lands on a knife. Now one can easily tell that thanks to resolution #30 that the would be thief cannot sue the owner of the home they attempted to rob, but without resolution #30 some of that protection would be taken away. I and The Republic of Viavaldi say NO to Ignorance and Stupidity.

I vote firmly against this and will do so every time it comes up without some sort of solution to the problem addressed in resolution #30.

OOC: For flipping heck's sake, as I've explained several times, you are UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG! I realise you're new, but being arrogant when you're so badly mistaken is just going to make you look foolish.

See here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13129574&postcount=48) why you're wrong.

Edit: Also, you may want to read the game rules. You don't seem to realise that a repeal is not allowed to introduce new legislation.

As the current Secretary of UN Laws for the great Sultanate of The Duley Family I have decided for our people that we will vote for the repeal. Common Sense Act 2 has several flaws that could be corrected, the same Act that was created to prevent ignorance was in itself the exact irony it was trying to prevent.

Idiotic negligence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

Instead of regulating stupidity it should be stated that it is an Act created to end ignorance in many lawsuits tormenting the courtrooms and innocent members of the UN. I do agree however in the basis behind it, the attempt to stop lawsuits plaguing our courtrooms was a clever idea it just wasn’t completely thought out. We do vote for the repeal but we also would like to state that we are only for the correction of the Act not the complete and total removal.

Thank you kind and wise delegates for your time and the Sultan Duele smiles and gives thanks to all.

Marico Renmer
Secretary of UN Laws
Sultanate for The Duley Family

OOC: For flipping heck's sake, as I've explained several times, you are UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG! I realise you're new, but being arrogant when you're so badly mistaken is just going to make you look foolish.

See here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13129574&postcount=48) why you're wrong.

Edit: Also, you may want to read the game rules. You don't seem to realise that a repeal is not allowed to introduce new legislation.

OOC:You talk alot and you're right im not the most familiar with every little rule, but your explanation is a load. Let me put it this way you say they can keep what they want if its repealed, but considering thats true regardless of if their UN or not why would a country join it in the first place then? The fact is its all about putting your views on others. Thats how everything works. Also you talk about me being arrogant, but you're not much better yourself considering you pretty much verbally attacked me. That said I appreciate the fact you meant well I'm fairly sure of that.

Sorry but i'm supporting against it

... your explanation is a load. .

Actually, it's not. At least not the Edit line. You can't introduce new law in a repeal, or we mods will delete it outright. Given that, your objection to repeals NOT containing new law pretty much goes away as impossible. Further, given that your entire first post was based around that argument, Ariddia's comments were entirely accurate.

As far as the relative levels of arrogance in the exchange, we'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, as neither of you broke any site rules.

:headbang: do you not understand that common sense bill is so helpfull! I mean things like this are happing in real life like did you hear about that guy that was robbing someones house and he tripped on their stairs and broke his ankle and he sued them AND WON!!!!!!!! WTF!!!??? are the juges fuckin retards!? Do you want this to happen to you? think if you where your people there begging for you to vote AGIANST. if this bill passes i will revoke it and might declare war on the countiy that revoked it:sniper:

the Union of King Jacob the Just and the Empire of Earthintara, in all respects, will not vote for this bill. gooday

but your explanation is a load.

OOC: As confirmed by Fris, no, it's not. A repeal does not force you to remove a resolution from your national legislation. And a repeal can't introduce new legislation.


Let me put it this way you say they can keep what they want if its repealed, but considering thats true regardless of if their UN or not why would a country join it in the first place then? The fact is its all about putting your views on others. Thats how everything works.


Yes, and... how does that relate to the point at hand?


Also you talk about me being arrogant, but you're not much better yourself considering you pretty much verbally attacked me. That said I appreciate the fact you meant well I'm fairly sure of that.

Yep. Sorry if I sounded rathered irritated. I was annoyed at having to repeat myself. And you came in railing against ignorance and stupidity when you were in fact incorrect, and you hadn't read the rules. Just check the essential rules next time, and you'll do fine. And if you need help, or you need something clarifying, we're all here to help "newcomers". Anyway, I hope that's cleared that up. The repeal won't affect your national legislation if you don't want it to.

if this bill passes i will revoke it

How exactly do you intend to revoke a repeal?

