NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN must be strong. To tell you the truth, the UN is much ridiculed outside its walls. We need to show them how united we are. I propose a General Assembly and a Security Council. Ordinary nations should also have a say on the proposals authored. What can you say, huh?

We already have a 'General Assembly'. You're in it. The UN can't have a 'Security Council', as the UN is forbidden things like any kind of military. And finally, ordinary nations are welcome to come into this forum and discuss proposals and drafts, but otherwise, since they are not affected by UN resolutions in the slightest, they get no say in them (aka, the cannot vote.)

The UN must be strong. To tell you the truth, the UN is much ridiculed outside its walls. We need to show them how united we are. I propose a General Assembly and a Security Council. Ordinary nations should also have a say on the proposals authored. What can you say, huh?

:D
Maybe there is a legitimate reason as to why people ridicule the UN. A stronger UN would only provoke a stronger ridicule. If you really want to avoid the ridicule, look at the underlying problems and not the symptoms. Even the comment on your observation that the UN is being ridiculed is answered: not by denying that such ridicule exists but by informing you that the rules do not allow a Security Council because the author assumes that this means a military force and a military force for the UN is not allowed.

The real problem is there is a lack of real communication in an institution that prides itself as a debating arena. Mature debates and mature disagreements are replaced with sophistry and rhetoric which is fueled by misquoting others and attacking persons rather than the ideas themselves.

Just note how some may actually respond to my comments by providing the link to the rule that the UN can not establish an international military (something I never denied, in fact I know the rule already, what I had mentioned was the assumption that what you mean as a Security Council is equal to the establishment of an international military).... maybe it is what you mean but you had not made that explicit and the one who responded automatically assumed that is what you intended as a meaning. The proper response would be to ask you to define what you think the Security Council should or should not do. Even if an assumption is true, it remains an assumption if it is not investigated. :cool:

The logic of the ambassador of the Churchians is utterly baffling. How can one even know what the underlying causes of ridicule of the UN are without examining the symptoms? That is, after all, what symptoms are; the visible effects of underlying causes. Since as yet no symptoms have been presented to this chamber at all, we cannot but feel that leaping to conclusions as to what must be done is at best premature.

We also note that despite his cries against sophistry and rhetoric, no positive approach is forthcoming either from the ambassador. He may be satisfied to point out at tedious length and obdurate obtuseness the misapprehension of the Karianian ambassador, but we would have prefered to see some support of the initial concept rather than a mere tearing down of others. Indeed, some explication of the initial concept would have been good; what exactly is a Security Council in this context, given the ambassador's assertion that it cannot possibly have anything to do with security?

Absent such data, and mindful of the metagaming violations which apparently are not sufficiently obvious to need no comment, we cannot see that the proposal actually does anything. That, surely, is reason enough not to trouble this assembly with it further.

I was under the impression that the Churchian ambassador and the Sunland Isle ambassador had the same employer. Your employer would do well not to confuse the issue by using both of his ambassadors.

That said, I do not necessarily believe the UN should be stronger. I think we have some serious problems with lack of enforcement. Honestly I think membership in this body should be of the sort that requires small dues. I don't like the concept of a United Nations, which we charge to uphold rights and to restrict them but has no economic funding whatsoever. We are merely passing the costs of enforcement onto our children. Do I think the UN needs it's own military? No. I do however think it should be authorized to deputize certain nations to carry out military actions when it is needed(such as genocide).

My biggest critique of this body is not in it's lack of power, but in it's categorical lack of ability to do any of the things it says it can. That's ok though, because I often don't agree with it.

OOC: And the whole thing is indeed a moot point because you can't strengthen the UN within the game rules. We can argue till we're blue in the face, or until Church/Isles gets tired of talking to himself, but the original point still stands and it ain't going nowhere. Also, I'm fully aware I just went from one side of the argument to another, but I'm too tired to care.

