NationStates Jolt Archive

Passport Standardisation Act
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cobdenia

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the potential security risks arising from being unable to accurately assess those entering and leaving a nation,

FURTHER NOTING that such a potential security risk may be exacerbated by the inability of relevant officials to guarantee the authenticity of a foreign passport,

1. DEFINES a "Passport" as a travel document by the nation of which the person is a citizen, identifying the bearer as a national of that country,

2. MANDATES that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other citizen status, when travelling abroad, except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement,

3. PERMITS issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, in the issuing country to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents, as necessary under national law

4. FOUNDS the United Nations Commision for Passport Design and Control (UNCPDC)

5. CHARGES the UNCPDC to establish minimum requirements of details to be included into passports, including but not limited to passport numbers, facial representations of the owner, name, date of birth, validity, and anti-forgery features

6. MANDATES that United Nation's Member States abide by the requirements laid down by the UNCPDC

7. AFFIRMS that the passport entitles the holder to any of the Consular services available from their nation's Embassies, Consulates, Consulates-General, High Commissions, Deputy High Commissions, Legations and other diplomatic missions as they may require,

8. ENSHRINES the right of foreign nationals carrying an appropriate passport to be visited by a consul of their nation when detained for legal reasons.
a) allows consuls to give the detainee legal advice, lists of approved barristers and/or solicitors, and guidance on the legal process of the nation in which they are detained.
b) in cases where there is no diplomatic or consular presence of the detainee's nation a consul of another nation may be substituted for a consul of the detainee's nation, where bilateral or multilateral agreements are in place for such a substitution.

9. AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine,

10. CALLS UPON all nations to recognise the passports of nationals of United Nations member states,

11. MANDATES the publication of all Passport designs (including information about counterfeit protections), to be made available to all relevant officials, including but not limited to: immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables of the law.

Voting Ends: Fri Oct 26 2007




.

Quorum bump!! (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=passport)

(Unless Cob wants to start a new thread.)

If a mod could change the title that would be very nice and they can have a sweety. No need for a new thread. All threads are the same to the myriad of drive by posters we're sure to receive!

:p
2. MANDATES that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other citizen status, when travelling abroad, except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement,

We wish to begin immediate negotiations with all UN members for a multilateral border control agreement!!! That way we can avoid the passport necessity! ;)

:p
2. MANDATES that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other citizen status, when travelling abroad, except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement,

We wish to begin immediate negotiations with all UN members for a multilateral border control agreement!!! That way we can avoid the passport necessity! ;)

What would be the point? By issuing passports you can avoid the costly diplomatic legwork. And, get in on some serious tax action when you charge your citizens for their passports.

I'm not sure as to wheather I should embrace this proposal with open arms, or construct walls to keep you people out. A Frood is bad enough, Zarquon Frood is even worse. You people have gone off my scale, and that says a lot.

OOC: If it sounds like I'm talking like the people from Marclar from South Park, then you obviously haven't read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I think a newer thread might be in order... 7 pages or randow discussion may confuse the drive-byes...

Especially when this started nearly 2 years ago! :p

Ladies and Gentlemen of the UN, My name is Trey Dreizehn. First I would like to personally thank the UN for accepting the application of Douria to it's hallowed halls. Second I would like to extend the sincere gratitude of the people of Douria to this most esteemed organization.

That said, I must contend that this body has in the past, and does currently take liberties with it's power. Each nation member of this organization is a separate entity with it's own hopes, goals, and ends. To see a resolution mandating not only if Douria will issue passports, but how it must issue them, is disheartening to say the least.

I will not speak of ulterior motives with regards the obviously free trade oriented Cobdenia economy. I will however note that those of us with protectionist or security minded immigration and trade systems will not allow such a resolution to come to pass.

I shall address the most serious and enduring issues of the resolution now.

8. ENSHRINES the right for nationals of one nation, carrying a passport that identifies them a national of said nation, who is held under arrest or detained in gaol either prior to or following prosecution, or pending execution, deportation or other punishment, in a foreign nation to have visitations made by a consul of said national's nation, or another nation with bilateral or multilateral agreements in place in cases where there is no diplomatic or consular presence of the national's nation, to their place of imprisonment or detention and access to relevant legal information, and to ensure that the detained national is treated well,

9. AFFIRMS that any person, who holds citizenship in a nation within the nited Nations, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where the security of that nation is at stake,

10. CALLS UPON all nations to recognise the passports of citizens from nations within the United Nations,


The resolutions items 8, 9, and 10 are abhorrent.

Item 8, which guarantees legal rights in situations where a nation has every right to suspend such rights. I will not support any resolutions that dictates to me how any subversive or rebellious citizen of a nation which belongs to this United Nations should be dealt with, regardless of the nation of origin.

Item 9, with regards to the limited detail in which the resolution describes "security of that nation at stake"; I must protest the cost of establishing a ministry to monitor all actions of not only all members of the UN but indeed all citizens of all members of this most esteemed body for subversive or rebellious actions.

In item 10, I find this resolution extending beyond the bounds of this assembly, in dictating that citizens of UN member nations may be granted entry to ANY nation as long as the immigrant's UN member nation adheres to this passport law. By extension does it also intend to dictate that non-member nations have the bureaucracy in place to deal with this passport system? I find this to not only be unworkable, but arrogant.

At the same time, while it certainly defines a passport for UN member nations in great detail, and expounds upon the many burdens it will add to current systems, it does not address the fact that non-UN member nations issue passports as well, and if they do, many of the burdens do not apply to them, as it is merely a resolution governing the current members of this assembly. So as a member nation I will be forced to accept passports from nations outside of this assembly as per item 8 and in turn offer them all of the legal rights associated with item 8. Yet those same passports would not be held to the same strict standards as my own.

I woefully pledge my full opposition to this resolution. It is not well written, it is unworkable, it places an unfair burden on poorer nations, it places an unfair burden on any nation without the technology to implement this resolution, and finally it is a clumsy attempt to strong-arm the members into accepting a free-travel zone for all United Nations Members.

I am of the opinion that any resolution that comes before this body should be of the utmost detail. We should take meticulous care in crafting a beneficial resolution to all members of this body, not the most vocal minority.

I respectfully ask the nation of Cobdenia to withdraw this resolution immediately. If it does not do so, I will be forced to campaign against it.

Make no mistake, ceci ne passera pas. This shall not pass.

I would've said it should've been done in one swoop, but then having two separate resolutions would be ideal.

Besides the country-specific loopholes, I think you have thought of everything, unless I think of something. It has my vote.

First, welcome to the UN, Ambassador Dreizehn. It is with pleasure that we note a new nation that appears able and willing to address this body with something besides lulz and rude words.

Because they are quite specific, we would like to address your points separately.

The resolutions items 8, 9, and 10 are abhorrent.

Item 8, which guarantees legal rights in situations where a nation has every right to suspend such rights. I will not support any resolutions that dictates to me how any subversive or rebellious citizen of a nation which belongs to this United Nations should be dealt with, regardless of the nation of origin.The rights granted in item 8 that you find so abhorrent are simply those which prevent a nation from holding another nation's citizens in cognito and in inhumane conditions. Its coverage extends beyond those cases of subversive actions to include the mundane criminal charges that tourists find themselves subject to.

Item 9, with regards to the limited detail in which the resolution describes "security of that nation at stake"; I must protest the cost of establishing a ministry to monitor all actions of not only all members of the UN but indeed all citizens of all members of this most esteemed body for subversive or rebellious actions.We see no requirement for establishment of any ministry whatsoever. In addition, the "limited detail" allows you to locally define your national security and, if you will note, each nation retains complete control over visa issuance and regulations.

In item 10, I find this resolution extending beyond the bounds of this assembly, in dictating that citizens of UN member nations may be granted entry to ANY nation as long as the immigrant's UN member nation adheres to this passport law. By extension does it also intend to dictate that non-member nations have the bureaucracy in place to deal with this passport system? I find this to not only be unworkable, but arrogant.Article 9 is the one that extends admittance to appropriately documented citizens of UN nations. Article 10 requires recognition of passports from UN member nations by UN member nations without further passport requirements on the part of your nation. Note please, that properly documented citizens will be those carrying the UN-defined passport and a visa issued by your government.

... it does not address the fact that non-UN member nations issue passports as wellAnd rightly so, this body has no power whatsoever over non-member nations. Your nation will be able to continue to accept or not accept passports from non-member nations as you so choose. Nor, if this passes, will you be obligated to extend the rights guaranteed within to non-member's nationals.

It is not well written, it is unworkable, it places an unfair burden on poorer nations, it places an unfair burden on any nation without the technology to implement this resolution, and finally it is a clumsy attempt to strong-arm the members into accepting a free-travel zone for all United Nations Members.We see nothing in your statement supporting a criticism of the quality of drafting. We see nothing in the resolution that places an undue burden on poorer nations, and given that the Cobdenians themselves do not have access to modern technology and feel they will be able to comply with their own resolution, we doubt seriously if there is any technology bias contained within.

What this resolution is, is an attempt to develop a uniform passport that will contribute to effective and efficient border security by allowing better identification of passport bearers.

Our comments concerning citizens/nationals rescinded...responding to an earlier version. (As was Douria, though I think they would retain their objections so our comments in that regard remain.) Ta.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I don't like the idea that immigration officials must speak English. Perhaps just mandating translators for a few main languages?

I think nations should retain the right to deny entry at their discretion.


This seems limiting. Suppose a nation developed a technology where the photo could be shrunk down and then enlarged with an included magnifyer? I propose that it read: b) A facial photograph or other accurate portrait of the holder’s face that can be easily seen to be the same person as the holder; or something to that effect.

The Dominator of Kalashnivoka agrees that nations should retain the right to deny entry at discretion. It also concerns the Dominator that the passports need be in a standardised language, as it shows favoritism to certain nations.

As for shrunken photograph technology, i personally feel it is a silly notion. One major advantage of standardising passports is that someone has photograph identification wherever they travel in the world, but this is no good if for instance the club bouncer or bottle shop attendant cannot read it. As for it being a standardised portrait size and type, i feel this is neccessary as the portrait is the ultimate link between passport and individual, and this link must be the same across the board.

The Dominator of Kalashnivoka will be pleased to see this Proposal passed!

The Dominator of Kalashnivoka has Spoken!

Wait, are your two proposals seperate or are they redrafts of each other in two different threads? If not, clause 8 in this version (which is clause 3 in the other version) is still unacceptable to me.

Agree

11. MANDATES the publication of all Passport designs (including information about counterfeit protections), to be made available to all relevant officials, including but not limited to: immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables of the law.
---
The Kingdom of Einmyria enjoys a high amount of corruption; therefore, point 11 of this resolution will be quite advantageous to the underworld. If they manage to buy off the passport designs and their respective counterfeit procedures from certain officials, international security will be at risk from the production of high-end counterfeit passports and papers.

Therefore in the interest of international safety, Einmyria wishes to block this resolution.

Roselle Fairbanks,
Ambassador,
Kingdom of Einmyria
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u241/einmyria/ns/fairbanks.jpg

My country is chagrined that our point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13085007&postcount=126) regarding the legal distinction between citizenship and nationality has not been addressed. In consequence, the proposal currently at vote prohibits any person too young to be eligible for citizenship from carrying a passport.

This would create serious complications for, say, a 15 year-old travelling on his or her own, required to obtain a passport to enter a foreign country, yet legally prohibited by this resolution from acquiring one.


Julien Quan,
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

OOC: Can this thread be split? We're confused. :confused:That would be a good idea ... people are starting to quote and reply to nations that don't even exist anymore. At least put the most recent version of the proposal in the OP.

Though we have many issues with the submitted clause, we will not bother to repeat mostly what has been said many times. Instead, we shall focus on only the our biggest problem, which is clause #2, Which denies countries the right to grant amnesty and sanctuary to any peoples which might be seeking aid. This clause not only decimates humanitarian aid but forces all countries involved in this great assembly to become dependent upon it.

I, Sir Bodsworth support the call for seperating threads so that the AT VOTE thread contains the resolution at vote, etc.

Now on to that resolution:

7. AFFIRMS that the passport entitles the holder to any of the Consular services available from their nation's Embassies, Consulates, Consulates-General, High Commissions, Deputy High Commissions, Legations and other diplomatic missions as they may require,

I'm not too sure about this...it seems awfully open ended, as these different Embassies, etc. can offer a large number of services, some of which may not be reasonable to grant considering the circumstances that may be involved.

b) in cases where there is no diplomatic or consular presence of the detainee's nation a consul of another nation may be substituted for a consul of the detainee's nation, where bilateral or multilateral agreements are in place for such a substitution.

It appears to me that this clause allows the Ambassador from naton X to advise a citizen from nation Y if nation Y has no ambassador, and provided X and Y have a treaty allowing this. Tanular sees no problem with clause A, however, assuming the suspect's nation has no ambassador with us, the state appoints a lawyer versed in international and national law. This clause seems to circumvent our legal system by allowing X and Y to decide matters involving our court systems. If this is not the case, then it should be clearly stated, as the word 'bilateral' means two nations, implying that Tanular need not be party to such an agreement.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby IV
UN Ambassador and Minister of Apologies

This resolution needs to be reviewed as it compromises the right of every nation to decide its own immigration policy. Although passports sanctioned under this proposed resolution shall be accepted thew CFS and Federational Alliance shall still keep its right to decide entry of foreign nationals on an individual basis not matter what documentation they hold.

Admiral. Rudyard derr Sol
Govoner General Commonwealth of Federational States and Federational Alliance:upyours:

This resolution needs to be reviewed as it compromises the right of every nation to decide its own immigration policy. Although passports sanctioned under this proposed resolution shall be accepted thew CFS and Federational Alliance shall still keep its right to decide entry of foreign nationals on an individual basis not matter what documentation they hold.

Admiral. Rudyard derr Sol
Govoner General Commonwealth of Federational States and Federational Alliance

You would still have that level of control if this passes: It only requires you to admit people if they have correct passports and visas, and the decision about who gets issued visas would be left at the national level...

Oh, and a word to the (hopefully) wise: You'll get a bit more respect around here if you refrain from the offensive gestures...

Let me first say to this proposal's drafter that they have done an exquiset job on the wording. I truely like the ideals set forth throughout and the security measures that it sets to invoke. My only concern is wheather this matter should be mandated on a global level. I see no reason why it shouldn't be, but there is always the possibility that the UN is overstepping it's bounds by giving itself too much authority to regulate immigration, but leaving a nation free to set immigration standards. At the present time I must deliberate further.

Zarquon Froods abstains.