I think he means he'll defy it. How you defy a repeal is beyond me.

I actually agreed with it at first, until I realised that clause 3 of the bill was an example of anti pork pie legislation. Because of this we have little option but to repeal or pass a bill of ammendment to rectify this gross error.

Excelsior!

We would like to welcome the nation of Bellheim to this chamber, and take this opportunity to explain that given his opinion, his only course of action to achieve that desired end is to repeal Common Sense Act II. The UN procedures do not permit amendment of resolutions, for a variety of reasons, leaving the budding amender in the position of requiring to repeal a program before they can propose a new version.

We, by contrast, do not consider that the Common Sense Act's flaws are sufficiently great as to require such, and do consider the principle that it enunciates sufficiently important that the UN should at least make the gesture of this act in support of sanity.

Sorry but i'm supporting against it

:confused:
wow that quote makes my head hurt... lol :rolleyes:

if this bill passes i will revoke it and might declare war on the countiy that revoked it:sniper:

:eek:
A UN member is going to declare war on another UN member because he proposed a law that may be passed by a majority? Shocking. Using threats of violence to bully another nation to comply towards a specific viewpoint? Unbelievable.

This is the UN, we discuss our affairs, then we vote. The majority get their desired outcome. The minority accepts the decision and moves on. :confused:

Repeal Common Sense Act II? Sure.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Repeal Common Sense Act II? Sure.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

You, sir, win.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Members of the United States and:

There are in your nation, regardless of your civil rights, economy, or political freedoms, irrespective of your policies and decisions, notwithstanding any law you enact and enforce, a lot of freakin' stupid people. Many of you felt it your duty as a nation to restrict the rights of these stunards to bring a lawsuit against the corporations, organizations, or even the citizens of your nation. For restricting the stunards of your nation, you demonstrate a disrespect for the libertarian values which, since I invented them, are literally unalienable. If people are driving in their Yugos down the potholed dirt roads of your fledgling capital city and they run over a pregnant woman carrying a basket on her head, and these people have a persistent confusion of gas and brake, and by some strange twist of fate the basket becomes a projectile which penetrates the cracked, dropping-stained window of said hypothetical Yugo and harms the driver, and the driver wishes to sue the patched up burlap pants of said sextuplet-laden female off, then by Jove, allow them to hire a lawyer to do so! Of course, this problem would never happen in my nation, because we rightfully restrict the use of baskets, but still: you must repeal Common Sense Act II, for the good of your poor, infested populaces.

Danke Schön.

Flourish. Exeunt.

Hold the phone people! What's wrong with the Common Sense Act? Out of all the crazy laws passed the NSUN this one makes the most sense. If you spill coffee on your lap it's your own fault, not the vendor's.

Individual choice and the "right-to-be-stupid" is just absurb because the result is not an infringement of rights, but the victimization of a proprietor who did nothing wrong.

Filling lawsuits against people becuase of your own actions (spilling coffee on your lap, falling down slippery stairs because you were running too fast) hurts small businesses and insurance companies and makes the economy and life a riskier place.

Nations must ask themselves if time, money, and other resources (including valuable court time and tax-payer money) should be put to these lawsuits which clog the justice system and create a world of perpetual fear.

History favours those who exercise prudence, and caution. Should the world make it easier for those who do not exemply the cautious human nature and are reckless in their actions at the sake of those of us who do? Those who hurt themselves with these idiotic acts should improve humanity by removing themselves from our gene-pool (to put it nicely).

The Holy Empire of Pugliasium urges Nations to rethink their votes and really decide who the victems of these situations are.

With all due respect,
Enrico Antoninus IX, Emperor

If you spill coffee on your lap it's your own fault, not the vendor's.

[ooc] This argument gets raised again and again, and it's all based on the real case of Stella Liebeck spilling a cup of McDonalds coffee in her lap. I'm willing to bet that no one who cites this case has ever read beyond the soundbite, "Woman spills coffee, sues".

Here's a link to the facts of the case (http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html). Read it, and shut up about it already.

