NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Rights of Minorities and Women"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #80


Proposed by: G l o g

Description: UN Resolution #80: Rights of Minorities and Women (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UN Law "Rights of Minorities and Women" BAD!!!

Article I say "No one race or culture is better than another." What mean "better"? UN law not tell what "better" mean. This not protect any rights.

Article II say "Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home". What mean "equals"? UN law not tell what "equal" mean. This not protect any rights.

Article III say "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another." This not tell what "better" mean either. Not tell what "right" mean. This not protect any rights.

Article IV say: "One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex." What "express their love" mean? UN law not say. This not protect any rights.

UN law use word "should" too much. Not strong word.

UN law not protect rights of minorities. Only mention "race" once in preamble part. Mention "race or culture" in Article I. Never mention again.

UN law not protect rights of women. Only say "should be treated as equals" in Article II. Never mention again.

UN law "Discrimination Accord" protect some rights. "Discrimination Accord" GOOD!!! "Discrimination Accord" still protect rights after this repealed. "Rights of Minorities and Women" not protect any rights.

UN Law "Rights of Minorities and Women" do nothing, just happy words to make UN people feel good. Stand in way of new law that protect rights.

UN Law "Rights of Minorities and Women" BAD!!! UN repeal.

Repeal reach quorum. Quorum GOOD!!! Glog happy. Soon UN People vote on Glog repeal, remove bad law.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

Ladies and gentlemen. I yield the floor at this time to Queen Victoria.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/wiiarenotamused.jpg

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/wiiarenotamused.jpg

Glog shrieks and throws poo at the scary Bearwoman thing.

Bearwoman BAD!!! Not show to Glog again!

Anravelle stands cautiously, the glow of a personal shield wrapping around her pristine black robes.

“We are afraid to announce that we shall be casting our vote against this repeal. We find no fault with the factual basis of the argument and commend Glog for the reasoning skills he has demonstrated but we believe that crafting international law is an art form.

A repeal or resolution must have many fine nuances and strive for excellence. It must inspire the citizens of our member nations with its vocabulary like any painting, dance, or play ever could therefore we cannot condone anything that reduces international legislation to cold, brutal facts presented without any true beauty.”

Anravelle Kramer, ( http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s92/Ellevarna/Ithania/AnravelleKramer.jpg)
Representative of the Faithful.

OOC: Shh, don’t tell her but I’ll “accidentally” vote For.

Glog smart! power to the repeal!




:headbang:

Indeed!

Repeal not boring. Repeal funny. Repeal have merit. We vote FOR.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Ambassador

Harmalan Shandreth stands.

"Repeal GOOD!! Not listen funny-looking man. Talk too long. Big words. Words BAD!!! Funny-looking man country vote FOR. Glory be. Glory GOOD!!!"

*Mother Cargaminh smacks him in the face, then takes the mike*

I'll have proper speech in this assembly! I expect to hear proper grammar from all the delegates in this chamber! You should speak properly, or by the Good Lord I'll rap your wrists with my Westcott! Don't think I won't!"

The nun brandishes a particularly long and thin ruler, with a nail through one end, the words "OLD BLEEDY" scrawled in red on the side. Brandishing it menacingly, she takes to the floor, prowling the rows of seats like a vigilante with nothing to lose.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to vote against this repeal, mostly on its outlandishly unnecessary request for the extreme level of pedanty which it wishes to have employed in the writing of resolutions. I think it makes fairly clear what is required of UN nations in terms of gender and racial rights, and certainly the spirit is there for the equality of rights.

So, in short:

Damanucus' vote: AGAINST

It may help to post the original:

Rights of Minorities and Women
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Amsterdam junior

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

Votes For: 12,055
Votes Against: 6,998

Implemented: Sat Nov 20 2004 At the risk of sounding "pedantic," this "makes fairly clear what is required of UN nations"? As has been pointed out repeatedly in the discussion of this repeal, well-meaning, happy-sounding platitudes do not sensible international law make. The resolution contains virtually no enforceable language, or any specific provisions aimed at protecting the vague "rights" outlined therein, and as such is mushy and ineffective law. It deserves repeal just as any resolution to see the axe has deserved it.

Also, the author is clearly Dutch. To quote the late, great Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures ... and the Dutch."

The Federal Republic votes AYE.

Medicated Children is having trouble understanding repeal.

Therefore...

Medicated Children votes: Against

Brutes hate bad UN law. Brutes like repeals. Brutes like funnies. Brutes vote FOR.

the true-blood Brute at the Nord-Brutlandese delegation

Grawrland votes FOR, and everyone else should too.

Let's say you support the rights of women and minorities: G l o g has eloquently pointed out the weak and ineffectual language the bill possesses. The only way the spirit of the bill can be carried out is by eliminating it and replacing it with a bill with much stronger and more objective language.

Let's say you find the rights of women and minorities to be laughable, or otherwise unnecessary to support via international law. In that case you know you want to tear this bill down.

It is quite literally win/win.

Medicated Children is having trouble understanding repeal.Perhaps the children are over-medicated?