I'm not too sure about this...it seems awfully open ended, as these different Embassies, etc. can offer a large number of services, some of which may not be reasonable to grant considering the circumstances that may be involved.
We would be intrigued to know what range of services is available from Tanular consulates that they consider it unreasonable to make available to the general public.

It appears to me that this clause allows the Ambassador from naton X to advise a citizen from nation Y if nation Y has no ambassador, and provided X and Y have a treaty allowing this. Tanular sees no problem with clause A, however, assuming the suspect's nation has no ambassador with us, the state appoints a lawyer versed in international and national law. This clause seems to circumvent our legal system by allowing X and Y to decide matters involving our court systems. If this is not the case, then it should be clearly stated, as the word 'bilateral' means two nations, implying that Tanular need not be party to such an agreement.
The word 'bilateral' does indeed mean between two nations; X and Y in this case. The word 'advise' means provide relevant information. In this instance, that relevant information includes the rights and duties in your nation of a citizen of another nation being held in custody, the form and niceties of legal proceedings, and the options and manner of his legal representation. If such circumvents your legal system, then your legal system is urgently in need of repair in any case.

We also don't accept that Tanular should be part of any agreement about the representation to it of the citizens of other nations. That is tantamount to telling other nations how to deal with their own citizens, and for a nation so earnest in the cause of sovereignty we find that a somewhat inconsistent attitude.

The administration in Drakeforde is FOR the current resolution at vote.

The only problem is item 9. A nation should be able to deny entry of any individual without having to legitmize its stance. A nation need not express concerns over national security in order to deny an individual entry. Furthermore, there are times where a nation's administration and intelligence agencies need to keep information to themselves. With item 9, it seems as though the enforcing power of the nation would have to explain why it is denying the individual entry. It is one thing to want to standardize passports, but it is another entirely to regulate the immigration policies of nations. That's their business.

Other than this seeming infringement upon a nation's external sovereignty, the administration in Drakeforde proudly supports this well-crafted piece of legislation.

I was cruising along through this resolution without objection until I got to the infringement on a nation's right to deny entry.
In my short tenure, I have heard several discussions and arguments that use the NSUN's lack of legislation on immigration as a way of saying things like; "you don't have to deal with 'problem citizens'/problems from other nations if you don't want, you can deny entry".... Clause 9 causes a great deal of problems for nations and takes away what I believe to be a highly valued right of nations. I am currently looking for legal precedent in other resolutions to support this position, for I have certainly heard this argument from many other delegates.

Frege Gott, RenCoL

We would be intrigued to know what range of services is available from Tanular consulates that they consider it unreasonable to make available to the general public.

It's not our services that are our concern...I am not fully versed in the services the consulate of your nation...or anyone else's nations might offer. As I said, its seems open-ended, though that's not a major problem.


The word 'bilateral' does indeed mean between two nations; X and Y in this case. The word 'advise' means provide relevant information. In this instance, that relevant information includes the rights and duties in your nation of a citizen of another nation being held in custody, the form and niceties of legal proceedings, and the options and manner of his legal representation. If such circumvents your legal system, then your legal system is urgently in need of repair in any case.

We also don't accept that Tanular should be part of any agreement about the representation to it of the citizens of other nations. That is tantamount to telling other nations how to deal with their own citizens, and for a nation so earnest in the cause of sovereignty we find that a somewhat inconsistent attitude.

In Tanular, we beileve if you visit our country you agree to accept our laws. We also accept that our citizens abroad abide by the laws of their current locations...we would hope to work out an agreement, but if the country invovled did not wish to make an exception, Tanular will abide by that. Nation X and Nation Y agreeing who may provide any form of legal council/advice for someone in Nation Q is not fair to Nation Q: if X and Y include Q, there is no problem, but this bill explicitly provides for X and Y to make such a decision and force Q to abide by it. If a person from Y wishes advice from the ambassador from X, he should persue the option through the legal system he was run afoul of.

The Nabindic Empire will not support this legislation until section 3 is dropped. Child smuggling needs not be that easy.

The Nabindic Empire will not support this legislation until section 3 is dropped. Child smuggling needs not be that easy.

"Child smuggling" already is that easy, isn't it. I may be ill-informed, but it seems to me that this legislation isn't changing any laws with regards to the transportation of minors; the case seems to be quite the contrary - that is one of the things that this legislation is keeping the same. Correct me if I'm wrong... because I agree with you... we shouldn't be changing laws to allow the easier travel of minors.

If some of the replies to this thread appear to have come from nowhere, it's because I split most of the posts from the original thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=461740) that started back in 2005, and captured only the posts since quorum was reached.

Apologies for any confusion,


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
Rules For UN Proposals

I'm not too sure about this...it seems awfully open ended, as these different Embassies, etc. can offer a large number of services, some of which may not be reasonable to grant considering the circumstances that may be involved.


Embassies are considered part of the nation's sovereign territory, so there really is no reason to complain about the services the embassy offers to their nationals. Perhaps if Sir Bodsworth cared to be more specific as to what the Tanular government would find objectionable we would find it easier to support or at least understand their objections.


It appears to me that this clause allows the Ambassador from naton X to advise a citizen from nation Y if nation Y has no ambassador, and provided X and Y have a treaty allowing this. Tanular sees no problem with clause A, however, assuming the suspect's nation has no ambassador with us, the state appoints a lawyer versed in international and national law. This clause seems to circumvent our legal system by allowing X and Y to decide matters involving our court systems. If this is not the case, then it should be clearly stated, as the word 'bilateral' means two nations, implying that Tanular need not be party to such an agreement.



We have to ask why this is such a problem. In the situation Sir Bodsworth describes there is nothing actually meddling with the Tanular court system. Clause 8 only talks about the detainee being visited by the consul and receiving "legal advice, lists of approved barristers and/or solicitors, and guidance on the legal process of the nation in which they are detained". If the resolution spoke of legal representation as opposed to advice we would gladly support the objections raised by Tanular. Deciding who can give legal representation is most definitely an issue that belong in the domain of domestic policy. As for legal advice in the case of persons detained in a foreign country, we see this as an issue in which the UN can legislate legitimately

The Nabindic Empire will not support this legislation until section 3 is dropped. Child smuggling needs not be that easy.

How exactly would it make child smuggline easier?

Clause three permits nations to allow minors to travel under their guardian's passport as required by national law.

First, said clause leaves ample room for domestic governments to place any regulations they see fit for minors to travel under a guardian's passport. Second, it does not automatically permit children to so travel. The resolution simply allows nations to permit minors to travel without a passport. If the Nabindaar government is not comfortable with this, they can very well require minors to have a passport if they want to leave the country.

Honorable Delegates, it has come to my attention that there is indeed an edited resolution at vote. Douria's Imaginative Solutions Ministry has taken some steps which I feel are entirely appropriate under the circumstances, should this resolution actually pass.

Douria declares all citizens wishing to travel to or from Douria, who refuse to suspend their rights under this resolution, to be immediately placed in medical quarantine until a time under which they can be deemed a non-threat. Through any means necessary.

Honorable Delegates, it has come to my attention that there is indeed an edited resolution at vote. Douria's Imaginative Solutions Ministry has taken some steps which I feel are entirely appropriate under the circumstances, should this resolution actually pass.

Douria declares all citizens wishing to travel to or from Douria, who refuse to suspend their rights under this resolution, to be immediately placed in medical quarantine until a time under which they can be deemed a non-threat. Through any means necessary.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply require a visa?

Requiring a visa wouldn't really enshrine our right to jail any supporter's of this resolution we can get our hands on.

Which is ironic because this resolution is what allows us to do it.

Right. First off, we demand royalties, to be paid out of your national coffers, every time the phrase "Imaginative Solutions Ministry" is uttered. You'll also be hearing from our copyright attorneys, and if that can't be sorted peaceably, our strippers as well. Second, as far as I know, the accompanying visa standardisation scheme (yet to be resubmitted) establishes the extension of visas as a national prerogative. Lastly, what the hell does that last post of yours even mean?

Honorable delegate from the Federal Republic, if you believe royalties should be paid, we will have to set up some sort of diplomatic recognition between our countries, after that we may be able to reach an accord.

What I believe has confused Delegate Batko-Yovino, however is that my opposition to this resolution runs so deep, that I will in fact jail any supporters of it. They can and will be deemed security threats as per item 9. They can and will be placed in medical quarantine as per item 9. They will remain so until they demonstrate their opposition to this resolution by rescinding the rights it guarantees.

I do not care if there is a second component to this resolution that would make up for it's shortfalls. If it does not stand up on it's own, I will not support it.

While we applaud the authors for the spirit behind this resolution we are regrettably unable to support it and will be voting against it at this time.

There are a number of items with which we take issue and extremely concerned about the level of UN control this resolution exercises over the member nations.

3. PERMITS issuing nations to allow children under the age of majority, or a specific age that is lower than that of the age of majority, in
the issuing country to travel on the passport of one or both of their parents, as necessary under national law.

We are concerned about this regulation that allows the issuing nation to determine the age at which an individual is required to carry a passport. Our Immigration Policies require that all individuals over the age of 12 carry proper documentation to pass into our borders. This part of the resolution infringes on our right to determine the policies governing what is required for individuals to enter our borders.

6. MANDATES that United Nation's Member States abide by the requirements laid down by the UNCPDC

Further infringes on our right to determine our own Immigration and Border Protection policies.

10. CALLS UPON all nations to recognise the passports of nationals of United Nations member states,

This appears to really be overstepping our bounds. How can this body call on non-member nations to do anything? Additionally, we reserve the right to refuse to recognize passports of individual nations (whether UN members or not) that are designated by our Office of Immigration and Border Protection as "do not travel or admit." We assert that this is the right of our nation and every nation and that this resolution would again infringe upon this right.

11. MANDATES the publication of all Passport designs (including information about counterfeit protections), to be made available to all relevant officials, including but not limited to: immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables of the law.

This clause is just downright scary and screams national security breach. We believe this information should be extremely limited and not openly shared with "all relevant officials" as what one nation defines as relevant may be different than another. Additionally this exchange of information being mandated in this way forces us to share secrets that are vital to our national security with other nations when it may not be in our best interests to do so with specific states. To force a nation to do so is not only a very clear violation of our right to protect our nation and our citizens but also an obvious overextension of the powers of this body.

We will NOT be voting for this resolution and are encouraging our delegate and other members from our region to follow suit.

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

:eek:
1st problem is that any multilateral or bilateral agreement makes the passport issue moot between consenting nations.

2nd problem is that even if this gets voted in, it does not prohibit a nation from requiring entry visas to whomever they want thereby making the passport issue moot.

On another note, would an international identification system be a better solution? Our nation is even tatooing an ID marker which is part genetic marker and part electronic chip which is inserted in a person with a barcode on surface of skin. We plan to use this for all identification and financial matters as soon as the system is fully implemented and we re-educate the technophobe minority who call us "borg" or refer to us as perpetuating the number of some beast?!? :cool:

We are concerned about this regulation that allows the issuing nation to determine the age at which an individual is required to carry a passport. Our Immigration Policies require that all individuals over the age of 12 carry proper documentation to pass into our borders. This part of the resolution infringes on our right to determine the policies governing what is required for individuals to enter our borders.

A passport is issued by the person's nationality. By itself a passport does not automatically guarantee entry to a foreign country. You can still require individuals under 12, or anyone for that matter, to be properly documented by a visa.

6. MANDATES that United Nation's Member States abide by the requirements laid down by the UNCPDC

Further infringes on our right to determine our own Immigration and Border Protection policies.

No, it does not. You are free to deny entrance to whomever you want. The UNCPDC will only tell you certain characteristics your passports must have.

10. CALLS UPON all nations to recognise the passports of nationals of United Nations member states,

This appears to really be overstepping our bounds. How can this body call on non-member nations to do anything? Additionally, we reserve the right to refuse to recognize passports of individual nations (whether UN members or not) that are designated by our Office of Immigration and Border Protection as "do not travel or admit." We assert that this is the right of our nation and every nation and that this resolution would again infringe upon this right

Correct me if I am wrong, but CALL UPON is just a strong suggestion. The UN cannot force non UN members do to anything, yet it can very well suggest, invite, or otherwise encourage them to do so. Specially when this would be beneficial to UN members. If this resolution were to pass, you would have to recognize passports of any national of a UN member. Compliance is mandatory. You can still deny them entry if they are a threat to your national security, or you can simply require visas and simply don't give them to those your nation would deem undesirable.

This clause is just downright scary and screams national security breach. We believe this information should be extremely limited and not openly shared with "all relevant officials" as what one nation defines as relevant may be different than another. Additionally this exchange of information being mandated in this way forces us to share secrets that are vital to our national security with other nations when it may not be in our best interests to do so with specific states. To force a nation to do so is not only a very clear violation of our right to protect our nation and our citizens but also an obvious overextension of the powers of this body.

Anti counterfeit measures are not secure because they are secret. They are secure because they are hard to duplicate. A secret anti counterfeit measure would be terribly ineffective. Clause 11 is definitely desirable, if not necesarry, if we want immigration officials to be able to asses if a passport is counterfeit or not with a modicum of efficiency.

A passport is issued by the person's nationality. By itself a passport does not automatically guarantee entry to a foreign country. You can still require individuals under 12, or anyone for that matter, to be properly documented by a visa.

So, a person under the age of majority in any country is not considered a citizen right from the quick? Why is that?

No, it does not. You are free to deny entrance to whomever you want. The UNCPDC will only tell you certain characteristics your passports must have.

That makes sense.

Correct me if I am wrong, but CALL UPON is just a strong suggestion. The UN cannot force non UN members do to anything, yet it can very well suggest, invite, or otherwise encourage them to do so. Specially when this would be beneficial to UN members. If this resolution were to pass, you would have to recognize passports of any national of a UN member. Compliance is mandatory. You can still deny them entry if they are a threat to your national security, or you can simply require visas and simply don't give them to those your nation would deem undesirable.

Isn't this section, kinda confusing? Where in one section you say the UN cannot force members to do anything...but in the next you say "Compliance is mandatory?"

Anti counterfeit measures are not secure because they are secret. They are secure because they are hard to duplicate. A secret anti counterfeit measure would be terribly ineffective. Clause 11 is definitely desirable, if not necessary, if we want immigration officials to be able to asses if a passport is counterfeit or not with a modicum of efficiency.

Then issue the security requirements to the relative foreign ministries or state departments. Telling the general populace can lead to counterfeits being made. We are dealing with a range of many different nations, with many different levels of technology. Who knows if a corporation in a certain country is able to make counterfeits that follow the same characteristics of a legal passport?
On the subject of the levels of technology of nations, what about those countries who are, perhaps, pre-industrial age? What concessions will be made for those states?

Until I can confer with our Regional Delegate, I will be abstaining from voting for now.