Let's be perfectly honest here. The United Nations, literally, cannot be made stronger. For all nations within the UN, every resolution that is passed is mandatory, is put into effect instantly, and, barring loopholes the size of Mack trucks, cannot be ignored. Nations outside the UN are not affected, at all, by resolutions, and no resolution or rule can be put into place to change this.

As I said, ordinary nations are perfectly welcome to come and debate proposals with us here. But ordinary nations simply cannot vote on proposals, sharply limiting their power to advisory roles only. And again, this cannot be changed. If they wish to vote, they will have to join the United Nations... and adhere to it's rules and resolutions.

I point these out not because my goal is 'tearing others down', but because these things must be made to be perfectly clear. Any proposal trying to change these very basic concepts would be totally illegal.

A 'Security Council', on the other hand, seems to be a meaningless entity. What with it be security over? The UN itself? Any attempt for the UN to guide a military, police, or other such armed force is also illegal. To govern war between the nations? How would it accomplish this? Perhaps to regulate artifacts of war? Most such things are already governed by other resolutions and committees, rendering it useless. Now, if someone has a suggestion as to what a Security Council might do... that falls within the laws governing this body, I'd be willing to alter my stance.

And to the Dourian ambassador, funds are an issue that has been brought up in the past. A proposal to solve that very issue made it to vote, and was defeated. I would support a new, reasonable attempt to create a new source of funding.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

(PS: I'm a Karian. Karianin simply doesn't roll off the tongue.)

I was under the impression that the Churchian ambassador and the Sunland Isle ambassador had the same employer. Your employer would do well not to confuse the issue by using both of his ambassadors.

OOC: And the whole thing is indeed a moot point because you can't strengthen the UN within the game rules. We can argue till we're blue in the face, or until Church/Isles gets tired of talking to himself, but the original point still stands and it ain't going nowhere. Also, I'm fully aware I just went from one side of the argument to another, but I'm too tired to care.

:D
That's ok Douria, the main evidence that I had been arguing the same point in previous posts was that you and I were the same person because I had agreed with your point. I kept denying that you and I were the same player but no one took any notice, so I completely understand if you think that Sunland and I are the same person. But if you care to know the truth, Sunland and Churchians are not played by the same human....

I had hoped to clear my name of false allegations in the past to avoid these false assumptions anytime I agree with someone.... I even used logic to do a step by step case to explain my position.... result? No facts were denied and logic itself was being attacked as illegitimate.

To Gobbannium, the symptoms are evident to anyone who cares to see, which is why the UN is a laughing stock outside its walls. Anyone within its walls are too busy not looking for the actual symptoms. When the Churchians proved that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes, he was ridiculed. If people outside this Empire laugh at the Emperor and you, being a good citizen of that Empire, wonder why no one bothers to explain it properly? Perhaps you should see what happens to people inside the Empire when they point out certain things.... especially if they are true but inconvenient. :p

I agree that the UN is a laughingstock outside its walls. For that matter, I've heard that it's a laughingstock INSIDE its walls! But I don't think it needs strengthening. It already has the power to change the laws of its members against their wishes! Short of military power, which is illegal anyway, that's plenty powerful.

As for non-UN members having a say, they are free to say whatever they want, but since they aren't directly affected by the resolutions, there's no point in giving them a vote. In the few cases where something the UN does indirectly affects them, they can either join the UN themselves or blackmail a UN puppet, er I mean ally, into voting their way.

But if you care to know the truth, Sunland and Churchians are not played by the same human...

H'mm... ;)

The UN must be strong. To tell you the truth, the UN is much ridiculed outside its walls.
As it has been pointed out the UN is much ridiculed inside its walls.

The cause of this problem is crystal clear - the super majority of people here simply don't give a damn. Few representatives even bother to read the resolution before voting. Some delegates will approve any proposal no matter how stupid or illegal that proposal is. We had a blatently illegal proposal slip past the mods recently only to get overwhelming support "Max Barry Day" 66% support. It was then repealed 10 days later with 62% support. Simply put the UN can never be "stong" when we are so chaotic as to not only approve an illegal resolution one day but to then approve a repeal of that same resolution 10 days later.