You stupid people. Glog need look in dictionary Me show people:


Article I say "No one race or culture is better than another." What mean "better"? UN law not tell what "better" mean. This not protect any rights.

Better means "Greater Than". This is concise wording, and I can think of none better. anyone else? It protects the rights of minorities.

Article II say "Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home". What mean "equals"? UN law not tell what "equal" mean. This not protect any rights.

Equals means... well, equal to. It's a mathematical term, for crying out loud, you can't get any more concise than that. It protects rights, see the "in the workplace and the home" bit of the sentence.

Article III say "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another." This not tell what "better" mean either. Not tell what "right" mean. This not protect any rights.

Better means the same as before. This protects the right of freedom of religion.

"One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex." What "express their love" mean? UN law not say. This not protect any rights.

Express their love means... well, show their love. This protects the rights of Homo/Bi/Pan/Whatever-sexual people


UN law use word "should" too much. Not strong word.

Strongest word UN can use when it is neither true nor necessarily will become true. Plus, quite strong in itself, as far as my understanding of the English Language goes, which I hope to be quite far, as I'm a native speaker :P

The words "right", "wrong", "equal", or "better", are, indeed words with a wide meaning, and are not strictly defined in the UN law. But this is actually the purpose of it. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights should encompass ANY violation of the heart and the soul of these rights.

The topic we are debating about, is not an actual law, per se. It is a way to set the main views about civil and human rights, about discrimination, war, child welfare, and many other subjects that us, members of the United Nations, commonly share.

To accurately explain, what equality is, is not our job. It is the job of every UN-Member government, the job of every court in our jurisdiction, the job of every citizen of our states. The process of min-maxing and strictly defining what these words mean, would create many problems.

We, as the Government of Pasokara, and as Members of the Panpasokaran Socialist Movement, believe that broader words and definitions leave no room for would-be fascists, racists or even dictators to exploit some loophole in a law and discriminate other citizens.

Pasokara's vote, would be Definitely AGAINST the Repeal.

Normally, I'm the nation to come here and argue that the wording of the article doesn't matter if it accomplishes your goal. However, I'm arguing against that today.

To have a repeal that appears to be written by a three year old is just offensive. If anyone wishes to defend this nation by saying that its their dialect, I simply say that they should be kind enough to get an interpretter before proposing a resolution.

Aside from just its horrid grammar, the repeal is not worded to my satisfaction. The original resolution should be repealed, but the 'argument' stated here is, in my opinion, not of sufficient standards to be placed on record for repealing. The thoughts are, at the beginning, quite organized, but then falls into random thoughts. A two phrase explanantion of how something is bad without including a basic subject is not sufficient enough for prosperity to understand our actions. The word 'BAD' does not give any true value since everyone has their own definition. Some people would say that the repeal is bad because of its wording, and that the original resolution is good because of its attempted cause.

The repeal is simply a butchering of an attempted motion, and I am voting against it. And I encourage all other nations to do the same

As much as I applauded Glog's effort. You know what, let my translator explain the rest of our position...




TRANSLATOR:

Glog need editor. Editor good. No Editor bad. Proposals need follow same standards. Standards good. No standards bad.






OOC: Really like the proposal and the thinking behind it BUT without the performance art, it just seems very poorly written. And without the backstory, it can be mistaken as being earnest and reflex poorly on the community...I mean my first thought was "Did someone try to use the OS X's translator?".

lol did I inspire the "x-->good, y-->bad" ?

I can make my argument very simple as to why I vote yes.

Air pollution-->bad

Easy breathing-->good

Individual nation to solve problem on its own-->improbable

Global community to solve problem collectively-->plosible

its a no-brainer

Glog funny, New Hamilton boring. We vote Glog president for UN. Glog convince all people to do good, bad law make people feel good. Doing good better than feeling good. Law bad, repeal good.

To have a repeal that appears to be written by a three year old is just offensive. If anyone wishes to defend this nation by saying that its their dialect, I simply say that they should be kind enough to get an interpretter before proposing a resolution. ... Aside from just its horrid grammar, ... A two phrase explanantion of how something is bad without including a basic subject is not sufficient enough for prosperity to understand our actions.

So, Schiessenwald, you seem to be saying that only upper-crust white guys need participate in the UN? From photographic evidence, I believe Glog to be in his mid- to late-thirties, has at least one child, and three wives (he's looking for another two). Unlike any number of repeal authors, Glog has plainly stated what he believes to be wrong with the original resolution.

OOC: And without the backstory, it can be mistaken as being earnest and reflex poorly on the community...

When one is criticizing spelling, grammar and structure, it helps to be correct oneself.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Repeal good. Cookesland vote FOR.

The word 'BAD' does not give any true value since everyone has their own definition.

Most people usually have it meaning something along the same lines, i.e. not good. But in here's what I've got:


bad - /bæd/- adjective, worse, worst; (Slang) bad·der, bad·dest for 36; noun; adverb
–adjective 1. not good in any manner or degree.
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible: There is no such thing as a bad boy.
3. of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient: a bad diamond; a bad spark plug

The proposal's simple, ponctual, and clear about what it intends to do and again I'm voting for.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

There's a crucial step here, which is the creation of a replacement. I would vote for a repeal on the condition that it also created new protections for minorities and women. Maybe Glog should look at the bill in question, and edit it for all of the problems he listed. After all, a repeal is one line. We need to replace this truly terrible piece of legislation.