Respectfully,
Prince Hector, Infante de Genosha
Acting UN Representative
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

I refuse to allow entry to my country just because you got a UN passport.

Anti counterfeit measures are not secure because they are secret. They are secure because they are hard to duplicate. A secret anti counterfeit measure would be terribly ineffective. Clause 11 is definitely desirable, if not necesarry, if we want immigration officials to be able to asses if a passport is counterfeit or not with a modicum of efficiency.

I think the issue that many of my fellow delegates and ambassadors are taking with clause 11 is the fact that it is vaguely worded. Passport design? Relevant officers? The red flag is still "passport design." Why would a nation need to know the nitty gritty of another nation's passport design, unless it intends to produce fake passports of it's own, for it's secret agents? Shouldn't the anti-counterfeit measures simply be enough?

Again...a highly corrupt nation could endanger international security by revealing to unwanted factions the ways in which a passport is designed, and it's counterfeit measures. In a highly corrupt nation, the duplication of so-called anti-counterfeit measures would not be a problem once they find out what it is, because everyone can be bought. Everyone. Willingly, or unwillingly. In that scenario, it would not be hard to imagine worldwide underworld members retrieving a "faulty" anti-counterfeit maker from official passport makers in order to make their passport more legitimate-looking.

The idea that an international body should govern the standards of a nation's passport design breaches the sovereign rights of a nation. I speak for the Kingdom of Einmyria in agreeing that ease of travel would be of the utmost benefit for everyone involved, but dictating the standards upon which nations must produce official documents does not inherently imply or result in political stability. The passport standardization act also has further loopholes.

AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine,

The Kingdom of Einmyria has a requirement that all foreigners must have a passport validity of 1 year or more before entering Einmyria. Should this resolution come into effect, someone with a passport that expires within the next minute (if the person goes through the checkpoint at 11:59pm) could very well come into Einmyria and become an individual of ambiguous status. This individual may not be deemed to threaten national security; the situation certainly may not require medical quarantine; however, this would leave the Kingdom of Einmyria in an awkward position of having to create all kinds of "national security excuses" in order to insist that the individual regain proper papers, which may escalate into a diplomacy nightmare for all involved.

I implore other rational-minded delegates to think carefully on theses issues.

Thank you.

Roselle Fairbanks,
Ambassador
Kingdom of Einmyria

I think we digress...
I interpret the resolution to state that individual countries have the right to establish laws over top of that established by the Passport Programme so long as the BASE law stated in the resolution is established.

Aligator is for this, as so long as foreigners bring knarfs to the region and are in agreement to having the same monitoring devices (temporary of course) attached to their person as the rest of our citizens.

Amar a'Mae
Grand Hoosat
Newly declared Dictator


all argument aside. =D I've made Chinchilla and dumplings! Anyone care for a cuppa?

*offers thermos to room*

Honorable delegate from the Federal Republic, if you believe royalties should be paid, we will have to set up some sort of diplomatic recognition between our countries, after that we may be able to reach an accord.Hee. You amuse us.

What I believe has confused Delegate Batko-Yovino, ...I really don't know how you have mistaken me for my "superior" (my decidedly masculine superior). Lucky for you, I'll let this one slide.

I do not care if there is a second component to this resolution that would make up for it's shortfalls. If it does not stand up on it's own, I will not support it.Umm, noooo ... you are free to deny foreign nationals visas now; why do we need to pass a resolution giving you that right? Enshrining your right to deny visas is just part of the upcoming visa standardization project.

So, a person under the age of majority in any country is not considered a citizen right from the quick? Why is that?I fail to understand how this relates to anything. At issue is whether underage foreign nations can be required to carry separate documentation, not whether they are considered citizens.

Isn't this section, kinda confusing? Where in one section you say the UN cannot force members to do anything...but in the next you say "Compliance is mandatory?"Try reading Logopia's argument again:

Correct me if I am wrong, but CALL UPON is just a strong suggestion. The UN cannot force non UN members do to anything, yet it can very well suggest, invite, or otherwise encourage them to do so. Specially when this would be beneficial to UN members. If this resolution were to pass, you would have to recognize passports of any national of a UN member. Compliance is mandatory. You can still deny them entry if they are a threat to your national security, or you can simply require visas and simply don't give them to those your nation would deem undesirable.
On the subject of the levels of technology of nations, what about those countries who are, perhaps, pre-industrial age? What concessions will be made for those states?Try asking the author; he represents a past-tech nation. Why would he write a proposal to complicate matters for his own government? Unless he were pissed at them for some reason ...

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

[OOCEDIT: Incidentally, how's the weather in America's Finest City? Quite smoky, I take it. Stay safe.]

Ambassador Chiang, my apologies. Obviously someone switched my normal cigars for one of my special ones. No offense was intended.

Ambassador Chiang, this resolution has many faults, which are readily apparent after any serious review. It fails in accurately describing what should be done about passport holders who bypass border guards(outside of assuring them rights). This can be taken to an extreme. I would argue that should my land forces choose to invade another country, this body has no right to dictate what my forces should carry on their person(as per item 2). Should my forces be captured, the country I'm invading would be required to provide them with legal counsel(assuming they comply with this resolution, which my forces will not). Once again, I assure you this should not be the realm of the United Nations assembly.

Regardless, despite how you describe it, this resolution does intend to dictate to me who I may allow entry. It will be met with resistance for as long as it infringes on that sovereign right. This is not an issue that requires an entirely new bureaucratic system(as per item 4) to be put into place, that the UN, by resolution, has no ability to pay for. Since there exists no money to pay for any of the commissions work, no work will be done, therefore the UNCPDC referenced will not function. If it does not function, the majority of this resolution becomes entirely powerless.

Finally, the fact that the nation proposing this resolution has, through lack of technology, no ability to actually implement most of this resolution is not a selling point, but a serious flaw. I would argue that in this case it benefits those who are unable to comply, while penalizes those who can and do.

Ambassador Chiang, this resolution has many faults, which are readily apparent after any serious review. It fails in accurately describing what should be done about passport holders who bypass border guards(outside of assuring them rights). This can be taken to an extreme. I would argue that should my land forces choose to invade another country, this body has no right to dictate what my forces should carry on their person(as per item 2). Should my forces be captured, the country I'm invading would be required to provide them with legal counsel(assuming they comply with this resolution, which my forces will not). Once again, I assure you this should not be the realm of the United Nations assembly.There is certainly room for interpretation of the phrase "detained for legal reasons," and the resolution actually only gives detainees the right to visited by a consul from their nation; otherwise this is quite silly.

As to your declaration that your "forces" will not comply with this resolution: compliance, I should point out, is mandatory for all UN nations.

Regardless, despite how you describe it, this resolution does intend to dictate to me who I may allow entry.No, it doesn't. It only tells nations to admit foreign nationals with valid passports and visas -- and, as pointed out earlier, whether or not foreign nations should be granted visas is entirely up to you.

Finally, the fact that the nation proposing this resolution has, through lack of technology, no ability to actually implement most of this resolution is not a selling point, but a serious flaw. I would argue that in this case it benefits those who are unable to comply, while penalizes those who can and do.I'll let Cobdenia address this point.

~Cdr. Chiang

In Tanular, we beileve if you visit our country you agree to accept our laws.
Nor does anything in this proposal deny that.

We also accept that our citizens abroad abide by the laws of their current locations...we would hope to work out an agreement, but if the country invovled did not wish to make an exception, Tanular will abide by that.
We personally think agreement an irrelevance; anyone who believes that their nationals are not bound by the laws of the nation they happen to be standing in is in for a rude and possibly undiplomatic shock.

Nation X and Nation Y agreeing who may provide any form of legal council/advice for someone in Nation Q is not fair to Nation Q: if X and Y include Q, there is no problem, but this bill explicitly provides for X and Y to make such a decision and force Q to abide by it.
We believe the honoured ambassador is entirely misunderstanding the nature of "legal advice" in this case. What is being spoken of is the advice given to an individual as to the legal situation in which they find themselves, and how they should interact with it. It is in no sense formal legal representation in court, or whatsoever the equivalent in your nation may be. The only thing that nation Q is forced to do is to allow the consultate of nation Y to speak with the citizen of nation X in exactly the same manner as the consultate of nation X would if it existed. We regard this as an essential part of this proposal for upholding the human rights of the national of X in the face of a possibly hostile legal system. Given this, we also feel it essential that nation Q have no say at all in whom nation X may make such agreements with.

Finally, the fact that the nation proposing this resolution has, through lack of technology, no ability to actually implement most of this resolution is not a selling point, but a serious flaw. I would argue that in this case it benefits those who are unable to comply, while penalizes those who can and do.

I'll let Cobdenia address this point.


1) UNCPDC only establishes the minimum of what is required, "including but not limited to passport numbers, facial representations of the owner, name, date of birth, validity, and anti-forgery features". You are perfectly free to add fingerprints, height, wieght, goat porn, inflatable gandalfs, ordnance survey maps of French Micronesia &c onto your passports. If you are worried about cleverly forged foreign passports from pre-industrial/past tech nations, put anti forgery devices on your visa (which does not neccessarily have to be a stamp). Simple.

2) It's the gnomes problem. Let them sort it out. They always do. That's why I committificated it.

3) Can I pull the reasonable nation theorycard here, despite my usual slight tendency to completely ignore it as an argument?

for. Since there exists no money to pay for any of the commissions work, no work will be done, therefore the UNCPDC referenced will not function. If it does not function, the majority of this resolution becomes entirely powerless.

Committees are staffed by magical committee gnomes, which spring from existance purely to serve on committee. They work for, I don't know, Jaffa Cakes, which are extensively farmed on the UN's own Jaffa Cake plantation (which are farmed by farming gnomes. Who eat repealed resolutions and the corpses of gnomes from disbanded comittees)

It will be met with resistance for as long as it infringes on that sovereign right.

If you don't want people coming in, don't issue them visas - and I don't mean the credit card sort. If you don't want your people leaving, don't issue passports. If you want some people coming in, and want to retain the right to throw others out, issue visas with the clause "may be revoked for any reason whatsoever, if we feel like it", in which case it becomes invalid, and thus that section no longer applies.
THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SET THEIR OWN MIGRATION POLICIES

Is that clear, or do I need to spell it out in big blue bold letters?

Sir Cyril &c.
Cobdenian Permanent Representative to the United Nations

The Kingdom of Einmyria has a requirement that all foreigners must have a passport validity of 1 year or more before entering Einmyria. Should this resolution come into effect, someone with a passport that expires within the next minute (if the person goes through the checkpoint at 11:59pm) could very well come into Einmyria and become an individual of ambiguous status. This individual may not be deemed to threaten national security; the situation certainly may not require medical quarantine; however, this would leave the Kingdom of Einmyria in an awkward position of having to create all kinds of "national security excuses" in order to insist that the individual regain proper papers, which may escalate into a diplomacy nightmare for all involved.


Erm...you could just not issue visas to those with a passport that is only valid for less than one year. Plus, the resolution nowhere illegalises the throwing out of the those whose passports or visas have become invalid since arrival. Or even if they are valid. You are perfectly free to stick foreigners on the next ship/aeroplane/coach/Zeppellin out of your country

As to the concerns about the publishing of the designs, can I point out that this is very different from telling someone how to make a passport? (OoC; I can tell a forged British passport from a real one, for example, but I certainly couldn't make one). You can say your passports have a full length nude hologramme of Catherine Gratwick, but it wouldn't say how one manufacturers a full length nude hologramme of the esteemed secretary general. If your passports are easily forged from knowing the design, then it's easily forged just by looking at it carefully.

1) THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SET THEIR OWN MIGRATION POLICIES

Is that clear, or do I need to spell it out in big blue bold letters?



Does that mean then that this entire resolution is superfluous? My migration policy lacks visa's or passports. I personally decide who can and cannot enter my country. They do not require paperwork, because at any time I can eject them, detain them, or kill them, should I find them in my country and wish to do so. My forces do not carry visa's or passports when invading another country. Beyond invasion, there should be no other emigration or travel.

Trying to put my policy in this framework infringes on my sovereignty. If for some miraculous reason you can convince me it does not, then your resolution means nothing, accomplishes nothing, and creates those magical gnomes of which you spoke earlier for nothing.

Urm...it does do something. Something quite important - it standardises the procedure for those wishing to travel between countries. In essence, it stops people coming into a nation claiming that their magic beans or sunglasses are legitimate travel documents. It standardises what is contained in such a document, so that a nation doesn't just put a photograph of the bearers posterior in it as the only identification of the owner. Plus, perhaps most importantly, it is an information sharing service that allows for nations to be able to tell a fake passport of any UN nation from a genuine one. All these things, plus others, put together facilitate travel, improve trade, make illicit entry into foriegn nations more difficult, makes tracking aliens in your nation a damn sight easier, reduces terrorism, promotes cultural understanding, re-enforces previous human rights legislation, makes immigration and customs queues shorter, stops impressionable young female customs officers fainting after seeing the fifteenth photograph a fat buggers arse, re-enforces nationality, and so much more. If you don't want any of that, tough shit.

You are free to deny entrance to whomever you want. The UNCPDC will only tell you certain characteristics your passports must have.

Which is an infringement on the right of our Office of Immigration and Border Protection to determine and develop our own passport policies based on the unique needs of our nation. We understand the desire to "standardize" but do not feel it is right for an outside organization to tell us what must be included on a document that is issues SOLELY under our authority and no one else's.

If this resolution were to pass, you would have to recognize passports of any national of a UN member. Compliance is mandatory.

Another argument that forces us to continue to be against this resolution. We reserve the right to recognize passports based on our national policies and national security. It is not right for this body to impose a regulation upon any nation that forces it to recognize documents issued by another nation that it does not choose to recognize on its own. While we understand that we could just not issue visas to individuals we do not want entering our borders, that does not eliminate the fact that we should not be forced to recognize a document that our OIBP has chosen not to accept as proper documentation (usually only occurs in extreme circumstances and when seen as a necessary step to keep our borders safe).

Anti counterfeit measures are not secure because they are secret. They are secure because they are hard to duplicate. A secret anti counterfeit measure would be terribly ineffective. Clause 11 is definitely desirable, if not necesarry, if we want immigration officials to be able to asses if a passport is counterfeit or not with a modicum of efficiency.

Clause 11 is scary because it does not clearly define which individuals should receive the specifics of our anti counterfeit measures and the list of examples is actually rather long, in our opinion. We feel this makes it far easier for individuals to get all of the specifics on our anti counterfeit measures making it easier for them to create counterfeit passports.

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

If you don't want any of that, tough shit.

Now, honorable delegate, we get to the crux of the issue. You had what you think is a good idea, and have decided that everyone else should be forced to go along with it.

No.