Although there are many problems with the Common Sense Act II(ie, it is to vague in it's categorisations) there is no call to repeal the entire act, as that is equal to saying to all nations: you can now sue companies for using their products in a stupid way! The act does not discriminate against stupid people, it merely stops them from suing companies for their own stupidity - stopping them using stupidity for financial gain. I am therefore forced to accept that if this repeal passes, the majority of the UN are against the principles of my great and illustrious nation and i will be forced to leave. I urge all nations against this repeal to follow the example and leave the UN in protest of this lack of judgement

Jon Harper
UN ambassador to the great Very Socialist State-Union of Promora

The Common Sense Act 2 makes total sense. Lets say you worked at a coffe shop and you got sued because the coffee was hot and it got spilled on someone. The person was either too stupid or too cheap because she didn't care of it like a hot beverage. Now the woman can take the coffee shop to court. How unjust is that? I encourage people to vote against the proposal to repeal the common sense act 2.

The Common Sense Act 2 makes total sense. Lets say you worked at a coffe shop and you got sued because the coffee was hot and it got spilled on someone. The person was either too stupid or too cheap because she didn't care of it like a hot beverage. Now the woman can take the coffee shop to court. How unjust is that? I encourage people to vote against the proposal to repeal the common sense act 2.

You ought to read the post two posts up the board from yours.

This is a good idea, but what outrages me is that they would repeal the resolution Max Barry Day!

:eek:
A UN member is going to declare war on another UN member because he proposed a law that may be passed by a majority? Shocking. Using threats of violence to bully another nation to comply towards a specific viewpoint? Unbelievable.

This is the UN, we discuss our affairs, then we vote. The majority get their desired outcome. The minority accepts the decision and moves on. :confused:

Not so unbelievable in an organization that frequently commits acts of violence against ambassadors that present opposing viewpoints to the majority..... (see history of defenestration)

We are very pleased to see that this repeal has been brought forth and there are so many supporters at present. It is our opinion that the original resolution is not only vague but appears to provide little to no leeway for special circumstances that may be a part or result of the situation. We have full confidence in our nation's judicial magistrates and believe matters like this are better left for them to decide based on the facts of each individual case, rather than creating a policy that affects everybody over a few high profile outcomes in other nations with which a few members of the body disagree.

Thank you.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
His Very Royal Highness, Prince Dirk Koller, P.Aff.M.
Deacon Prince & Heir-Apparent of The Constitutional Monarchy of Relikmere
Head of Financial & Constitutional Affairs
Ambassador to the United Nations
Member in the Highest, Royal Order of the Deaconate

This is a good idea, but what outrages me is that they would repeal the resolution Max Barry Day!

What outrages me is people who can't figure out why we'd want to repeal a resolution that never should've been passed in the first place, and then try to hijack a thread on a completely different topic to talk about it.

Alarmist pettifoggery? No sir!

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

While Sanctus Aequitas supports the intention behind Resolution #30, it deems it too narrowly focused in its definitions and rationale. Here in S'Aequitas we already have national laws dealing with lawsuits, pointedly in favour of personal responsibility.

Therefore as Ambassador I am voting FOR the repeal of Common Sense Act II, in an effort to remove possible loopholes and lawyering that will only waste more of our precious time.

Araneus,
UN Ambassador
Santus Aequitas

Although resolution 30 badly worded I think but goes in the right direction would favour a repeal only when a better resolution is passed. till then we are against the repeal

The wording of the repeal is offensive.

OTOH Chiarizio doesn't like the original "Act", either, which was enacted before Chiarizio became a member of the NSUN.

Not all of stupidity's effects are bad. Consider how many of us wouldn't even exist if our parents had never been stupid.

OK: according to the explanation given here, I understand I can maintain that legislation into my own country even if the repeal is approved.

Even so far, now we must understand most ones of the repeal's supporters can be mere "scared" leaders that truly fear the UN entrance into their national legislations.

Here we're tryng to improve the world and it can not be done with the old anglo-saxon stubborny against foreign interference. Perhaps some goverments here represented are willing to preserve the chance of wining their causes against reasonably angry citizens and groups.

I will not extend myself much more: let's just say that wen a member of this assembly may won a cause aganinst his political oposittion for "obstaculate the goverment's work"...

...WE ADVICED IT.

Thanks for your attention, ladies & gentlemen.