There's a crucial step here, which is the creation of a replacement. I would vote for a repeal on the condition that it also created new protections for minorities and women.

Most likely this is going to be replaced with a proposal that has stronger language.

Maybe Glog should look at the bill in question, and edit it for all of the problems he listed. After all, a repeal is one line. We need to replace this truly terrible piece of legislation.

Repeal's usually aren't only one sentence. Explaining why you think a proposal needs to be repealed can be fairly long, as is the case here.

It is the job of every UN-Member government, the job of every court in our jurisdiction, the job of every citizen of our states.

You mean, individually? Wouldn't that render a rights law rather useless?

Stavenburgia is new.
Stavenburgia is stupid.
Stavenburgia read UN book on Official Writings. (ooc: aka the rules)
Glog cannot change bad law says UN book.
Glog can remove bad law this way.
You write new law.

Foreigners. What the hell am I doing here?

...Oh yes. Glog clever. Strong, clever men do not need silly ideas.
Have a present:
http://zebrarug.com/images/lionrug_300.jpg
__________________________

ooc: I think Glog is rubbing off on me, my EU Health Law notes:
EU: Free movement GOOD! Restriction BAD!

State X: Free Healthcare for all EU people BAD! Nat Sov GOOD!

ECJ: Don't care! You BAD! (C whatever/whenever)

State Y: Abortion BAD! State Z BAD!

ECJ: You don't stop people go to State Z. State Y BAD!

Please don't be abusive. We need not actually change this law. Why not prepare a new one, though? I'd like to see a replacement ready to take its place before we revoke what little protection minorities and women gained from this one.

It is debatable whether or not a second resolution guaranteeing in general gender and minority rights could legally co-exist with the present resolution. So, yes, we probably do have to repeal RoMaW first.

If you wish to see a replacement prepared, perhaps you should be participating in this discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542690).

i vote to repel it but next time don't sound like a caveman

<ooc>

I have to vote against this proposal. And I must make it clear that I do believe the original resolution should be repealed, and that I mostly agree with the arguments presented by the author. What I don't like about this proposal is that if it were to pass, it would set a precedent that I don't want to see.

It is my interpretation of the rules that proposals written in proper English are, if not mandatory, at least desirable. I am almost sure that the form and grammar of this proposal would have been met with a lot more of opposition if it had been submitted without its roleplay context. Perhaps it would have even ended in the "Silly And Illegal Proposals" thread. Without the roleplay background, the form of this proposal cannot be accepted; and I firmly believe that a proposal should be able to stand completely independently of it's roleplay background. I wouldn't like to set the precedent that misuse of the language in proposals is fine as long as you can roleplay a fun and inventive excuse for it.

</ooc>

Sen. Sulla looks up from his desk where he has been reading the November Issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine, and drinking a few glasses of his favorite libation. He Leans over to the microphone and gives the assembled delegates a smile most unpleasent.

"You lucky sods! I wish I could sit here and listen to me all day. anyway, firstly I wish to offer my sincere congratulastions to GLOG for submitting this fine repeal, and successfully getting it to vote in this festering snakepit we lovingly call the UN. As the piece of resolution to be repealed does bopkiss, the Palentine is pleased to cast its vote for the repeal. And to those of you griping about form and substance I'd like to thank the lovely Cmdr. Chiang for posting the text of The Rights of Women and Minorites. For some reason the style of this resloution seems to be lacking as well. that alone should get some of you style lovers to vote for the repeal."

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Chief Studmuffin of the AO:D

Please don't be abusive. We need not actually change this law. Why not prepare a new one, though? I'd like to see a replacement ready to take its place before we revoke what little protection minorities and women gained from this one.You want replacement? Here pencil and paper, start writing.

i vote to repel it but next time don't sound like a caveman

Why? Glog sound like what Glog is.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

New Sequoyah heartily supports this legislation.

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

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to vote against this repeal, mostly on its outlandishly unnecessary request for the extreme level of pedanty which it wishes to have employed in the writing of resolutions. I think it makes fairly clear what is required of UN nations in terms of gender and racial rights, and certainly the spirit is there for the equality of rights.

So, in short:

Damanucus' vote: AGAINST

Let's examine the text and see what is "fairly clear[ly]...required of UN nations".

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

What does this require? Nothing at all. It does not prohibit discrimination against races or cultures.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

Again, this clause requires nothing. "Should" is not directive.

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

Once more, nothing is required, nothing is prohibited.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

And, finally, we have "should" again. And the wonderful vagueness of "express their love".

If the representative of Damanucus defines an "extreme level of pedantry" as the expectation that laws should actually do what their authors intended, then we're all for it. NSUN Resolution #80 does nothing but make vague and poorly expressed statements while accomplishing nothing. The spirit may be there, but the flesh is totally absent.