Like I said, people who come to my country will be medically quarantined until they relinquish their rights under this resolution. They obviously have something wrong with them.

As per my last statement though, a few members of my cabinet have made it known that they wish to travel abroad. So should the resolution pass. I've decided to issue passports of my own. To everybody. Everywhere. Or at least make it easy enough that they can have a valid document with a minimum of work.

Covering item 5:
5. CHARGES the UNCPDC to establish minimum requirements of details to be included into passports, including but not limited to passport numbers, facial representations of the owner, name, date of birth, validity, and anti-forgery features

Assuming the UNCPDC is actually staffed by magic gnomes that do/don't exist, I'll have to assume they take the easy way out and that only the things mentioned in that item are actually enforceable. I'll go further and say that only the bare minimum of detail will be required, since you delegated a magic gnome commission to iron out the details of your requirements.

Under those very safe assumptions, I have attached my new tamper proof passport.

It includes a very real facial representation. It has hair, a nose, mouth, and eyes. The ears are optionally under the hair or not, but mine has it under the hair. The "name" of the passport as covered in item 5, is of course Douria's Fake Passports. All passports are assigned the number 42. Date of birth is covered with "sometime". Validity is assured with the phrase "This is a real passport.". Finally forgery is made impossible by the inclusion thereafter of the word "really". This will indeed help streamline the entire passport making process since now they can be made at home. Ironically enough I believe this means Cobdenia can issue passports that comply with this resolution.

And people can easily deny entrance to their nations' if your's insists on using such a passport. Which, of course, begs the question: why would any nation issue passports like that? If your nation wants to be full of daft blighters, that's your choice, but don't assume that represents a problem with the Proposal itself.

Because as long as they hold a valid visa, which need only contain passport number and name(in some cases more, or much more), they should be allowed under the resolution, to gain entry with THAT passport.

It includes a very real facial representation. It has hair, a nose, mouth, and eyes. The ears are optionally under the hair or not, but mine has it under the hair. The "name" of the passport as covered in item 5, is of course Douria's Fake Passports. All passports are assigned the number 42. Date of birth is covered with "sometime". Validity is assured with the phrase "This is a real passport.". Finally forgery is made impossible by the inclusion thereafter of the word "really". This will indeed help streamline the entire passport making process since now they can be made at home. Ironically enough I believe this means Cobdenia can issue passports that comply with this resolution.

Do I have to spell out the fact that it says "including but not limited to" yet a-bloody-gain? It is well within the remit of UNCPDC to insist that on what exactly constitutes "accurate facial representation" and set minimums, that passports must have a certain number of pages, mandate that passports should be four foot by 12. The gnomes will let the department in charge of the manfacturer, design and issue of your nations passports know. Don't ask how, they just will. Don't ask what they will mandate, as I don't know, I'm not a gnome and the gnomes in question don't exist yet. If I here any more stupid arguments, based largely, it seems, on an inability to understand the way the NSUN works, I swear to God I'm going to invade.

@ Cdr. Chiang...

I dunno. I was trying to jump into the conversation. I still see a couple nominal flaws, but nothing to campaign against.

Hector, Prince Infante de Genosha


OoC: It IS quite smoky. In fact, a certain Johnny Cash song comes to mind....
Anywhoo, I'll be evacuating within the hour or so, and I'll probably not be on for a while.

OoC: It IS quite smoky. In fact, a certain Johnny Cash song comes to mind....
Anywhoo, I'll be evacuating within the hour or so, and I'll probably not be on for a while.Stay safe.

As representative of the Holy republic of Lumendor I would like to express our support to the confederacy of Douria. The points their representative, Trey Dreizhen, raised (especially concerning points 8-10) have moved Lumendor to vote against this resolution. This is despite the fact that our nation supports the overall spirit that this resolution expresses.

Sri Nagar sees nothing inherently wrong with this proposal.

:cool:

My government has decided to abstain. While we support this proposal thoroughly for the most part, clause 1 poses a significant problem (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13155351&postcount=14). We can only regret that this was not addressed and corrected during the drafting stage, despite my delegation having raised the issue at that time.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Prince Dirk Koller

We thank the civil reply and will try to respond accordingly.

We believe the benefits of recognizing passports of other UN members and of complying with the regulations the UNCPDC might issue far outweight whatever reservations we have about the UN overriding our national policies.

Cobdenia has already stated many of the benefits this resolution could have, and we cannot see any real disadvantages in complying with it. If you'd be so kind as to elaborate from a more pragmatic and less philosophical standpoint, we might better understand your objections.

As for clause 11, we grant that it could have been worded with better precision. Yet, it is our interpretation that the intent behind sharing passports designs is allowing immigration officials in telling fake from genuine passports. We see nothing in the clause requiring to share information on how to duplicate a passport, nor mandating sharing information about the specific details of how the passport is made.

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

Unfortunately, while we would certainly support effective measures for standardization of passports, we cannot support this resolution. There are three articles we find objectionable.

2. MANDATES that all citizens carry a Passport issued by a relevant nation in which they hold citizenship or other citizen status, when travelling abroad, except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement,

We believe that it is the absolute and inalienable right of every nation to determine for itself what shall be required of foreign nationals wishing to enter or remain within its territories. If we choose to require them to possess a passport, fine. If we choose not to, that is entirely our business and none of the UN's. There is simply no valid or acceptable reason for the UN to impose this requirement on the people of our nations.

Further, we have no idea what "other citizen status" means.

9. AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine,

This article is either meaningless or unacceptably intrusive on nations' authority and responsibility to control entry to its territory. If we take it to mean that a nation is precluded from revoking a visa when presented at a point-of-entry, it's dangerously inhibiting. If it soesn't mean that, it means nothing. Our officials can deny entry to someone with a visa simply by revoking it.

11. MANDATES the publication of all Passport designs (including information about counterfeit protections), to be made available to all relevant officials, including but not limited to: immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables of the law.

This article is ambiguous and dangerous. "Publication" means to make something generally available to the public. In this case, that would include those intending to forge passports. The second part apparently attempts to limit the requirement to "relevant officials", although it does not actualy do so. But then it states that the "relevant officials" include "immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables of the law". There is absolutely no reason for all of these people to be given access to extremely sensitive information about the design of counter-forgery measures. Those whose duties may require them to inspect or examine passports should be given information necessary to identify forgeries, but that is all.

Ausserland has voted AGAINST the resolution.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

"9. AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine, "

This single section is my cause for greatest concern, I have heard several arguments that say this resolution does not interfere with a nation's migration policies. Yet, there it is written in blank and white and clear as crystal.

Just so the chamber may understand my argument. Say that my nation has not put itself in a state-of-emergency or placed itself under quarentine. We are in complience with this madate. We allow nationals to enter with the passport and visa. Now, for a worste case scenario, say there was a coupe to inifiltrate my nation with an influx of immigrants from a neighboring nation. Over a course of several years, my population shifts from 100% Froods, to 49%. Voting in Zarquon Froods is compulsory. If a candidate from the infultrating nation were to run on a platform that would see the downfall of my nation and his people held the majority vote, it would spell the end of my people. Do I make sense or am I spouting gibberish as usual?

And to me, it seems the process of getting a valid passport and visa requires having forms signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, quered, lost, found, subject to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

I yield.

If we choose to require them to possess a passport, fine. If we choose not to, that is entirely our business and none of the UN's.
You can still do that. Article 2 states "except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement,"



This article is either meaningless or unacceptably intrusive on nations' authority and responsibility to control entry to its territory. If we take it to mean that a nation is precluded from revoking a visa when presented at a point-of-entry, it's dangerously inhibiting. If it soesn't mean that, it means nothing. Our officials can deny entry to someone with a visa simply by revoking it.
Article 9 is simply affirming the status quo by saying "except where either the security of that nation is at stake...<snip>". If you want to deny entry, simply revoke their visa at the point of entry.



This article is ambiguous and dangerous. "Publication" means to make something generally available to the public. In this case, that would include those intending to forge passports. The second part apparently attempts to limit the requirement to "relevant officials", although it does not actualy do so. But then it states that the "relevant officials" include "immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables of the law". There is absolutely no reason for all of these people to be given access to extremely sensitive information about the design of counter-forgery measures. Those whose duties may require them to inspect or examine passports should be given information necessary to identify forgeries, but that is all.
It says "designs", which we would interpret as...designs, the appearance of the document. We would interpret "relevant officials" as officials to whom this information would be relevant and only those officials. Where it says "information about counterfeit protections" it means just that; information about the counterfeit protections. It doesn't (and shouldn't) include detailed technical data concerning the anti-counterfeiting techniques employed.

Yelda supports this legislation.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Say that my nation has not put itself in a state-of-emergency or placed itself under quarentine. We are in complience with this madate. We allow nationals to enter with the passport and visa. Now, for a worste case scenario, say there was a coupe to inifiltrate my nation with an influx of immigrants from a neighboring nation. Over a course of several years, my population shifts from 100% Froods, to 49%. Voting in Zarquon Froods is compulsory. If a candidate from the infultrating nation were to run on a platform that would see the downfall of my nation and his people held the majority vote, it would spell the end of my people. Do I make sense or am I spouting gibberish as usual?


Simply don't grant them a visa. Problem solved.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

I'm not a gnome and the gnomes in question don't exist yet. If I here any more stupid arguments, based largely, it seems, on an inability to understand the way the NSUN works, I swear to God I'm going to invade.

Despite the fact that the honorable delegate is currently speaking of magic gnomes, I will assume for a moment he is sane and reasonable. As such, I would like to note that I am not.

Should you seriously intend to invade my nation,

I will bring all my arms to bear on you in turn.
Port Sir Richard will burn.
There will be screams of joy and glee
In the streets, As I have your lifeless corpse strung up for all to see.
In case I haven't been completely clear,
I will destroy all that you hold dear.
You've thrown down the gauntlet I'll take it and say,
"You want my wrath? Molon Labe!"

You do realise that the military of Cobdenia is only slightly outnumbered by your entire population, don't you?

I, the commander of Drunkhobia, vote AGAINST this resolution.

Commander Kerlon Vartu

When the going gets tough, the tough get close air support. Lets see if prop planes can stand up to good old fashioned jets. Or did you think your threat would actually deter me from your insistence on infringing on my sovereignty?

You know, watching some of the posturing and military braggadocio going on right now, it makes me miss my old boss. She'd have popped off with some comment or other about "stupid men who insist on polishing their giant metal military penile substitutes" or something like that. I, on the other hand, simply yawn in the general direction of said braggadocio.

Oh, and Altanar is voting against this resolution, for many of the reasons already ably outlined by other delegations.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

4. FOUNDS the United Nations Commision for Passport Design and Control (UNCPDC)

5. CHARGES the UNCPDC to establish minimum requirements of details to be included into passports, including but not limited to passport numbers, facial representations of the owner, name, date of birth, validity, and anti-forgery features

6. MANDATES that United Nation's Member States abide by the requirements laid down by the UNCPDC
.

Noting that this resolution gives the UNCPDC unlimited powers to decide what information must be included passports.

The Armed Republic of The Flying Stilton concludes that this means that personal bank account details or other confidential information may be required.

Noting that there is much corruption in some countries (but not in "The Armed Republic of The Flying Stilton").

Concludes that this could be a pretext by some countries with a large influence in the United Nations to (a) gather confidential information on our citizens, or (b) provide an opportunity for something more sinister.

Suggests that:
1. The UNCPDC role be limited to deciding the standard lay-out of passports.
2. Each country choose for themselves the information to be included in their citizens' passports.

Consequently, we are minded to vote against this motion.

This motion is against all Civil Rights of all Nations. This is Horrific and an political monsters made by someome who wants to enslave all peoples.

Kemonomimi has Voted AGAINST The Passport Standardisation Act.

Ambassador Sahsi Foxfire.

Ormonde Ossary approves greatly of this act as it will allow all U.N countries to track the movements of citizens. This way national security for all nations is greatly approved. We urge you all to approve of this act.

Delegate Dreizhen would be wise to note that any military action perpetuated against Cobdenia with regards to this proposal would be fully opposed by not only native forces, but the (modern, large and well-trained) military of Grand Draenaria, as well as agent saboteurs from Draenaristan and militiamen from Lesser Draenaria, should such assistance be requested. Such is the faith the Fortified City-State and its protectorates place in this resolution.

To actually answer (in a manner that will hopefully provide clarification above even the magnificent examples of clarity that have gone before) some of the oppositions to the resolution:

Section 11: Every holder of a Draenarian passport knows that it bears a hologram (showing either a stylised opinicus, the word "Draenar" or an image of a Stat) to confirm its authenticity. As such, telling the border-guards of all UN nations that such a hologram is the mark of a genuine Draenarian passport is not going to provide any further security risk than exists already.

OOC:Sections 4, 5 and 6: Note that the UN gnomes are sensible, and as such the requirements for a passport will be sensible. Fears of such superfluous details being required are entirely unfounded.

Back IC: Section 9 means, as before, you only have to let people into your nation for as long as you want to, and only if you want to. As long as your visa text includes a clause stating "This is only valid as long as we want it to be.", you can evict any foreigner from your nation at any time.

This resolution is a good thing! Need I write this in letters of fire on the side of the Quentulus Quazgar Mountains, Sevorbeupstry, on planet Preliumtarn, Galactic Sector QQ7 Active J Gamma?!?

Walton Abbot
UN Representative for the Draenarian States

This is Horrific and an political monsters made by someome who wants to enslave all peoples.


What?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Fine by me.
Why not even enforce UN members to supplant any existing form of ID cards with this new standardized passport, so that its benefits are guaranteed to all UN citizens?

Edit: Maybe we should create a EU instead of a UN, and only allow nations that vote FOR our resolutions :D

This is good. I hadn't noticed the need for a visa at first. I was going to be mad. But as long as they can be required to have a visa, it's wonderful. The only thing I have against it is that I didn't write it.

You can still do that. Article 2 states "except where deemed unnecessary through the existence of bilateral and multilateral border control agreement,"

Why should a nation be forced to enter into agreements in order to determine its own border control policy? Approval of entry into a nation is the sole and essential prerogative of that nation. There is absolutely no need or justification for the UN to dictate what an individual must do to enter or remain in a nation.

Article 9 is simply affirming the status quo by saying "except where either the security of that nation is at stake...<snip>". If you want to deny entry, simply revoke their visa at the point of entry.

And, in this supposed affirmation, it introduces ambiguity, confusion, and the potential for misinterpretation. If, as you suggest, a person who presents a valid passport and visa at a point of entry may be turned away, the clause is utterly meaningless.