It is also clear that no changes to game mechanics in the way the UN works will ever be considered now or in the future. Sorry that's life. The UN sucks. This is Nation States ... THE UN IS SUPPOSED TO SUCK. YOUR NAITON IS SUPPOSED TO SUCK AS WELL.

The UN is already far to "strong." We need a better UN deordorant. :p

To Gobbannium, the symptoms are evident to anyone who cares to see, which is why the UN is a laughing stock outside its walls. Anyone within its walls are too busy not looking for the actual symptoms. When the Churchians proved that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes, he was ridiculed. If people outside this Empire laugh at the Emperor and you, being a good citizen of that Empire, wonder why no one bothers to explain it properly? Perhaps you should see what happens to people inside the Empire when they point out certain things.... especially if they are true but inconvenient.
We note that despite a superfluity of verbiage, the honoured ambassador has still not advanced a scrap of evidence for his position, instead refering to supposed proofs that were similarly void of facts. Given this trend, we see no profit in wasting further time with him.

We note that despite a superfluity of verbiage, the honoured ambassador has still not advanced a scrap of evidence for his position, instead refering to supposed proofs that were similarly void of facts. Given this trend, we see no profit in wasting further time with him.

:D
That my dear colleague is completely your choice, after all I only offered you the microscope to see the germs for yourself. Refuse the microscope and call me a quack if that is your choice.... while anyone who wishes to accept the microscope and look for themselves will see the germs, then we can debate how to classify or identify them. And I return the polite statement to you, no scrap of evidence had been provided to disprove my position. Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Your actions will determine which of the two you belong to.

Oh and in the case you hadn't noticed, the position was proposed by Sunland, while I acknowledged his view and indicated that there is nothing he can do through "law-making", because the problem is of lack of communication and a desire to not understand alternate points of views.... in which case as you yourself can see in this very thread, that point has been proven.... So to be blunt, it matters not if you wish to hear my position or not, my reply was for Sunland's benefit.... all you did was to reinforce my position and make it easier for Sunland to find the evidence of which I refer to within his own thread.

As for St Edmundan Antarctic, questioning the veracity of my statement is non-productive. My behavior in this forum with everything that has happened has been beyond reproach. I am told to accept a false allegation with faulty evidence and when I present an acceptance of Sunland's view I am told to present evidence to support someone else's view.... Have you heard of the saying "1 weight and 2 measurements"? And now, because it is so inconceivable for others to believe that the Emperor is naked, whenever anyone presents that view it is automatically assumed that Churchians brainwashed this person (or in the context of this forum that it is played by the same human).... :rolleyes:

:)
I like Blue Booted Bobbies response above and his explanation.... sounds similar to views I had presented in the past... so does that make he and I the same human player? :)

:D
That my dear colleague is completely your choice, after all I only offered you the microscope to see the germs for yourself. Refuse the microscope and call me a quack if that is your choice.... while anyone who wishes to accept the microscope and look for themselves will see the germs, then we can debate how to classify or identify them. And I return the polite statement to you, no scrap of evidence had been provided to disprove my position. Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Your actions will determine which of the two you belong to.

See, now, that's a fallacious position. Your position has no merits or proofs to begin with, so no disproof is necessary.

Oh and in the case you hadn't noticed, the position was proposed by Sunland, while I acknowledged his view and indicated that there is nothing he can do through "law-making", because the problem is of lack of communication and a desire to not understand alternate points of views.... in which case as you yourself can see in this very thread, that point has been proven.... So to be blunt, it matters not if you wish to hear my position or not, my reply was for Sunland's benefit.... all you did was to reinforce my position and make it easier for Sunland to find the evidence of which I refer to within his own thread.

With each debate you take part in, I understand less and less of your positions. Would you please, Mr. Ambassador, try to make a clear and concise point at least once?