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the repeal.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

For those of you wanting a replacement for the resolution to be repealed, computers, printers, pens and paper are in abundance in this building. Feel free to write away. We'll be happy to lend you some writing paper and pens if you like. But until this repeal goes through, you won't get the chance to enact something better.

"Rights of Minorities and Women" is merely a list of platitudes that does nothing to actually protect the rights of minorities and women, and actually prevents good legislation that would protect them from being passed. It is well worthy of repeal, and Altanar enthusiastically supports this effort.

Incidentally, we think those of you criticizing the Glog delegation for the language they use are just a bit prejudiced. That's how they speak. Should you be criticized for your languages? Your disapproval of their speech isn't even worthy of claiming to be a valid reason for opposing this repeal, and yet, some of you are doing so. Shame!

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

(OOC: I hate to say this, but I think that those who cite the colorful speech used in the repeal as a reason, OOC or IC, for opposing the repeal are missing the point and are also in serious need of a "fun and humor" injection. True, the language is not elegant, but a quick perusal of resolutions that have been enacted in the past shows that several of them were quite unpleasant manglings of the English language, which were done in earnest by their writers and not as a joke. So what's the harm here?)

I'm a bit surprised that this repeal is being argued on the grounds that the resolution stands in the way of better legislation, although the repeal's fiercest advocates are now challenging their opponents to write a new resolution.

If g l o g and his associates are so concerned with the lack of protection this admittedly vague resolution offers women and "minorities", then why are they leaving the wording of a new resolution up to the devices of its defenders? I would expect, if they were sincere in their desire to see women and "minorities" given adequate protection under the UN, that they would have a proposal to replace this resolution with a stronger one. Not so?

Vice-Chancellor Krombits, 42nd in line to the Most Holy Throne of Queen Kaleli the Gracious, Daughter of Sabatia the Wise, Protector of the Most Serene Republic of Lllama-Born Llamas stands.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, as a representative of our Queen, Kaleli the Gracious, who valiently defeated....*several moments of boot-licking about Kaleli*... and who won the gold medal in the traditional tea ceremony, vote for this repeal, as we do concur that the most esteemed Glog has a valid point, and that the current resolution does not provide clear and concise terms as to what discrimination is. It is our opinion that a new, more throughly built proposal be initiated regarding the protection of our citizens' rights. Thank you for this opportunity to speak, may the Llama protect you."

Vice-Chancellor Krombits bows, and sings the closing song of the Llama before sitting.

OOC: Glog good! Cavemen FTW!

I'm a bit surprised that this repeal is being argued on the grounds that the resolution stands in the way of better legislation, although the repeal's fiercest advocates are now challenging their opponents to write a new resolution.

If g l o g and his associates are so concerned with the lack of protection this admittedly vague resolution offers women and "minorities", then why are they leaving the wording of a new resolution up to the devices of its defenders? I would expect, if they were sincere in their desire to see women and "minorities" given adequate protection under the UN, that they would have a proposal to replace this resolution with a stronger one. Not so?

Knowing some of those who are for the repeal as I do, I am almost certian that they already have a proposal ready to submit. However unless this one passes then it would be a waste of time to post it, old bean. Besides as Glog and others like the esteemed Prime Minister of Ausserland has pointed out, the lamentable Rights of Women and Minorites does nothing but mouth platitudes. Besides according to UN precident(and gnomish scum law), the author of a repeal of legislation is under no obligation to even offer a replacement.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I'm a bit surprised that this repeal is being argued on the grounds that the resolution stands in the way of better legislation, although the repeal's fiercest advocates are now challenging their opponents to write a new resolution.
I'm a bit surprised that this repeal is being opposed on the grounds that there is no resolution replacement, although the resolution's fiercest advocates do not have and are not required to bear the responsibility to write a new resolution.

We vote Glog president for UN.

I second this motion. (Especially since the position would be unofficial and purely honorific...)


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Should you be criticized for your languages?
Anravelle smiles regretfully and rises, quickly checking that her shield is still active against any attacks.

“We believe that if it is consistent with a nation’s values then any criticism of our language would be justified; we respect that choice as we expect others to appreciate ours. In our culture beauty must be present in all things if we are to achieve illumination thus it would be painful to condone anything that reduces the complex splendour of communication to cold, empty details.

Our delegation has already made considerable sacrifice by learning this unsophisticated, transactional and primitive common language the international community insists on utilising, we were willing to surrender ourselves to that in order to establish bonds with others but this is a step too far.

For the sake of maintaining a shred of linguistic radiance on the international stage we Ithanians must vote against this. We apologise if that choice offends or appears illogical but it is a core value of our lifestyle.”

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

OOC: Sweetie, I don’t really care about spelling or grammar in the slightest as language is a tool for communicating ideas or connecting with others on a more substantial level in my useless opinion. The packaging is unimportant to me as long as the thoughts are a lil understandable but I can’t support this In Character because Ithanians don't share that belief.

I'm a bit surprised that this repeal is being argued on the grounds that the resolution stands in the way of better legislation, although the repeal's fiercest advocates are now challenging their opponents to write a new resolution.