What I don't understand is that if one's nation population, which like others wishes to be happy, then the Common Sense Act is what creates a better world free of the the interfering of the law against what one CHOOSES to do. There fore, if one has spilled a hot beverage (as one of the bullets in the Common Sense Act presents) on oneself, then let him/her be.

However, some of the other points are striking in that they involve the burglarizing of a home and if they should sue the person for injuring themselves, it contradicts the statutes that the Act hold dear.

Basically the Act contradicts itself, however if it lowers taxes it keeps populations content

I will not extend myself much more: let's just say that wen a member of this assembly may won a cause aganinst his political oposittion for "obstaculate the goverment's work"...

...WE ADVICED IT.

Should anyone choose to say so, we shall be certain to ask them to repeat themselves in Gobbannaeg to give us some small chance of working out what they meant.

I am very much in support of this repeal. The intent of Resolution #30 was good in trying to stamp out people who abuse the legal system. However, there is one vital flaw in that it is much too narrow in what is considered 'idiotic neglegence'. It specifically cites burning oneself with a hot beverage, injuring oneself while using a tool improperly, consuming legal products that result in harm, and injuring oneself while committing a crime. What if, however, someone was harmed because of their stupidity in some other way? For instance, this resolution does not mention someone ignoring signs of an approaching train yet crossing the track, and thus the injured party in this case, or his or her next of kin, would be able to sue. Or what if a person leaped in front of a gun firing in a legal instance, such as on a firing range? Again, this resolution does not mention it, so again, a lawsuit would be possible by the injured person or his or her next of kin. Again, I praise the good intentions of Resolution #30, however it needs to be rewritten to give a wider range of circumstances, while not being too general.

I support the repeal in many ways, the primary being that it strips more freedoms from the people.:D
Another thing is that the whole thing seems to be odd. I don't mean odd as in weird, but odd like "Whazzat?". The whole resolution had a hole shot through it, and our nations may have lost a fair bit of money due to "accidental" injuries that weren't stated in the resolution. The people have a right to sue, yes, but why should it be that there are only three or four specific situation in which a lawsuit is null and void? Methinks that this whole thing was just an excuse by the people to get more money out of the governments and each other. TAKE THIS STUPID PEOPLE!:upyours:

Although resolution 30 badly worded I think but goes in the right direction would favour a repeal only when a better resolution is passed. till then we are against the repeal

Welcome to the UN, First Post Person. Unfortunately, the rules don't permit your solution. First, you must remove the old resolution, and only after the repeal is passed can you introduce new ones. By your logic, no law, no matter how bad, can ever be repealed.

Guess we'll just live without your vote.

Congratulations on the use of gobbledygook in your syntax as you have befuddled the poor nation of Darjee into voting for this resolution. ;)

Darren slams his earpiece against the desk, then gestures for the assistance of a UN staffer.

Sir, why the hell isn't this thing working? I'm getting a lot of garbled comments from people I don't recognized.

Guess we'll just live without your vote.

Thankfully, it appears that that particular vote won't be vital to this repeal's passing.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Leetha places three bottles of a luscious amber liquid on the desk in front of her and stands.

It was our intention to rationally address the objections of those opposing this fine repeal. We were going to eloquently state the problems with the original act and its unintended consequences and effects. References to a people's need to have their grievances aired before impartial tribunals would have been made.

She stops and fills a double shot glass, throwing it back in a single swallow.

Instead, having listened to delegate after mush-mouthed delegate spew their disjointed and unformed nonsense, and we mean that in the most literal terms, we have decided to drink. A lot. We believe that by the time we get down to the bottom of the bottle (and let us pray to the gods it doesn't take a second or third) of Fine Yeldan Whiskey, that at least some of the jibberish will make sense and we will be able to respond in a manner befitting its utterance.

Refilling the glass, Leetha turns toward Minister Gao and salutes him.

Should anyone think this will negatively affect our voting ability, you are mistaken. We would need to be far beyond three sheets to the wind to not recognize that FOR is the only logical vote in this matter.

Cheers!

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador. Totally.