As for St Edmundan Antarctic, questioning the veracity of my statement is non-productive. My behavior in this forum with everything that has happened has been beyond reproach. I am told to accept a false allegation with faulty evidence and when I present an acceptance of Sunland's view I am told to present evidence to support someone else's view.... Have you heard of the saying "1 weight and 2 measurements"? And now, because it is so inconceivable for others to believe that the Emperor is naked, whenever anyone presents that view it is automatically assumed that Churchians brainwashed this person (or in the context of this forum that it is played by the same human).... :rolleyes:

Don't flatter yourself. I think it prudent to tell you that you are the only person who really believes what comes out of your mouth.

:)
I like Blue Booted Bobbies response above and his explanation.... sounds similar to views I had presented in the past... so does that make he and I the same human player? :)

No, it just means you both hold the same irrelevant, pointless positions regarding the UN.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

The UN must be strong. To tell you the truth, the UN is much ridiculed outside its walls. We need to show them how united we are. I propose a General Assembly and a Security Council. Ordinary nations should also have a say on the proposals authored. What can you say, huh?

Sir Albert staggers past the honoured member from the fantastically named Sinland Isles, 'ere, ridiculed outside?', he slurs, stopping a moment to lick the beer he spluttered in amazement off the back of his hand, 'tha should start wi'ridicule within t'UN first.....then again, mebbe t'ridicule outside is easier to deal with'. With that, Sir Albert gives the speaker a friendly belch and meanders back to the bar, pausing only to fart in reflection at the doorway.

See, now, that's a fallacious position. Your position has no merits or proofs to begin with, so no disproof is necessary.

With each debate you take part in, I understand less and less of your positions. Would you please, Mr. Ambassador, try to make a clear and concise point at least once?

Don't flatter yourself. I think it prudent to tell you that you are the only person who really believes what comes out of your mouth.

No, it just means you both hold the same irrelevant, pointless positions regarding the UN.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

;)
clear and concise point->I find people in this forum not putting much effort in understanding points of views that are different and that the temptation to jump out and criticize outweighs the desire to debate.

As for the only one who believes what comes out of my mouth, I am pretty certain that would change once someone actually understood what was actually stated instead of assumed.... as for your last point, the moderators also claimed that the Max Barry Day was against the rules and on that particular issue I don't think that their view is irrelevant.

I'm wondering now will I be accused of being one of the moderators as well as Churchians now that I have taken up their defense on one particular issue? After all, the original charge was based upon Douria and one of my 3 admitted nations who agreed with an argument while my other 2 nations had not agreed with each other making it 3 distinct views by one player... and yet the assumption marked me unfairly.... and we still have the same definition on the wiki which should clear me but no one seems to have bothered to read the definition they so wanted me to read and they still use that as the excuse to mark me. All this would change if they just admit that there is a new definition and mark the changes on the wiki so that I can respect the newer definition. Until then, the rules prove my innocence-->3 admitted nations who posted one right after the other with 3 completely different viewpoints and none that benefited from the other as the rules allow based upon roleplaying and the rules on the wiki page itself indicates that false accusations are plausible when the accuser is not understanding the target.... If the rules are supposed to say that multiple posts by the same player is wrong/bad etiquette irrelevant of point of view or roleplaying aspects then I still await that rule to be made explicit.... Even after pleading/begging the moderators themselves to state it explicitly so that I could move on by accepting this new rule, I got no result other than circular reasoning on their part that I had been wrong based upon the existing rules which they only showed rules that made me innocent. All these actions are documented and any who bother to actually read what actually happened instead of skimming will see what I mean....

Skim the stuff and I remain the "funny fool in the corner that no one should bother with".... Read and understand what I am actually saying and we may find that we have more in common with each other.... until then, I remain alone and can not propose any new legislation nor support any without putting a potential taint of suspicion that the nation I support is also controlled by the Churchians. :(

;)
clear and concise point->I find people in this forum not putting much effort in understanding points of views that are different and that the temptation to jump out and criticize outweighs the desire to debate.