If g l o g and his associates are so concerned with the lack of protection this admittedly vague resolution offers women and "minorities", then why are they leaving the wording of a new resolution up to the devices of its defenders? I would expect, if they were sincere in their desire to see women and "minorities" given adequate protection under the UN, that they would have a proposal to replace this resolution with a stronger one. Not so?*whispers to self*

Hmm ... let's see now ... somethin' amiss here ... I'll run through it ... Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13218199&postcount=27)!

*bill retracts*

*snaps bill back*

Got it.

I applaud Glog for his efforts, and support his repeal of a resolution that had no place on the books.

Minister of Hospitality
Meritania Garrote

*Grunts, then throws large rocks at the delegations of Damanucus, Medicated Children, Mashusa, Pasokara, Schiessenwald, New Hamilton, Logopia, and Veblenia.*

Many people ask for replacement. Glog not write replacement. Glog words ok for repeal, but replacement need UN words.

Glog thank UN people who defend repeal, thank Gaffa Territories people for present. Fur GOOD!!! Keep Glog warm.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

Lord Shival, Arch-Druid of the United States of Shivydom, stands, pulling close his white robes of wisdom.

To repeal Resolution #80, seems quite disturbing. The Rights of Minorities is basic when stated as 'any race and culture'. Therefore repealing it would be a farce in what this UN stands for.
Naught will come of this.

OOC: For the record, Glog will respond to posts which address the repeal's arguments. He will also respond to posts which attempt to defend Resolution #80. What he will Not respond to is complaints about the language used in the repeal. Well, actually he might respond to those too, but with a fusillade of rocks, sticks and poo.

The Rights of Minorities is basic when stated as 'any race and culture'.
UN Law #80 say "No one race or culture is better than another". How that help women or minorities? How make UN people not be bad to some race or culture? Not require anything. Glog government could say "our race not better than yours. Your race GOOD!!! Make good servants, carry Glog things."

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

What is wrong with people trying to repeal this resolution? Glog says we should have more concise writing, right? He says "specify what equal means."
Are you kidding me? How about "Be identical to." But then, you need to define "identical," because then that word isn't specifed either. Then you define identical as "exactly alike." But then what does "alike" mean?
You see, words are defined by other words. You can't keep saying we need better definitions because you cannot define a word without using other words!
Now if they used a word like "similar" that would be okay to ask for a different definition, because it is so broad. Words and terms like "equal," "fair to all involved," "just," are pretty darn exact.
Glog says you should define words so that people know what they mean. How about this: We didn't define "the" either. While we're at it, we should also define "rights," and "mean," words that Glog himself used in the resoltion. He doesn't specify what "rights," are. He doesn't say what a "meaning" of a word is. Why don't we make him define those words?
What if we just passed a resolution with an entire dictionary? That way people could not get mixed up. I think that burden should be placed on Glog, the guy who started this whole upset about concise definitions.
It's not like we don't know what equal means! And anyway, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE TRUST SOMEONE WHO TALKS LIKE "Artical I say this," "this not protect rights," and "not say what 'equal' mean," TO REPEAL A RESOLUTION ON THE MERITS OF SPEECH AND GRAMMAR! We all know he can talk properly and he just looks like a clown trying to repeal this resolution on what he talks about.

In colcusion, my position: strongly against

Lord Shival, Arch-Druid of the United States of Shivydom, stands, pulling close his white robes of wisdom.

To repeal Resolution #80, seems quite disturbing. The Rights of Minorities is basic when stated as 'any race and culture'. Therefore repealing it would be a farce in what this UN stands for.
Naught will come of this.

Have you read the repeal, and specifically the part of it that mentions the other resolution which does a far better job at covering the rights of all people?

Intangelon and Cascadia vote FOR.

What is wrong with people trying to repeal this resolution? Glog says we should have more concise writing, right? He says "specify what equal means."
Are you kidding me? How about "Be identical to." But then, you need to define "identical," because then that word isn't specifed either. Then you define identical as "exactly alike." But then what does "alike" mean?
You see, words are defined by other words. You can't keep saying we need better definitions because you cannot define a word without using other words!
Now if they used a word like "similar" that would be okay to ask for a different definition, because it is so broad. Words and terms like "equal," "fair to all involved," "just," are pretty darn exact.
Glog says you should define words so that people know what they mean. How about this: We didn't define "the" either. While we're at it, we should also define "rights," and "mean," words that Glog himself used in the resoltion. He doesn't specify what "rights," are. He doesn't say what a "meaning" of a word is. Why don't we make him define those words?
What if we just passed a resolution with an entire dictionary? That way people could not get mixed up. I think that burden should be placed on Glog, the guy who started this whole upset about concise definitions.
It's not like we don't know what equal means! And anyway, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE TRUST SOMEONE WHO TALKS LIKE "Artical I say this," "this not protect rights," and "not say what 'equal' mean," TO REPEAL A RESOLUTION ON THE MERITS OF SPEECH AND GRAMMAR! We all know he can talk properly and he just looks like a clown trying to repeal this resolution on what he talks about.

In colcusion, my position: strongly against

Swing and a miss, Ambassador.