We, the emancipated and idiot-free people of New Chalcedon, respectfully disagree with this repeal motion. Where is a human right listed which allows people to profit from stupidity, feigned or real? If the former, then the litigants are engaging in fraud, a criminal action everywhere. To the latter (genuine stupidity), I raise this counter-point: how are people to learn from mistakes if they profit by them? Surely, the most humane concern is to prevent such frivolous litigation, and for those interested in cost-efficiency, this is the more cost-efficient path also. I urge the members of the United Nations to vote AGAINST this Repeal Motion.

Thank you for your attention.:)

New Sequoyah wishes to express its regret that this resolution passed. Perhaps in the future, this august assembly will not pass such poor legislation.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

:eek:
A UN member is going to declare war on another UN member because he proposed a law that may be passed by a majority? Shocking. Using threats of violence to bully another nation to comply toward a specific viewpoint? Unbelievable.

This is the UN, we discuss our affairs, then we vote. The majority get their desired outcome. The minority accepts the decision and moves on. :confused:

you do not understand, I have voted for this since the begging. it grieves me much that this was passed but, the union will not stand for it

respectfully :upyours:
-earthintara

New Sequoyah wishes to express its regret that this resolution passed. Perhaps in the future, this august assembly will not pass such poor legislation.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador for New Sequoyah

The same could be said for the resolution that was repealed.

So there.

Ms. Talone, may I have some of that fine beverage?

~Dr. Jules Hodz

We are thoroughly pleased to see that, as a whole, this body has chosen to exercise a little "common sense" of their own in passing this repeal. Kudos to its authors and supporters and to the United Nations as a whole.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His Very Royal Highness, Prince Dirk Koller, P.Aff.M.
Deacon Prince & Heir-Apparent of The Constitutional Monarchy of Relikmere
Head of Financial & Constitutional Affairs
Ambassador to the United Nations
Member in the Highest, Royal Order of the Deaconate

you do not understand, I have voted for this since the begging. it grieves me much that this was passed but, the union will not stand for it

respectfully :upyours:
-earthintara

:D
I am certain that you do not understand, you vote because you believe that the majority will make the decision and that if you happen to be on the minority then you will respect the wishes of those who you disagree with.... otherwise, why vote in the first place if you will not respect its results unless you are on the winning side?

Seems there are some experienced nations which can not address us young nations with a proper sense of etiquette. Lucky for all of us that this is the minority. So to clear the air, my nation responds to the previous nation's smiley with this one: :fluffle: in the hopes that we can all be amicable! :p

How do all,

So another piece of woeful legislation is most deservedly swept into the Room of Unrequitment, and those sterling ambassadors of right mind and sound click will soon we caught up in all consuming glee at the thought of the impending Max Barry Day repealfest heading their way...:D:D:D

The perpetually falling Ambassador for Putzi

I was just admitted to the Un and have only played the game for a short time (still learning) can someone help me understand what this means or what I should do about it?

-------------
Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of StephyK into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Repeal "Common Sense Act II"".
---------------------

You don't need to do anything; it's the game's clever way of telling you that the new UN resolution has changed your stats a little. You get it every time the UN passes something.

Thank you very much!

Splendid news, friends! I must say, it warms my cockles to know that my people have finally made their mark on the United Nations. We are profoundly humbled and deeply gratified that we have received such widespread support for our endeavour.

Heartfelt thanks indeed must go to the Rubina scribes who so dutifully and tirelessly campaigned on our behalf during the submittal process; without their exhaustive efforts this repeal would never have reached the floor.

To those who find themselves saddened or angered by the repeal, I offer my deepest sympathies, condolences and condescension. I would also emphasise that the removal of this resolution from the UN statute by no means prevents you from enacting equivalent legislation on a domestic level.

* Gao pauses and his lip quivers. He falls to his knees and prostrates himself before the Assembly. Many delegates are visibly discomfited. *

Thank you, thank you ever so much! Together, we have killed common sense!

* He stands, smooths down his robes, returns to his seat and starts unpacking several bottles filled with pale liquid from a large crate. *

The Strangers' Bar will be amply stocked with rice wine tonight!

Benedictions,

Well done!

*pops the cork from a Nebuchadnezzar (http://www.thewinemerchantinc.com/educational/BottleSize.html) of Chateau Intangible demi-sec and passes around elegant recycled plastic champagne flutes*