It says "designs", which we would interpret as...designs, the appearance of the document. We would interpret "relevant officials" as officials to whom this information would be relevant and only those officials. Where it says "information about counterfeit protections" it means just that; information about the counterfeit protections. It doesn't (and shouldn't) include detailed technical data concerning the anti-counterfeiting techniques employed.

As the distinguished representative of Yelda is aware, we hold to the principle that the law means what the law says. This resolution clearly states that "all Passport designs (including information about counterfeit protections)" must be made available. It leaves no room for the exception the representative suggests. And it defines "relevant officials" as "including but not limited to: immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables of the law". The representative's interpretation is clearly based on sound common sense. Unfortunately, it is not supported by the plain language of the resolution. It's what the resolution should have said, but doesn't.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Further, we have no idea what "other citizen status" means.I would assume this is a catch-all term for nations where not every national is a citizen ("Service guarantees citizenship"), or nations where an individual might have additional rights above and beyond that of a normal citizen (in its early years, soldiers in the Hack received an extra vote in elections, and were called 'soldiers', not 'citizens', even after retirement).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The Free People of Newey,

who have bestowed me with the honor of adressing the issue, would like to present their great concern.

As a young country, only established a few days ago, we fear that this law will restrict our freedom. We joined the honorable UN to enjoy well being in an international community which is open for everybody. However, the Passport Standardisation Act endangers freedom of the individual and increases centralized control.

Therefore, our humble and young community will not support the new legislation.

Sincerely

Tobi Baunewey
Represantative of the Free Land of Newey

The Alpha Complex of Autoctonia always wellcomes any anti-forging features, which make the world safer, and this resolution does this effectively. Furthermore, it reduces administrative problems by making an standarized document, which includes all the important data that any citizen of any nation should carry with him when visiting another.

So, in the name of the Computer, we wellcome this measure, vote for, and cheer everybody to do the same.

Newey;13160542']
As a young country, only established a few days ago, we fear that this law will restrict our freedom. We joined the honorable UN to enjoy well being in an international community which is open for everybody. However, the Passport Standardisation Act endangers freedom of the individual and increases centralized control.


How so?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Why should a nation be forced to enter into agreements in order to determine its own border control policy? Approval of entry into a nation is the sole and essential prerogative of that nation. There is absolutely no need or justification for the UN to dictate what an individual must do to enter or remain in a nation.

Now that you've raised the point, I vaguely seem to recall suggesting, during a much earlier stage of this discussion, that unilateral decisions of that sort should also be allowed.
However _
If you don't have an official agreement on this matter with another country then how do you know that, after you've let some of their people into your country without requiring such papers, that nation will allow them to go back home again? They might well need passports at that nation's borders in order to prove their right to make that return journey, unless their homeland issues some other form of ID documentation to all of its people, and checking that they've got the relevant papers on their way into your lands would seem to be a matter of common sense... unless you don't mind the risk of getting stuck with an undefined number of unintentional immigrants...
H'mm. Come to think of it, wasn't there supposed to be a potential exception to this rule for refugees? After all, they might not have the time -- or the official approval -- necessary for acquiring such documents...

Blast! I think that, adding those factors to the point about 'citizens' and 'nationals', I'm going to have to change my nation's vote on this matter to 'Against'.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this confounded penguin (http://www.nationstates.net/region=penguin) costume...)

.

But there's a flaw here.
This one ... "mandates that all citizens carry a passport when traveling abroad": not a big problem, though it's transplanting a far-from-perfect idea to NS. Successful terrorists seem to either have a passport, or can obtain a very good "forged passport".
.
AFFIRMS that any national ... carrying a valid passport and visa CANNOT BE DENIED ENTRY entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine

We do agree that a "passport" could be a helpful medium in IDENTIFYING foreigners. But that it automatically be a "right of entry" goes too far.
This seems very silly, as the "issueing nation" can be the risk factor already. This leaves the doors wide open to unexpected exceptions (everybody from USofA unwelcome in country X, because USofA is considered a security risk - sorry for the out-of-game reference, butthe point is: the same country and politics aren't perceived the same way everywhere abroad.) : it's an arbitrary choice.
Oh you say, you can deny visa at will, and suspend them : maybe. But what's the point then f having them in a passport?
So everyone coming to the borders of Ren' now finds a representative at the gates, and there is the place to apply for the "visa" ?

The thing about consulates and embassys can be valid, but AFAIK Renssignol never was asked to "send a consul" or an ambassdor to anywhere. We have on at the NSUN, but elsewhere?
I guess our govt would be notified as well when some nation would want to SEND an ambassador, but our list of telegrams doesn't mention such demand. So it's a mute clause.
Or not: maybe some nations DO send terrorists everywhere in the world, and send ambassadors to support them.
Of course, if the whole idea of "international relations" is rol-played outside the NS framework ... but do the NSUN-rule apply to this role^play, or is the roleplay actually "out of the game" ?

The resolution starts making sense ow: it's a vehicle for supporting international crime ... have ambassodors help the terrorists out, if/when they 're caught ?

No matter what, Ren's ambassador already got our "go" on a red vote. And that may only change if good argments can be accepted, not by our government for that, but by the triumvirate of the day.

The resolution starts making sense ow: it's a vehicle for supporting international crime ... have ambassodors help the terrorists out, if/when they 're caught ?


Don't be foolish.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose this proposal; calling it a "vehicle for supporting international crime" and terrorism isn't one of them.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

You are turning the UN, from really just a peacekeeping union to a fullblown "alliance" if i may. I think it is plain ridiculous, that the UN should have to do with anything relating any given nations internal issues, unless of course the nation is breaking human rights or cannot provide resources to support it's population.

This proposal is just plain massive waste of everyones time. Let the UN be, what it should originally be, an organisation upkeeping peace and human rights.

Elmo Koivunen
-Representative of the Dominion of Reunited Finland-

Erm...you could just not issue visas to those with a passport that is only valid for less than one year. Plus, the resolution nowhere illegalises the throwing out of the those whose passports or visas have become invalid since arrival. Or even if they are valid. You are perfectly free to stick foreigners on the next ship/aeroplane/coach/Zeppellin out of your country

The Kingdom of Einmyria does not require any nation to have visas in order to enter the country as they are a barrier to free trade and the tourism industry. I understand that the resolution nowhere illegalizes the kicking out of people once in the country, but the Kingdom of Einmyria would like to be able to turn citizens around before they enter. Can you imagine the redundancy of having to utilize national police force that are waiting for such cases just after immigration where they seemed to have passed inspection, only to turn these people around? Einmyria's national force should not be reduced into enforcing such minutiae laws. It's this kind of bureaucratic rationale that do not fall under either "national security" or "medical quarantine."

As to the concerns about the publishing of the designs, can I point out that this is very different from telling someone how to make a passport? (OoC; I can tell a forged British passport from a real one, for example, but I certainly couldn't make one). You can say your passports have a full length nude hologramme of Catherine Gratwick, but it wouldn't say how one manufacturers a full length nude hologramme of the esteemed secretary general. If your passports are easily forged from knowing the design, then it's easily forged just by looking at it carefully.

No one is saying that you can beat the anti-counterfeit. You can just go around it.

Here's an example:
1. a corrupt immigration officer anywhere in the UN finds out Cobdenia's passport design and anti-counterfeit measures (for example).
2. he passes the information to his underworld buddies that it is these particular measures are the ones that people are looking out for.
3. underworld buddies secretly inquire (or pressure them by sticking weapons to their neck and head and/or blackmail) around Cobdenia to harass the makers of the anti-counterfeit measure, and pressure him/her into getting them a passport maker of their own. You don't NEED to get around the anti-counterfeit, you just get one of your own. They silence him/or and/or buy him/her off.
4. the underworld buddies can make their own passport, which, through their network, will operate like the normal ones! They can also sell left-overs to high bidders and people in need.

Note: this example would apply not only for the underworld buddies; this could also include spy agencies, and other parties.

The beauty of the system is that no one else will know, and the general public will be lulled into thinking that regional security is better.

The resolution is otherwise tightly worded and Einmyria would have voted FOR. Unfortunately, because of these minor errors, it has voted AGAINST.

Roselle Fairbanks,
Ambassador,
Kingdom of Einmyria

You are turning the UN, from really just a peacekeeping union

The United Nations was never designed as a peacekeeping union. It was designed to do whatever the General Assembly told it to do, within the limitations of clearly established rules.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

I think it is plain ridiculous, that the UN should have to do with anything relating any given nations internal issues, unless of course the nation is breaking human rights or cannot provide resources to support it's population.

If you don't want your nation's internal issues affected, why did you join the UN, exactly? That's kind of what it does, you know, when it passes legislation and whatnot.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I personally joined to battle policies like this one. The idea for this is nice. Alot of them are nice. The only real issue I see though is that despite it being "nice" it allows the UN much more power than I'm willing to give it. Why should the DETAILS of my passports be in the realm of the United Nations? Security? This doesn't solve that, it creates as many problems as it solves. It doesn't even achieve harmonization(since there is far to much optional stuff involved), which is the whole point.

As many people have stated, it either:

One: Oversteps the bounds of this assembly. In a very very serious way. or

Two: Does nothing at all.

I'm not willing to risk one on the hopes that two is true. It's cost/benefit we're dealing with. Should I risk the sovereignty of my nation on the hope that this resolution won't actually achieve anything, or should I fight it at all costs to make sure that it doesn't.

I choose the latter, and everyone else I hope does the same.

I personally joined to battle policies like this one.

You... joined the United Nations so as to oppose policies that you would not be subjected to if you weren't a member?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Wow...I believe in being an obnoxious, annoying prick, but joining the UN just to argue against resolutions is...a whole new level of argumentive.

That being said, at least he's being active and not a vote whore.

As it seems likely this resolution will be passed, Tanular will learn to live with it...its not overly horrible, but I'd prefer if it could be touched up. You win some, you lose some. Points to Cobdenia et al.

One: Oversteps the bounds of this assembly. In a very very serious way.That's not possible, the UN's power is restricted only by the proposal rules, and the resolutions it passes.

You... joined the United Nations so as to oppose policies that you would not be subjected to if you weren't a member?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

What do you expect, the UN is one beast you have to fight from within.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Just to sway some votes, especially of the more respected members who are against, many of the legitimate problems inhrent in this resolution, such as the some aspects of the forgery problem, the refugee problem, and the unilateral issue to some extent, as well as limiting the possibility for revokation somewhat, are being considered, and the problems may be addressed by clauses in the Visa Proposal when I get round to it...

You... joined the United Nations so as to oppose policies that you would not be subjected to if you weren't a member?

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everyone knows things are bad. Everyone who's paying attention anyhow. Look around. Human rights yesterday, passports today, maybe tomorrow we'll make democracy mandatory. That'd be neat huh?

I want to make sure, as we all should that the interests of the few are still being respected, lest the UN turn into a Tyranny by Majority. Despite the design of it, and the actions of it's members, I believe that the UN is based on intrinsically good ideals, like most governments. Yet here we stand with yet another serious infringement on the rights of individual nations, "Why not?" comes the call. To reverse a very respectable man's words, "Why?" I must reply.

Why is it the norm to expect my rights to govern be reduced? Why is it the norm to see others with good hearts and good ideas, pervert those ideas and force them onto all, in the name of community. I believe in community, I believe that together we can do great things. We could build a Union of Nation States, where leaders come together to cooperate instead of coerce. To build on friendships and trust instead of on each others dreams.

If someone told me about this idea, I'd say "sign me up". It's a good idea(I've even reconciled most of my issues with it). What it isn't, though, is something I need you to make me do. You haven't the right, though you do have the power.

It's a symptom of a greater disease, one single nail in the coffin of my nation's liberty to choose it's course. It's a symptom of what people have begun to think the UN is here for, to tell me how to govern my country, because obviously I'm not doing it right.

I am doing it right, I'm doing it my way, that's how nations are supposed to work. If a nation has peoples not born but created, and such a long time ago that no one knows when, they shouldn't have to put a date of birth. If a nation is comprised of a single hive minded individual with no given name, they shouldn't need a name. If we're talking about an amorphous blob, why should they need a facial representation?

Who the hell are you to tell them they should?

But lets get back to the issue, should this pass, which I don't see as a forgone conclusion, I will still fight it. As a matter of fact, I'd say a majority of those who vote on resolutions don't read these arguments, a sizable minority wouldn't care if they did. The truth of the matter is, any well worded resolution that makes it to vote that doesn't seriously anger anyone will find it easy to pass. This is on passports, for gods sake. Unless they looked here they'd never know the slippery slope on which we all tread.

So here I stand, addressing this assembly, addressing you. Informing you of the truth of the matter, should you like it or not. I don't know if you care, I don't know if you want to know. What I do know is that if you do care and you want to affect change, be angry. Get angry and stay that way. Don't take it lying down. Stand up and fight, die if that's what it comes to, but fight damn it. Anger is the only thing that can truly galvanize a population to action, be it a nation leaders, voters, or a worker's party. Stand up, look around and let your voice be heard! I can do it, I can say it! So can you!

I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!

Many parts of this resolution make very good sense. However, one central issue influencing my vote is we do not know, in advance, is what the passport standardization standards will be. Perhaps they will be very good and be a benefit to all nations. Then again, maybe they won't, and seriously curtail the civil liberties and rights of the citizens of member states.

I would have no problem supporting the resolution if the commission was established first, made its recommendations, and then we could vote whether or not to accept new standards.

maybe tomorrow we'll make democracy mandatory. That'd be neat huh?Nah. That's against the rules.

lest the UN turn into a Tyranny by Majority.This phrase has always made me curious. Isn't that the definition of democracy?

Ah well.

9. AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine...

NO NO NO.
I agree with the rest of the resolution, but this totally turned me against it.
Our nation should be able to deny foreign citizens entry to our country at any time for any reason that our nation sees fit. So what if their passport is valid? If the Council of Nevesá wishes to close our borders for a few hours just to have less to deal with, we should be able to! (That, of course, is a very extreme example)

Should this resolution pass, we will command LILITH to disallow any foreign citizen with so much as a passing cough to enter our borders unless we wish to admit them.

Good day.

Eros Tatriel
UN Rep. for Subistratica

You... joined the United Nations so as to oppose policies that you would not be subjected to if you weren't a member?

Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles
What do you expect, the UN is one beast you have to fight from within.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And... *(checks)* ... Douria is a member of the region of Gatesville (http://www.nationstates.net/region=gatesville), whose often-declared unifying principle is opposition of this sort...

NO NO NO.
I agree with the rest of the resolution, but this totally turned me against it.
Our nation should be able to deny foreign citizens entry to our country at any time for any reason that our nation sees fit. So what if their passport is valid? If the Council of Nevesá wishes to close our borders for a few hours just to have less to deal with, we should be able to! (That, of course, is a very extreme example)Read the whole clause, then come back and tell me what exactly obliges you to give anyone desiring to enter your nation a visa?