The definitions of each specific word aren't the problem. The way the words are USED do not actually protect anyone or anything. The resolution is, effectively, a greeting card and little else.

*Grunts, then throws large rocks at the delegations of Damanucus, Medicated Children, Mashusa, Pasokara, Schiessenwald, New Hamilton, Logopia, and Veblenia.*

*Iris Fairchild stands to speak, holding a somewhat reddened handkerchief to her forehead*

Incidentally, we think those of you criticizing the Glog delegation for the language they use are just a bit prejudiced. That's how they speak. Should you be criticized for your languages? Your disapproval of their speech isn't even worthy of claiming to be a valid reason for opposing this repeal, and yet, some of you are doing so. Shame!

We do not criticize G l o g's language per se. We simply do not find it appropriate for a formal UN document. Logopia is not an English speaking country. If we had submitted a resolution written in our native language, it would have been struck down as illegal. If we had submitted a proposal without making sure it was written using proper language, we would have certainly been criticized, or at least asked to correct it. Why should the situation be any different for the esteemed G l o g's delegation?

Ambassador Firemaker, our previous comment was not intended to offend you or your fine nation, still we must maintain our position. We respect your language and culture. Yet, if this is an assembly of equals, then clearly we must all submit to the same rules and conventions.



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

OOC: Sweetie, I don’t really care about spelling or grammar in the slightest as language is a tool for communicating ideas or connecting with others on a more substantial level in my useless opinion. The packaging is unimportant to me as long as the thoughts are a lil understandable but I can’t support this In Character because Ithanians don't share that belief.

(OOC: Valid point taken, and I should've probably left the criticism of such a stance IC out of my post. It's just the OOC criticism of it that irked me a bit.)

I have read this proposal and Resolution #80. The wording of the Resolution in question is exact. Granted it doesn't cover a wide aspect of Rights, but I believe that it is a stepping stone. Therefore, why try to make a step back in progress? What are the benefits of this proposal?
These questions should be answered first, in my opinion.
Be repealing the Resolution, I believe, that we are removing fundamental rights. Though, this would also be a setback for the Equal Rights Resolution. Why not repeal that as well?

We do not criticize G l o g's language per se. We simply do not find it appropriate for a formal UN document. Logopia is not an English speaking country. If we had submitted a resolution written in our native language, it would have been struck down as illegal. If we had submitted a proposal without making sure it was written using proper language, we would have certainly been criticized, or at least asked to correct it. Why should the situation be any different for the esteemed G l o g's delegation?

Normally we're all for people using the best English they can in these resolutions. However, the lack of perfect language or grammar alone has never been seen as a legitimate reason for our delegation to shoot down perfectly good legislation or repeals, and we aren't about to shift from that stance now. Wording notwithstanding, this repeal would strike down a flimsy piece of paper full of happy thoughts masquerading as a resolution to protect minorities and women, which blocks real legislation to protect them by its very existence on the legislative ledger. We're more worried about that, frankly.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

<snip>
ooc:
This resolution is exactly what allows me to rp a nation like GT.
They treat all the 'nationals' equally, each is equally discriminated against. Of course...citizens =/= nationals, and there is 'unintentional' discrimination in effect, and by dividing each minority into their own 'territory state' they cannot claim that x minority is being treated differently than y minority. It's not the government's fault that there's only a university in one state that's only open to citizens...
Basically, as long as I'm 'equal', GT's Govt. can get away with what they like.

Chiarizio likes the resolution currently in force.
Many -- even most -- of the reasons Glog gives for repealing the resolution that has been adopted, are, in the opinion of Chiarizio's government, good reasons to leave it in place.

May I say first that East Osage is voting for this repeal but lets be clear. The resolutions written by many of the UN members are quite dumb. There is little to no clarity of what a word means. No real power is actually delegated to a program and there are no actual means of investigating a situations first. Its all just someones good idea and no real thought is ever put behind it. This resolution to repeal the one in question is necessary if we wish to keep the UN a place for a better tomorrow.

Hmm. I'm not going to vote on this one, seeing as I don't understand what this vote is for. I can't read it. If it were written better, maybe I would vote.

I have read this proposal and Resolution #80. The wording of the Resolution in question is exact. Granted it doesn't cover a wide aspect of Rights, but I believe that it is a stepping stone. Therefore, why try to make a step back in progress? What are the benefits of this proposal?
These questions should be answered first, in my opinion.
Be repealing the Resolution, I believe, that we are removing fundamental rights. Though, this would also be a setback for the Equal Rights Resolution. Why not repeal that as well?

We suggest the representative read the resolution again, this time asking: "Exactly what rights are protected? Exactly what rights would be removed or infringed upon if the repeal passes?"

The answer to both of these questions is "None." The resolution protects nothing. "Should" does not have the same meaning as "shall", "must," or "will." We can certainly applaud the intent of the resolution to protect certain rights. The problem is that it just doesn't do it. And by remaining on the books it simply discourages efforts to do effectively what it tried unsuccessfully to do.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

As a side comment, my country must lodge a most strenuous protest against the activities condoned by this Assembly. It appears that no fewer than fifteen mastodons have now been sacrified, by fifteen seperate delegations, as a gift or show of support for Ambassador Glog.