And I find that the tenor of the debates in this hall are quite reasonable and sophisticated, especially when the honorable delegates of Gobbanium and Altanar have the floor. It's when those delegates that make sweeping generalizations and ridiculous assertions without answering any criticisms arrive that we see a devolution in debate.

As for the only one who believes what comes out of my mouth, I am pretty certain that would change once someone actually understood what was actually stated instead of assumed.... as for your last point, the moderators also claimed that the Max Barry Day was against the rules and on that particular issue I don't think that their view is irrelevant.

Well, then.

1. Max Barry Day was agains the rules. Our gracious parliamentarians have admitted a lapse in vigilance. Not surprising, since they aren't paid and have to deal with the lot of us each day.

2. No one will accept your positions unless you state them in clear, concise terms, with proper puncuation and line breaks, and stop making sweeping references to conspiracies and bias.

*snipped for sanity and length*

As soon as I heard the words "accused of being one of the moderators as well as Churchians" I turned off my translator. Why? Because your ham-handed insistence on reminding this assembly that a delegate made a mistake and conflated your hyperinflated rhetoric with another poster is completely irrelevant to any debate, and my own comments, considering I have never accused you of being the Dourian ambassador or anyone else, nor do I care.

I hope you have a sense for irony.

Skim the stuff and I remain the "funny fool in the corner that no one should bother with".... Read and understand what I am actually saying and we may find that we have more in common with each other.... until then, I remain alone and can not propose any new legislation nor support any without putting a potential taint of suspicion that the nation I support is also controlled by the Churchians. :(

I understand completely what you are saying. I just realize that it is a pointless waste, and that you refuse to listen to what the other members of this assembly are telling you. And when I tell you it's a pity you can't propose any legislation, I am of course being completely serious.

Yes, completely serious.

The UN is quite strong enough, to return to the seemingly forgotten topic of this discussion. All resolutions are mandatory to follow, and the rules on which our organization provide the best framework for the application of international law. We see no reason to strengthen or weaken it.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

:confused:
Well I really am not Sunland, I was only pointing something out to him/her and some insinuated that Sunland and I were the same player and one acted completely taken aback that anyone could even consider Sunland or my own viewpoint as credible.... so I flew off the handle considering the very recent events that I went through....

just find it sad that no matter who the Churchians support in the future, the stain of puppetwank will remain...

and I still don't think I deserved it the first time because the 3 nations I used hated each other and had opposing views (it was my way to show both sides of an issue) :confused:

Well I really am not Sunland, I was only pointing something out to him/her and some insinuated that Sunland and I were the same player and one acted completely taken aback that anyone could even consider Sunland or my own viewpoint as credible.... so I flew off the handle considering the very recent events that I went through....
We will ignore the utter misrepresentation of the second part of this statement, since its lack of veracity is easily determined by a trivial perusal of the records of this debate, and observe that the honoured Tyrant of Douria did indeed suggest that the Sunland Isles and the Churchians shared the same master. We had cause to comment to him privately that we thought this unlikely, not least because the ambassador for the Sunland Isles showed marginally greater literacy. Sadly the fact that the good ambassador appears to be a "drive-by poster" lends more credance to Emperor Dreizehn's assessment than our own.

just find it sad that no matter who the Churchians support in the future, the stain of puppetwank will remain...
People do indeed tend to remember obvious idiocy. We fear that not even the miraculous powers of soda water can remove that stain, or the skepticism that automatically springs to mind whenever the honoured ambassador utters a disavowal.

and I still don't think I deserved it the first time because the 3 nations I used hated each other and had opposing views (it was my way to show both sides of an issue)
Then it served excessively poorly, since the views in question were not greatly at variance and their appearance in sequence merely served to reinforce their more than superficial similarity. While it is possible -- indeed, highly likely on the showing of this "debate" -- that the honoured ambassador is merely incapable of presenting a logically argued case, even that does not excuse such behaviour.

We also note that the honoured ambassador still has not stopped digging, making it ever more unlikely that people will forget this particular hole.

Give the topic a rest, folks. The topic you've diverted to, I mean, though the original's been done to death too.