This phrase has always made me curious. Isn't that the definition of democracy?

Ah well.

Yes, basically, a true democracy is a tyranny of the majority. That doesn't actually make it any less of a tyranny and is why many RL democratic nations have constitutions and the like to place limits on government authority--to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

Of course, the UN does have such laws, such as the ideological ban, so anything else is perfectly legal and within the scope of this tyranny.

And... *(checks)* ... Douria is a member of the region of Gatesville (http://www.nationstates.net/region=gatesville), whose often-declared unifying principle is opposition of this sort...

Ah. That explains a lot.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles



This phrase has always made me curious. Isn't that the definition of democracy?


OOC: Not exactly. A tyranny by majority would be a democracy lacking constitutional checks and balances, destined mainly to limit damage caused by the stupidity and/or selfishness of the masses (or, conversely, the ambitious few).

And... *(checks)* ... Douria is a member of the region of Gatesville (http://www.nationstates.net/region=gatesville), whose often-declared unifying principle is opposition of this sort...

Yes indeed! Three cheers for Gatesville! A thousand members, hundreds in the UN and what, two, three of us who post here in the forum? Still compared with the number who post in the UN resolution forum of our regional message board that's a lot!

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x86/Xaanai-Boago/cheersforAsh.gif

On second thought ... :eek:

Gatesville are hilarious, their silliness and paranoia a source of much merriment for us.


If the U.N. should continue on its merry way every nation would eventually become the same communist socialist state. That is why Gatesville was created and we have drawn the line in the sand and stated were [sic] not going to take it anymore. Through intelligence gathering and diligent work we’ve found nefarious forces out there trying to implement this communist agenda through the U.N. [...] Death to the U.N. we [sic] will rip out their hearts and steal their souls. (link (http://z4.invisionfree.com/antiUN/index.php?showtopic=111))

Where would the UN be without its delegation of resident clowns?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

My goodness me!

Recent victories that the pro sovereignty movement in Nation States have achieved.

Repealed "Common Sense Act II" 10/16/2007
I am truly mystified to see that my repeal is classified as a victory for the pro-sovereignty movement. Have the national governments of Dashanzi and Rubina signed up to a movement without informing their humble foreign minsters? Heavens forfend!

Benedictions,

Gatesville are hilarious, their silliness and paranoia a source of much merriment for us.



Where would the UN be without its delegation of resident clowns?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

My goodness me!


I am truly mystified to see that my repeal is classified as a victory for the pro-sovereignty movement. Have the national governments of Dashanzi and Rubina signed up to a movement without informing their humble foreign minsters? Heavens forfend!

Benedictions,
You know, some of mine are included in that list as well. And yet, I don't recall being a member of Gatesville when I submitted them, or receiving any assistance from Gatesville when I wrote them or campaigned for them or debated them. Hmmm...

I think I'll set up a forum somewhere and make a big list of other people's resolutions entitled Victories For Yelda.

I think that those who wish to ridicule others and/or label a group based on philosophy merely provide evidence for previous statements about tyranny by majority, etc.. Too often members of this international body marginalize dissenting opinion by going to the old standby; 'if you don't like it, why don't you just leave....' (aka 'why are you a member if you don't want us to reduce your rights...').
Kudos to those with comments addressing the arguments presented and not mudslinging!

Frege Gott, RenCoL
(recently ordered to relinquish Renastere's UN post in an attempt escape the 'tyranny' of this body)

I think, don't quote me as I've been a member for 5 days or so, but I think that gatesville claims those as victories because the items themselves help the pro-sovereignty movement.

Beyond that, I joined them because they had a similar ideology, which I found, ironically while campaigning against this resolution.

Nah. That's against the rules.

This phrase has always made me curious. Isn't that the definition of democracy?

Ah well.

:rolleyes:
I think you missed Douria's point entirely.

Democracy in its technical definition is rule of the many for the benefit of the many, which would be a tyranny of the majority. This is not an ideal form of government. This UN is not trying to be a "democracy" as the technical definition but rather a polity. A polity is defined as the rule of the many for the benefit of all.

Douria is completely correct when he states that when sophistry rules the UN, it becomes a very serious matter and risks turning into a tyranny which is very bad. Sophistry is encouraged when the audience does not really listen to what is being said. Just look at the forum posts for the "Max Barry Day" and notice how many people asked why it was such an issue, this is the perfect example of an audience not paying any attention to what is going on. "Max Barry Day" is an obvious breach of the intent of the UN. Douria is only proposing that the current "passport standardization act" may be on the slippery slope of going against the intent of the UN.... but in a much more subtle way. No one has disputed Douria on this level of analysis, and I for one will not either, but that is because he seems rather astute and I suspect the UN would be a much better place if more were astute at that level.

It has already been mentioned that this act is futile because any who have multilateral agreements with other nations do not need the passport and that a visa is still required to enter a nation.... so the entire act is an exercise in futility and does not do anything except lead towards a field that Douria already mentioned. I can only state that my nation will not follow the rules of this proposal if it ever passes. :D

Too often members of this international body marginalize dissenting opinion by going to the old standby; 'if you don't like it, why don't you just leave....'

Frege Gott, RenCoL
(recently ordered to relinquish Renastere's UN post in an attempt escape the 'tyranny' of this body)Well, if it's such bad advice, why the hell did you take it?!

I can only state that my nation will not follow the rules of this proposal if it ever passes. :D

OOC: Yes, you will. Compliance is mandatory. Please let's not waste our time with that futile nonsense again. If you want to be in defiance of the resolution, find a creative and credible way of respecting the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Simpy claiming that you're going to go against the game rule of mandatory compliance will only lead to people ignoring you.

I won't comply either, as I've stated, anyone entering my country will be placed under medical quarantine until they revoke their rights under this resolution. If they insist on their rights under this resolution, something must be wrong with them.

When I first saw this resolution, it caused some concern over the protection of my borders. Now that I have spoken with a few delegates I see that there is no cause for alarm. The only issue now is the passport regulation. Since no resolution may be ammended, this may end up causing more trouble than it's worth. I will still abstain, but I will finalize my vote soon.

I've also noticed that quite a few delegates are not looking at previous arguments. Something must be done, let me see what I can do.

I won't comply either, as I've stated, anyone entering my country will be placed under medical quarantine until they revoke their rights under this resolution. If they insist on their rights under this resolution, something must be wrong with them.The point about visas has been repeatedly made, but has been either been ignored, disregarded, or completely misunderstood by your delegation. You keep saying you will bully visitors to your land into revoking their rights under this proposal, but I ask you, how could anyone even get into your nation without breaking in, when clearly the lights are on, but no one's home?

~Cdr. Chiang

I do ignore that point, because it holds no validity. I do not issue visas. I don't issue passports at all. Until this resolution came to vote I was pushing through a piece of legislation to finally end all immigration barriers. As long as you agree to a certain set of prerequisites, you're in. If this passes, to do so would put an extremely high burden on my nation to keep up existing framework. I wanted to abolish immigration barriers, not extend them.

Let me explain my immigration policy in this way, if I can.

I insert tracking chips at birth in every person born in Douria. I do the same for all immigrants or visitors. The process is painless, from what I understand. The computer system I have in place monitors everyone in Douria(including their ages and immigration dates). They are easily removed, but it's impossible to buy, sell, or even travel the roads without one.

Military Service is mandatory in Douria. After 5 years of age or 5 years after taking up residence here(regardless of citizenship), you are drafted. By virtue of service, you are a citizen. Once you enter Douria you are subject to it's laws immediately, and there are no protections based on previously held citizenship. You are free to leave within the first 5 years. 5 years later, you belong to the military.

This resolution sets up a framework which previously didn't exist in Douria, I can easily convert my border guards to handle the "passport problem", but I refuse to CREATE a visa system to deal with it's shortfalls. Instead medical quarantine will be instated for all immigrants or visitors who insist on their rights under this resolution.

The reason why we as the UN need this is simple. If people are simply walking across borders without passports, how can you tell who is coming and going. The border guards may just think the person is interested in seeing the nation, when in reality they want to destroy it. Obviously passports can not stop acts of terrorism and sabotage, but they can go a long way in tracking
who comes and goes. Passports today have microchips that contain all te information of the person carrying it, including name, where it was issued and when it was issued. The safety of the nation shoud be most important, not ease of travel.

The Crimson and Gold Empire
Casey Jones, Emperor

Wolfgang yawns. "So, my question is, why would anyone VISIT Douria? It sounds like a perfectly lousy place. Anyone wants to visit there, let them take their chances.

"However, if you'd like to visit somewhere nice, if a tad frozen, you could get into the Great Commonwealth quite easy."

*snip*If you don't even issue visas, then your entire objection to that clause becomes moot, doesn't it? ... Think about it a moment; I'm sure eventually you'll figure it out.

~Cdr. Chiang

If you don't even issue visas, then your entire objection to that clause becomes moot, doesn't it? ... Think about it a moment; I'm sure eventually you'll figure it out.

~Cdr. Chiang

Citizens aren't allowed to leave, but I still allow immigration. You may have to enlighten me as to why my problem with these passports is moot if I don't issue visas. I don't see why I should be forced to deal with another nation's passports(or an entirely new system) if I don't want to.

It's bad law. Please change your vote to NO if you've voted YES ... quick!

It's a melange of "rights" legislation as window-dressing for incompetent rules on passport document production.

Demanding that member nations PUBLISH their 'trade secrets' ... the details of their anti-forgery and anti-counterfeiting measures, and methods for detecting same ... well, how stupid is THAT? Every bribe-worthy immigration inspector in the world would have access, and every crooked cop ... no way!

Here's an alternative I'd vote for:

An Acceptable Passport Cooperation Act

Category: Economic Cooperation
Strength: Mild

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING that speed and high accuracy in authentication of passport, visa and other travel documents is a concern to many member nations,

FURTHER NOTING that there is no way to guarantee the authenticity of a passport which is not produced using sophisticated counterfeit detection and anti-forgery measures,

BUT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING that nations which do employ sophisticated counterfeit detection and anti-forgery measures in producing their passports and visas have an inherent security interest in not disclosing their methods,

1. DEFINES an "International Travel Document" as any document, including passports, visas, letters of passage, letters of introduction, letters of marque, governmental or private letters of credit, common carrier passenger ticket, or any other document which serves to identify or authorize or secure the rights of persons in international travel, trade or commerce.

2. DEFINES an "UN Registered International Travel Document" as any International Travel Document or class of documents which is issued by a UN member nation or by a private institution chartered to do so by a UN member nation which has been registered with the UN International Travel Document Registry.

3. ESTABLISHES the UN International Travel Document Registry (UNITDR)

4. MANDATES that member nations only employ the official stamp "Registered UNITDR" to appear on such documents which have been registered in accordance with the UNITDR policies, and where controlled processes for registered document production are consistent and capable.

5. AUTHORIZES the UNITDR to establish the minimum requirements for International Travel Documents to qualify for UN registration based on the nature of the document and its use in international travel, trade and commerce, and to maintain a database of recommended "best practices" concerning issuance, duration, materials security, and anti-forgery anti-counterfeiting measures and forgery and counterfeit detection techniques available to all member nations; the minimum requirements will be those substantive and procedural factors that are the least restrictive to secure the benefits of registration.

6. REQUIRES member nations to publish and maintain current an official statement of procedure that specifies how any concerned party may submit a UN Registered International Travel Document for authentication.

7. ALSO REQUIRES member nations to publish and maintain current contact information and an official statement of procedure that specifies how a qualified law enforcement official (including but not limited to: immigration officials, customs and excise officers, security personnel, and constables) from another country may request assistance or consultation in examining a particular instance of a nation's UN Registered International Travel Document to detect forgery.

8. CALLS UPON member nations to employ, to the fullest extent practicable, UNITDR registration for all International Travel Documents they issue, to require registered documents where appropriate, and to share best practices with the UNITDR.

9. REQUIRES that member nations give suitable prima facie credit to the possession of a UN Registered International Travel Document pending authentication of the particular document instance, and that member nations not unreasonably impede access to the rights secured by or attested by a UN Registered International Travel Document, including, without limit: Consular services, official visitation and advice while the document holder is detained, legal assistance, traveler's aid, banking or insurance services, or communicative assistance.

Well, if you want people to change their votes, here is not the place to do it. Maybe 1% of all UN voters ever see this forum. And you're certainly not going to get people to vote no by forcing them to read some wordy, miscategorized (Economic Cooperation? what is that?!) proposal of mysterious origin.

*Zarquon rose from his chair with great labor, and slowly made his way to the podium. This time he left his aides behind. He lowered his hood.*

My fellow Ambassadors, I have pondered this motion for several days now. I am for the purpose in which this resolution was created. I am for the crimes that it will help prevent. But, I believe it is worded to vaguely, as it has been the cause of much confusion on matters of national security. I feel the primary reason for this is Section 9. It should include, "RECOGNIZES a nation's right to deny a national's Visa in accordence with that nation's migration laws."

Since I would be conflicted with my own judgement regardless of which way I vote. I am chosing to abstain. However, should the resolution pass I shall be in full compliance with it without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

My congratulations to the drafters for what appears will be a successful measure.

*He pulls his hood back over his head and lurches slowly to his chair. Zarquon has never been one to take his inability to make a decisive vote lightly.*

Citizens aren't allowed to leave, but I still allow immigration. You may have to enlighten me as to why my problem with these passports is moot if I don't issue visas. I don't see why I should be forced to deal with another nation's passports(or an entirely new system) if I don't want to.


9. AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine...

We would suggest reading what is written, but since other people have been suggesting that for the last several days and the honoured despot still hasn't done so, we will spell it out.

If you do not issue visas, no national of any state can carry both a valid passport and a valid visa. Clause 9 requires an individual to carry both pieces of documentation before their right of entry can be invoked. Therefore, no individual will be able to invoke a right of entry into your nation.

Of course, one has to wonder why anyone would ever wish to visit a nation which is not only so unremittingly hostile but also incapable of decyphering simple logical syllogisms.

Citizens aren't allowed to leave, but I still allow immigration.

(Major General Stanley may be old but occasionally a neuron fires and a lightbulb shines brightly above his mind.) My dear sir, if your citizens aren't allowed to leave, how are you here on the floor of the General Assembly? Guards? I believe we have an illegal emigrant on the floor; he must be returned to his nation of origin immediately!

Well, there are three classifications of people in Douria, Citizens(who've been here for longer than 5 years), visitors(who've been here for less than 5 years), and me.

I make the law, I am not subject to it. That's why I represent my nation instead of some ambassador.