The mastodon, as we all know, is a highly endangered animal. So endangered, in fact, that it's extinct. The brutal slaughter of 15 mastodons catastrophically compounds the species' extinction. I must ask delegations to consider this before continuing their reckless behaviour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

President John Hackenberg gently strokes his mustache as he thinks of what to say.

"While I need to do more research, if the wording of this document really does not actually do anything to advance equal rights, then I will gladly support the repeal. Epellia fully supports the rights of all contributing members of society, but also does not tolerate powerless laws."

This proposal is a disgrace to every UN member nation, if it were to pass. I feel this proposal is just a mockery of the whole UN system; where once anything reaches quorum, it's good enough to pass.

The wording in it is terrible. This is a direct quote from the proposal "This not protect any rights", which is said at the end of every sentence. I know there are some bad UN laws out there, but do the future UN members really want to look back at this proposal and say "My god, how did this pass with sentence structure and grammar such as this?"

Not only that, but the argument to repeal it is "UN no specify what the word 'the' mean. This not protect any rights." Does the UN have to define every word in every resolution? I'm sure everyone understand what "equal" or "better" means in this context.

But what I find the worst, is that this proposal shows the pure stupidity of the UN community. I know that the UN is essentially unable to enforce any resolutions made, but just passing a proposal into a resolution because it made quorum doesn't make any sense. As of now, there are 1,200 votes for it, and 800 votes against it. And once people see that the votes for it are too large to overcome, then those nations will just pass this resolution.

So, not only representing The Republic of The- Thing, but the entire Newgrounds region, I beg you to listen to my arguments and vote down this poorly written and poorly argued proposal set before you today.

"Should" does not have the same meaning as "shall", "must," or "will."We remain solidly behind this repeal, including the argument that it does not adequately protect the rights it claims to. That said, Ambassador Thwerdock, you should be aware that "shall" and "should" can indeed mean the same thing. "Should" is the past tense of "shall". Both are auxiliary verbs and both can be used to express obligation or duty.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador and
former school marm

As long as its gets re-written stronger and more specific later, than reapeal is good

I'm of the mindset that this resolution (the original one) was very badly written, and that's why we're scrapping it. Not because of what it upholds, but because it is totally ineffective in what it was designed to do, being "protecting the rights of women and minorities". GLOG is right, the way that the resolution is written makes it extremely subjective. It also allows for many loopholes. Hopefully, this resolution can be scrapped, and then rewritten to better cover the loopholes, have less subjectiveness, and work better than this one.

Best Regards
Resorgimento Cameron
Ruler of Dargonost
Wysteria

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

We rise in support of this repeal. No Kawaiian in good conscience can support Article III of the original proposal, which undercuts the very philosophical foundation of our nation. May the NSUN be silent on what opinions it may hold of its member's faiths, but please, do not insult those faiths by demanding we accept the relativist principle that one is as good as another.

I agree it is not written strong enough. It must be rewritten at a later time.

Just because I should does not mean I must.

Perhaps instead of a repeal, an addendum should be put forth to the previous resolution. Schamtek fears that the removal of the original resolution would be a detriment to the global society, and thus will vote against this repeal. However, Schamtek also requests that the astute representative from Glog turn his repeal into an addendum enhancing the resolution in place.

Repeal Or Hulk Smash!

Wolfgang and IX stood and approached Glog. Wolfgang, with a huge grin on his face, barked pleasantly, the Guardian-slang equivalent for 'yes.' IX rolled his holographic eyes at the biological display. "What my commander means is that the Commonwealth commends your repeal and supports it wholeheartedly, good sir. We present you with a pair of complimentary Super Galactic Traveler class tickets aboard our Starship Titanic, the Ship that Cannot Possibly Go Wrong." Wolfgang withdrew the tickets from his coat and held them out to the interesting man and purred quietly.

OOC: Perhaps instead of a repeal, an addendum should be put forth to the previous resolution. Schamtek fears that the removal of the original resolution would be a detriment to the global society, and thus will vote against this repeal. However, Schamtek also requests that the astute representative from Glog turn his repeal into an addendum enhancing the resolution in place.

Amendments are impossible. This is the result of the game coding, and is a fact of NationStates. The only thing we can do is repeal the original and replace it.

While Garchyland is always for progressive solutions in United Nations matters, and while we always uphold our right to Pass and Repeal any U.N. Resolution, Garchyland has voted AGAINST the repeal to the "Rights of Minorities and Women". We would like to cite Anravelle Kramer's remarks on the topic, and we stand fully by what she has already said.

Jonas Newfenheimer
UN Ambassador
Garchyland

The language is a bit, um, unusual, but I agree with the idea. On behalf of Yaybor, I vote for the repeal.

I'm a bit surprised that this repeal is being opposed on the grounds that there is no resolution replacement, although the resolution's fiercest advocates do not have and are not required to bear the responsibility to write a new resolution.