Anyhow, congratulations on a successful resolution. It was actually pretty well written in it's final form, and hard to find real fault with(save my inherent sovereign rights).

I will however defy the spirit of this resolution along with all other nations that have chosen to do so. Stand up for Sovereignty!

Edit: I also have no idea why anyone would visit Douria, to note. I control everything, military service is mandatory for everyone, I put freaking tracking chips in everyone, and to be honest it only has a few spots where tourists would want to go. It's even got a history of genocide(which I have done my best to acknowledge and prevent in the future). But hey, I love my people, and they'd better love me.

Well, there are three classifications of people in Douria, Citizens(who've been here for longer than 5 years), visitors(who've been here for less than 5 years), and me.

I make the law, I am not subject to it. That's why I represent my nation instead of some ambassador.


Anyhow, congratulations on a successful resolution. It was actually pretty well written in it's final form, and hard to find real fault with(save my inherent sovereign rights).

I will however defy the spirit of this resolution along with all other nations that have chosen to do so. Stand up for Sovereignty!

I shall have a Blatter Beast beheaded and send it to you as a trophy in recognition of your accomplishments for Sovereignty. *he then mumbles, "I hope it may find it's way into your bed whilst you are sleeping.*

OOC: Yes, you will. Compliance is mandatory. Please let's not waste our time with that futile nonsense again. If you want to be in defiance of the resolution, find a creative and credible way of respecting the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Simpy claiming that you're going to go against the game rule of mandatory compliance will only lead to people ignoring you.

:D
Compliance is mandatory? Hahahahahahaha and on and on. Do you not even know your own rules and limitations? I see a lot of people jumping on Douria's text seeing any little thing that can be held on to and criticized without even reading the MESSAGE of his text. One actually snipped his quote? hilarious, the very people who complain about others not reading the "Max Barry Day" illegitimacy rules and wonder about their level of maturity are doing the very same thing. You aren't understanding Douria because you are not listening to him, you immediately assume his message and criticize the shadow of his message.... Then you prove my point by claiming that I must comply with some UN law. What we have here is grade school children complaining about kindergarten behavior in a legal establishment and then when an adult comes in to propose a problem with a potential trend in this legal establishment, you respond to him as grade school children.

To Douria, it seems that the clause within the UN law where it says that you can prohibit entry based upon medical reasons or national security or in need of a visa is not even being respected by those who voted in the law in the first place. If you quarantine some visitor to your country, then somehow you are not following the UN law. Hilarious!!! You follow the law to the letter and demonstrate the foolishness of its claim and you are being chastised, my country is laughing at this law and is stating a fact that compliance to this farce is not obligatory for my country and I am being chastised as well...

To the others: Now how, pray tell, will you force compliance upon my nation? The UN is not known to have any military presence.... will you make a proposal to force compliance? You should learn to listen and understand the text instead of hearing others and reading the text. By doing so, you can have intelligent reasons to disagree and go further with UN proposals. :p

:)
Well until I have managed to get multilateral agreements with everyone where passports won't be necessary, I will have to provide visas, which somehow defeats the purpose of this law? Nonetheless my bureaucrats are now visiting each UN nation to implement some sort of multilateral agreement, I would like some open border policy to allow people to come in like I had before this law, but now I must be a bit more closed-border about it.... at least until we all have an appropriate multilateral agreement!!! ;)

:fluffle:
We like the idea of an established ID card to help identify travelers!!! We also like the idea of inserting a chip/DNA marker connected to an ultra-violet and visible tattoo, either on the forehead or on the back of the hand!!! After all, passports may still be stolen, but this way we can avoid even the best forgery attempts!!! Our citizens are currently undergoing such wondrous identification program to help them get jobs and we can insert medical information and we can track them with a satellite like we've done with cellphones!!! We just need to integrate the passport information as well into our chip thing!!! Shall I export the technology to this fine establishment so that the UNCPDC can proceed on using this technology? I hope so!!! We can track our citizens worldwide now instead of just within our own borders!!! :D

You can cut the puppetwanking now; it's obvious all three of you are the same person. (Besides, only UN members need comply with anything.)

--snip--
Hahahahaha to you too. The NSUN doesn't need a military. And even if you have the largest and most effective military in the entire NS multiverse, the NSUN would still have your nation comply. It's hard-wired in the game itself, my friend, whatever you say or do, whether you babble illogical rants on the podium or throw tantrums at the floor of the General Assembly, IT WON'T HAVE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER. If you don't want to implement it in your nation the best thing you should do is get out of the NSUN.

Listen i think it would be great to have this and track our people but I dont want to vote for something that nobodys going to vote for istill vote but im afraid that somebodys going to become my new enemy or something but for security reasons it is kinda cool

im just trying to do what my people think is best imhere on their behalf

You can cut the puppetwanking now; it's obvious all three of you are the same person. (Besides, only UN members need comply with anything.)
Wow, your pupper detector is working well and good! What brand is it?

It's Truthmongers, Douria, and -?

im not an ambassodor im just doing what i think is best im sort of here on my peoples behalf but not really i think that if you are going to track somebody then dont contact them every 2 sec. asking why they talked to this person

I appreciate the support, but as this is a dead issue now, I feel it's best to move on to things for which change can actually be affected. A repeal later maybe, for now there are bigger fish to fry.

Also, if anyone is using puppets to support their arguments here, stop. You demean yourself and you demean this institution. Furthermore you demean the person you are supporting. Just don't.

The smileys at the start and end of each post were kind of a dead giveaway though.

The resolution Passport Standardisation Act was passed 5,997 votes to 3,253, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Bah.

Fortunately, all people in ESAT (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT) carry an Ariddian passport.

In compliance with clause 1 of the Passport Standardisation Act, ESAT no longer issues passports to any Esati aged 15 or under (i.e., who is not yet a citizen). All passports held by Esati aged 15 or under have been confiscated and destroyed. These persons retain their Ariddian passports, of course, since Ariddia is not a member of the United Nations.

I would like to urge all nations to recognise Ariddian passports held by Ariddian nationals who are under 16 years of age, and who are therefore not yet citizens.

Should this prove to be a problem, the Esati and Ariddian governments are considering whether to introduce a new, secondary type of citizenship, which would entitle persons aged 15 and under to be deemed "underage citizens", and would enable them (on a technicality) to carry recognisible passports in full compliance with clause 1 of the Passport Standardisation Act.

In keeping with what I said earlier, my country abstained from voting on this proposal. Despite clause 1 being of significant concern, the bulk of the proposal is positive.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Citizens aren't allowed to leave

*Ahem*
And how, precisely, do you evade the legal requirements of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199) resolution?

In compliance with this resolution, the Kingdom of Einmyria has posted it's passport design and anti-counterfeit measures here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Einmyrian_Passport).

"Great Commonwealth Passport vee two point oh has been uploaded to all our citizens, thanks to Kyle's rapid recoding of the old one."

*Ahem*
And how, precisely, do you evade the legal requirements of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199) resolution?

The Empire of Douria is an enclave inside the Protectorate of Christom, Christom isn't a UN member, but it is governed by me as well. That's one way, but the primary method is more complicated.

As military service is mandatory, anyone leaving the country is committing the crime of desertion. They are required by law to turn themselves in for any crime knowingly committed. I don't think they will, but it creates the requirement of their presence in a court of law. As criminals, they must attend that court hearing. The penalty for desertion is life imprisonment. So they are free to leave, but they can't desert.

You can cut the puppetwanking now; it's obvious all three of you are the same person. (Besides, only UN members need comply with anything.)

:rolleyes:
OOC-->Its called roleplaying, each of my 3 nations view things differently. The current rules encourage roleplaying and only allow one vote per person. I made it pretty obvious with the smileys at the beginning and at the end on each of my post to let people know that it was the same person. Many of you make it sound like I was trying to be devious?!? Over this game? Come on, the game is fun but I'm not going to waste my best intellectual deviousness over a simple game, no matter how much fun it is. So the puppetwanking statement is uncalled for because you are attacking the person not the "role". You want to say that one of the three countries is ridiculous for x, y, or z reason.... then GREAT!!! That's what makes this forum interesting!

To "Brutland and Norden", the three nations that I am using in this forum, which others have deduced because they actually pay a little bit of attention are Churchians (a UN member) who plays by the rules and may sometimes use loopholes as anyone would, Truthmongers (a non-UN member) who is hyper-critical of international organizations because it is super cynical of anything good which is why that nation does not follow the UN dictates... it is not a member at all (and your nation has legitimized Truthmonger's point of some who don't really read the real message but rather jump on anything that seems contradictory) and the last nation I am using in this forum is Lukewarmers who are receptive to anything presented, they are the happy-go-lucky to an extreme. So Churchians are the balanced view of the two extremes portrayed in Lukewarmers and Truthmongers.

To "Douria", since this is a game which encourages roleplaying, each nation is independent of each other and not a puppet (look at my other postings where Truthmongers insult Churchians on specific issues)... debates mean hearing different ideas. I did this in this game for roleplaying. Also, be careful when you say that I am demeaning this institution because your sentence seems to be blurring the lines of "out of character" and "in character", out of character this institution is but a fun game where we debate ideas, rules and whatnot and I am not demeaning the game. In character, the nation of Truthmongers is constantly showing contempt for the UN and waiting for it to slip up so it can point out that the Emperor has no clothes on, the nation of Churchians is an extreme UN supporter and will be the first to attack the foolish Truthmongers, and finally the Lukewarmers would just love to join the UN but they feel unworthy (besides the OOC rules indicate one person, one UN member nation) and the Lukewarmers will comply with all the rules of the UN even if they are not members.

I understand if some hate one or more of my roleplayed nations, attack their positions, their messages, not me as a person. This is what the game is about!!! If you play chess against someone and win or lose you won't be angry at your opponent because you lost a few pawns when the game is over... no you'll play within the confines of the rules and attempt to checkmate the king, not the human being playing across you. Or am I wrong? :confused:

The Empire of Douria is an enclave inside the Protectorate of Christom, Christom isn't a UN member, but it is governed by me as well. That's one way, but the primary method is more complicated.

As military service is mandatory, anyone leaving the country is committing the crime of desertion. They are required by law to turn themselves in for any crime knowingly committed. I don't think they will, but it creates the requirement of their presence in a court of law. As criminals, they must attend that court hearing. The penalty for desertion is life imprisonment. So they are free to leave, but they can't desert.

:)
OOC (again?) The above quote is exactly what I'm talking about for roleplaying, a country within a country!!! That's so funny!!! I wish I had thought of that!!! Oh well, if I get tired of my trio, maybe I'll do something like this. Its too bad Douria thinks that I can't separate myself between my roles and my real self, I find Douria quite hilarious.... perhaps I'll have the Truthmongers criticize Douria on something just to see the great debates we'll produce!!! :D

In compliance with this resolution, the Kingdom of Einmyria has posted it's passport design and anti-counterfeit measures here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Einmyrian_Passport).but now they now wot it loosk like, there goign to COUNERFIT!!!!!1111 Oh noes!! http://209.85.48.9/10503/140/emo/scared011.gif



Also, that wiki page is nifty.

OOC-->Its called roleplaying, each of my 3 nations view things differently.

Using consecutive posts by puppets to buttress your argument is puppetwanking, and it's frowned upon. Heavily.

Roleplaying by yourself is essentially playing with yourself, and we all know where that leads.

Roleplaying by yourself is essentially playing with yourself, and we all know where that leads.
To the psychiatric ward?

Worse, Belgium...

Using consecutive posts by puppets to buttress your argument is puppetwanking, and it's frowned upon. Heavily.

Roleplaying by yourself is essentially playing with yourself, and we all know where that leads.

:cool:
OOC-->I just wish the moderator would read what was actually written instead of assuming. Second, this forum is a game in which we roleplay at least one nation, this is not a forum on some real political issue although we can explore some real issues.

So your definition in the first paragraph is a repeat of an unfounded position in which my explanation made quite clear that I was not "puppetwanking". And may I point out that in theater, movies, and stand-up comedy, many do play more than one role in the context of their play. So why would a moderator, insult a player when this player is following all the rules?

Shame on you, you are a moderator for a game representing the UN, an institution that respects different points of views.... when a player shows up that actually has a different perspective and plays different roles (which are not against the rules), you knock down his perspective by attacking the person. Do this, and you risk having many people playing in this forum with similar mindsets who congratulate themselves at their supposed intelligence when things go their way.... sort of like clones or a hive-mind... any dissent is silenced with ridicule. When this happens you may as well say that you are all playing with yourselves at this stage.... At least I can tell when I engage in a fantasy world, will you be able to if the time comes? (of course reading some of the posts up to now shows that the symptoms are already there)... Will I discover that the maturity level of this game is not as high as I had hoped? If not, then best of luck with you all!!! :cool:

Roleplaying by yourself is essentially playing with yourself, and we all know where that leads.Blindness?

Worse, Belgium...

Cob! Watch your mouth! How dare you use that word in public!
God I hope someone gets that reference.

Also, that wiki page is nifty.Very nifty. Color me impressed. Not just for how good it is, or the fact that someone actually did it, but also for the amount of work put into it.



So why would a moderator, insult a player when this player is following all the rules?Probably because said player was not following the rules.

Probably because said player was not following the rules.

:headbang:
OOC--> Oh and which rule was not followed by said player? This is a quote form the FAQ for nationstates game: "Is it a serious political thing, or just for fun?

Well, you can play it either way. NationStates does have humorous bent, but that's just because international politics is so inherently funny." Also the rules state that you can have as many nations as you want but only one nation per player can be voting in the UN.

So far, I'm following the rules as stated. Or are you going to claim that I was "puppetwanking"? The very definition given by "Frisbeeteria" expresses that puppetwanking is when one player uses more than one nation to buttress the same argument. IF YOU READ THE POSTS CORRECTLY, you will see that I have not done that at all, in fact some responders were not even able to identify my other "personas" even when I made no effort to disguise them.

SO BEFORE YOU START STATING THAT SOMEONE IS NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES AND YOU INSINUATE SOMETHING THAT IS NON-FACTUAL, QUOTE THE RULE OR LINK TO IT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE RULE IN QUESTION REALLY IS BEING BROKEN.

You are moderators, show an adult example. You mock the "Max Barry Day" proposal makers and their lack of reading the issues and you end up doing the same thing.... not reading. Read what was actually written by my three nations, they don't argue the same thing at all. Read my explanation to understand my position not to find some quote that you can abuse out of context. I expect better behavior from moderators, not insults or false innuendos. :headbang:

Here we have someone who thinks he knows the rules far better than TWO moderators with a cumulative 8+ years of experience in this forum/game!!!

Read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406616&highlight=puppetwank). It's from 2005, for Christ's sake. Read this (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Wank#Puppet_Wank)also.

And not all rules/guidelines are explicit. Perhaps puppetwanking is one of them. (or is it explicit already?) Now that we've told you so over and over and over, it's up to you to decide to continue that and justify it. The mods prolly won't sanction you for that, but many players would most probably be put off...

Why were you called on puppetwanking? Because you have three nations arguing for the same side, with the slight differences, if there was any, that you are claiming. And because those three nations support each other's arguments, quoting them, bolstering them. And that two of the nations are not even in the UN to boot, hence, why would they care to debate if they are not affected anyway? The answer's pretty obvious.

I ask the mods to lock this thread lest their name be sullied again.

I ask the mods to lock this thread lest their name be sullied again.

We can handle "sullied". Trust me when I say we're used to unjustified accusations from new players who haven't get grasped the longer-term aspects of forum life. I don't see a reason to close the thread.

If Churchians wants to get all in a lather about how "right" he is and how "wrong" we are, it's up to him. It is after all more of an etiquette convention than it is a rule. Perhaps Churchians doesn't realize that willful violation of accepted standards of etiquette carries far more negative weight than simply violating a site rule and getting a mod warning on his nation (which hasn't happened, by the way).

It's up to him how he choses to proceed, but if I were him I'd stick to facts, and not "insults or false innuendos". Those have a tendency to backfire.

:)
OOC-->In a brief way I was asking whomever to prove that I was puppetwanking. After reading the official definition and the quote to stop future wanking I have yet to see how the three nations were supporting the same argument. I am not claiming to know the rules better than moderators and if anyone had ACTUALLY READ MY STATEMENTS it would be self-evident. What I am disputing is the claim of puppetwanking on my part. If the moderator claims that I am stating something by misquoting one of my arguments, then I have the obligation to correct the misquote irrelevant if he is the pope himself.

"Brutland and Norden" believed I was Douria and Truthmongers and could not figure out who else. Douria and Truthmongers seemed to argue on a similar light, yet they were not quite on the same page.... (and those two were the most closely linked argument presented in a similar vein). Douria and Truthmongers are not run by the same human player. So if "Brutland and Norden" can only distinguish those two as puppets of each other then the charges of puppetwanking coming from him is a false accusation. If a moderator supports "Brutland and Norden's" claim without further evidence then I defend my position.

Anyone who receives a false accusation will defend his position. This I have done so. A moderator or two have accused me or support the accusation that I have puppetwanked, the current definition is that when a player uses the forum to have multiple personas promote one argument then it is considered puppetwanking. I admit freely that I had 3 personas who argued in this forum on an issue. I deny the claim that they argued the same position, in fact two of them were at odds with each other on the issue. IF ANYONE READS THE ACTUAL POSTS it will be self-evident. My disappointment is based upon the fact that no one is actually providing proof of my supposed "puppetwanking" because there is none and the moderators are acting as if an accusation is considered true without the need to provide evidence.

Even the latest words from the moderator about this subject proves my point when he is claiming that I am willfully violating the etiquette of the forum, if that were true I would not have posted 4 or 5 posts wondering why someone would accuse me of this when reading my posts shows clearly that I was not puppetwanking. If I was guilty of willfully violating that specific etiquette, I would proceed with the violation. Questioning a moderator's judgment based upon a false accusation is not arrogance, it is humility because arrogance would have me ignore the moderator's statement and proceed at my own pace.... right or wrong. I am trying to resolve this because I see that this situation is only based upon not reading my post fully and misquoting (quoting out of context). I am asking the moderator to look at the facts and I'm being told the definition of puppetwanking as if it was proven true in my case.

In the movie, Coming to America, Eddie Murphy plays several roles at once, and at one point all of them are in the same barber shop. Each role is distinct and none of them promote any one view and there is a dialog between them which has a humorous twist, that was what I was attempting.... now if there is something wrong with that.... PLEASE TELL ME and I will be happy to stop that behavior but it can not be considered puppetwanking because that defines another behavior. And as I have not seen any rules against what I actually did do I will continue to proclaim innocence and defend myself even against moderators. And if the moderators have 8+ years of experience in knowing the rules, why can't they show me, an admitted new player, the actual rule or etiquette breach (if it exists) that I am violating instead of falsely accusing me on an action that I did not do? From the actual wank definition page (in the disclaimer section): "Sometimes, an accusation of wank is simply a lack of knowledge on the part of the player complaining. Think before you accuse or condemn.":(

Methinks he doth protest too much.

:):p
and yet, justice is still not served. I have proven my point and the response has been to ridicule me instead of providing evidence to support their position. Is the tactic now to ignore me and hope that the hypocrisy I uncovered remain buried? I provided my evidence in a situation where I was considered guilty without a chance to express my innocence and doing so only gave me more ridicule.... yet whenever I demanded evidence of their charge, only silence and a pretense of having the higher moral ground by letting the "fool" speak on.

to the person mocking my position, you would do what if you were accused of something that you knew you were innocent of? accept the lie? I doubt that very much. What actually happened, what was assumed and falsely accused, what was explained in one's defense and the resulting silence and/or ridicule is all on record. Never did I get any explanation, nor apology. In a forum based upon discussing ideas and accepting differing points of views.... well being ridiculed and ignored is a sure way to promote that isn't it? Moderators themselves encouraged blurring the line between the roleplaying persona (In character) and (Out of Character). Its all on record for anyone who bothers to look. The game was advertised as something and I got burnt on it, shame on me for trying to play with adults who turned out to be youngsters who "show" me up by not going down to my level. Sad really... :(

I guess now I'll just play audience and watch others participate and get my enjoyment as a spectator, if I participate, it will now have to be as a different persona. It will be ironic indeed when my false accusers become my best friends in the forum because they don't recognize me and eventually guffaw at the foolish "churchians" and the ridiculous tirade they witnessed as I just nod and smile knowing that no one has grown up yet.

So to the moderators, since you are convinced that I'm being stupid and won't bother wasting any more attention upon me. You can declare victory in having silenced another fool who dared question your wisdom... irrelevant if the fool had a point, he's temporarily gone.... just don't mention that you are a nation-state moderator when being interviewed by an employer, you may discover who I really am and boy would that be embarrassing for you.... especially if I hire you and you discover that I am not seen as an idiot by my peers!!! (but hey as a famous Babylon5 character once said: "If you're gonna have delusions, ya may as well make them interesting!!!) :D:cool:

Is the tactic now to ignore me and hope that the hypocrisy I uncovered remain buried?Does your ego know any bounds? I had more important things to do than respond to your ramblings.

What actually happened, what was assumed and falsely accusedHardly. The three nations in question all posted from exactly the same IP addresses.

Never did I get any explanation, nor apology.Your failure to understand Fris' responces are not a failing on his part.

Moderators themselves encouraged blurring the line between the roleplaying persona (In character) and (Out of Character).Your failure to understand the difference between posting in character (which have "signed" posts) and out of character (which don't) is not likewise not a shortcoming on our part.

I just nod and smile knowing that no one has grown up yet.Please find a new angle. Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a kid is a tired tactic.

So to the moderators, since you are convinced that I'm being stupid and won't bother wasting any more attention upon me.Neither of us claimed you were stupid. We said you were puppetwanking. Which you were.

just don't mention that you are a nation-state moderator when being interviewed by an employerWhy on earth would I do this anyway?

:)

Good. Are we done here?

God I hope someone gets that reference.

Second series of the HHGTTG radio shew; it's supposed to be be one of the rudest words in the Galaxy, along with Joojooflop

Originally Posted by Einmyria
In compliance with this resolution, the Kingdom of Einmyria has posted it's passport design and anti-counterfeit measures here.

That is indeed an excellent page. I'm impressed

"Brutland and Norden" believed I was Douria and Truthmongers and could not figure out who else. Douria and Truthmongers seemed to argue on a similar light, yet they were not quite on the same page.... (and those two were the most closely linked argument presented in a similar vein). Douria and Truthmongers are not run by the same human player. So if "Brutland and Norden" can only distinguish those two as puppets of each other then the charges of puppetwanking coming from him is a false accusation. If a moderator supports "Brutland and Norden's" claim without further evidence then I defend my position.
The mods have their way, you know. Hack confirmed it:
The three nations in question all posted from exactly the same IP addresses.
You yourself admitted it:
...plays several roles at once, and at one point all of them are in the same barber shop. Each role is distinct and none of them promote any one view and there is a dialog between them which has a humorous twist, that was what I was attempting....
Do I even need to prove anything?

And so, I kinda get your point. You were trying to portray three different nations, all on the same side of the issue albeit with a slightly different point of view, or so you claim. If you were trying to be humorous, then so fine, I am a very thick person. But this doesn't hold because:
1.) What does two nonmember nations (made by the same player) have to care about an issue they aren't going to be affected anyway?
2.) Why does Truthmongers have to point out that Douria's point had been missed? Why doesn't Douria himself defend his point, if it is being misunderstood?
3.) And lastly, why were you arguing about compliance? Read about compliance here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280703&postcount=5). Some of the players were nice enough to give you ideas on how to "circumvent" these resolutions (they will be implemented in your nation, that's how the game was coded, and so some folks will tinker with other things in their nation so that the resolution becomes inapplicable or weakened), yet you insist that your UN nation doesn't have to comply, as if it is so special and/or UN is just a sign up thing that you opt out when things don't go your way. It doesn't work that way, my friend, and these folks know a lot more about it than new players like you and I do.

We are not trying to convict you of anything. This is not a court of law, much less that puppetwanking is not an offense that can give you a warning or get deleted. This is a game. We are telling you what the rules and conventions are (read: includes unwritten rules of etiquette). We told you that one of your actions may be deemed objectionable by the community, hence we called you on it, explained it to you about what it is. It's a good thing we are actually telling it to you right now so that you can change it, rather than later when the community would turn against you for those objectionable actions.

Now if you refuse to listen, I ain't explainin' any longer.

The mods have their way, you know. Hack confirmed it:

You yourself admitted it:

Do I even need to prove anything?

And so, I kinda get your point. You were trying to portray three different nations, all on the same side of the issue albeit with a slightly different point of view, or so you claim. If you were trying to be humorous, then so fine, I am a very thick person. But this doesn't hold because:
1.) What does two nonmember nations (made by the same player) have to care about an issue they aren't going to be affected anyway?
2.) Why does Truthmongers have to point out that Douria's point had been missed? Why doesn't Douria himself defend his point, if it is being misunderstood?
3.) And lastly, why were you arguing about compliance? Read about compliance here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280703&postcount=5). Some of the players were nice enough to give you ideas on how to "circumvent" these resolutions (they will be implemented in your nation, that's how the game was coded, and so some folks will tinker with other things in their nation so that the resolution becomes inapplicable or weakened), yet you insist that your UN nation doesn't have to comply, as if it is so special and/or UN is just a sign up thing that you opt out when things don't go your way. It doesn't work that way, my friend, and these folks know a lot more about it than new players like you and I do.

We are not trying to convict you of anything. This is not a court of law, much less that puppetwanking is not an offense that can give you a warning or get deleted. This is a game. We are telling you what the rules and conventions are (read: includes unwritten rules of etiquette). We told you that one of your actions may be deemed objectionable by the community, hence we called you on it, explained it to you about what it is. It's a good thing we are actually telling it to you right now so that you can change it, rather than later when the community would turn against you for those objectionable actions.

Now if you refuse to listen, I ain't explainin' any longer.

:)
I am finally being understood and an expression of disagreement of my action is being clearly stated.

As I understood puppetwanking from the rules and etiquette, it indicated using different personas to promote one viewpoint. I believe I had presented 1 view that was totally against the resolution, 1 view that had some reservations but would comply, just needed clarification on 2 clauses and the 3rd view was total enthusiasm to comply with the resolution (but in a hyper-unrealistic way). Hence 3 different views, I never disputed that the 3 nations were the same player, what I found unfortunate was the assumption that 1 of the 3 nations and a completely other-person-controlled nation was attributed to me when the puppetwanking comment was stated. I had one of my nations support Douria's position. If Douria and I were the same person then I would be guilty of puppetwanking as defined by the forum etiquette.

Now if puppetwanking is defined as presenting any view one right after the other by the same player, then that action has been done by me. Wherever I looked, I did not find that particular definition.... it did not help when the moderators just ignored what I was trying to say and refused to explain the "new" definition of puppetwanking (if that is the newly accepted definition).... in fact the webpage describing puppetwanking also has a disclaimer at the bottom stating that sometimes the appearance of wanking is not accurate.

Yes, you are correct and I never denied that a UN nation must comply with the rules.... it is stated quite clearly.... The reference you are making is based upon one of my personas (the Truthmongers) who is not a UN member.... The Truthmongers is quite a defiant little runt and quite anti-UN... so he mocks the UN when they make mistakes.... My second persona (the Churchians) are UN supporters and they want the system of the UN to work....

Reasoning of these two personas? Well any issue has two major sides for points of views and sometimes both sides have a point, my attempt is to try to provide a balanced approach.... (if it doesn't work out I guess I risk the puppetwank comment.... of course under the assumption that if my view is explained then others can withdraw the puppetwank comment or further explain my presentation flaw with the personas and how they are but the same argument and in that case, refine my arguments next time around to avoid puppetwanking).... The third persona (the Lukewarmers) is to put a little bit of light-heartedness in the argument (they are very eager to please)...

It has been my understanding from the FAQ page and other newbie page that roleplaying was allowed and having multiple nations was also allowed just as long as only one nation per player is an actual UN member.... It has also been my understanding based upon the currently provided definition that puppetwanking was when a player intentionally used more than one nation to artificially argue one and only one point of view to give the impression of a majority view. I don't mind at all if the definition is different than what is stated on the website, just clarify it.... I'll comply with joy.... That hadn't happened.... I kept pleading for people to read the actual posts and compare it to the rules and then show me the flaw.... the best I got was the moderator who said I was not in compliance because of 3 posts from the same ISP (?!?) That may be wrong, but A) it is not the current definition of puppetwank and B)posting stuff from the same ISP has not been indicated as wrong except if two separate nations are both UN members and on the same ISP... If B is wrong, then just show me and I can be VERY happy to comply, but I will express confusion if I am accused of A when I have not done A....

Does this make sense? Or am I going to be accused of being arrogant again?:confused:

No, you're going to be accused of not reading yourself. "IP address" != "ISP". If you want the full chapter and verse of why people know what you're doing, ask on the technical forums. Or better, read the stickies. Or better yet, go ask Google. It's not rocket science.

As the wise man said, "When in hole, stop digging."

Churchians, I'm coming to this cold after several days of network angst, and reading through the preceding small print small novels, it seems to me you've been answered, and more than answered, so I'm closing the thread.

If anyone has a new subject, please start a new thread.