*The Veblenian ambassador rises slowly from behind his desk, with a wary look at g l o g to make sure there are no more rocks thrown his way. He clears his throat and continues calmly.*

The Veblenian Republic is not opposing anything per se. What I am looking for is an assurance that the repealers would actually support a new, stronger resolution and are not merely using the weak language of the old as an excuse to eliminate whatever protections it affords.

This repeal is absolutely preposterous.

How can anyone vote to repeal a resolution such as this? This protects our minorities and our women from the disgrace they would receive on a daily basis.

Unfair pay, poor living conditions, etc, etc.


Also, I don't know if that grammar in the repeal is just a joke, or in character crap, but if it is real, then I suggest you go back to elementary school.

I, President Vladimir Kozentov of Chernobyl Power Plant votes AGAINST the repeal.

I encourage all others after this post to do the same.



President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant.

We find it somewhat amusing that delegates are being castigated for reproving of the language used in a repeal whose driving argument is the use of language. Pots should not reprove cauldrons for their blackness so.

That said, we are strongly against this repeal. Even were we to accept the arguments concerning the weakness of the language used, which we do not, the resolution Rights of Minorities and Women is a statement of principle. If the UN wishes to renounce those principles, we shall be greatly saddened.

The Wolf Guardians;13219399']Amendments are impossible. This is the result of the game coding, and is a fact of NationStates. The only thing we can do is repeal the original and replace it.

The logical inference of the repeal argument is that such is not true in this case. The repeal argues that the resolution does exactly nothing. Therefore no "replacement" resolution can possibly contradict or overlap it. Indeed, it is almost worth drafting such a resolution and having it struck down to demonstrate the vacuity of the repeal's arguments.

The logical inference of the repeal argument is that such is not true in this case. The repeal argues that the resolution does exactly nothing. Therefore no "replacement" resolution can possibly contradict or overlap it. Indeed, it is almost worth drafting such a resolution and having it struck down to demonstrate the vacuity of the repeal's arguments.

OOC: Ok, swing and a miss. The point is that amending a standing resolution (I.E., adding text to passed Res. #whatever as opposed to making a new resolution), as the delegate seemed to be desiring, is impossible. It MAY be possible to write another resolution without repealing this one, but I don't think so. I'm really not sure how the Powers That Be would go on that. Even with the weaknesses in the original, the point of the original would be roughly the same as a new one. Methinks, anyway.

WOLFEDIT: I see. Writing a new resolution that is a part II or continuance of the original? I don't think that'd work, either. Additionally, I don't think the Multiverse will fall apart if a few lines of text are struck out for a bit before being replaced. I doubt the repeal will cause society to break down. Anyone not relatively behind its spirit probably wouldn't be in the UN, anyway, right?

The mastodon, as we all know, is a highly endangered animal. So endangered, in fact, that it's extinct. The brutal slaughter of 15 mastodons catastrophically compounds the species' extinction. I must ask delegations to consider this before continuing their reckless behaviour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Perhaps you should take your concerns to the committee set up by the UNCoESB.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

we find this repeal to be adequate in the way of minorities and women however, the right for same sex affection is an outrage. we will comply to the repeal only if this same sex affection category is removed. if we as countries let this homosexual atrocity become legal these so-called lovers will have sex and have NO children. without the productive families our countries will cease to exist. and as such is a threat to my and any other countries populations. as representative of the armed republic of piedmont57769 i declare that we will leave the UN and if necessary refuse to cooperate with UN representatives.

Iosef Vissarionovich Djugashvili
representative/ military adviser
Armed Republic of Piedmont57769

In my previous post, I established that words such as "equal" and "better," seem pretty fundemental. You can't simply ask that we specify every word in our resolutions. It's outrageous.
I got a response saying that the context in which "equal" is used actually changes its meaning. That's just dumb. Equal still means equal whether it says "they should be treated as equal," or "they shall be treated as equal," equal STILL MEANS THE SAME THING.
I think what some people are trying to say is that it varies in strength because of its context, i.e. the afore mentioned phrases are the not the same.
If that is the case, then the only violation this resolution makes is that it should be called Significant or Mild instead of Strong. That's it. So their case is that the person messed up with the strength and therefore it should be mooted. That seems like a pretty insignificant reason, if you ask me.
So if, in fact, this resolution did not protect rights, why not repeal every single resolution ever passed that is only Mild or Significant instead of Strong? It's because sometimes they're okay. Sometimes it's okay to say "clean energy should be made available at a reasonable cost." So, again, the problem is not in the fact that "should" must never be used in a resolution, just not if it is classified as strong. The problem is that this is such an important topic that it deserves stronger language such as "shall," or "must."
In response to that, that the resolution is on such an important topic that it should have a stronger classification, I say that we already have things that do that.
The original "Minority and Women Rights" doesn't need to be repealed because (1) It doesn't do anything (according to the people trying to repeal it) and (2) everything it says is covered by Resolution 99 Discrimination Accord.
This resolution is for the sole purpose of encouraging freedoms of women and all races. Anything stronger, as the general UN population seems to think they need, is already covered by Discrimination Accord.
At worst, Rights of Minorities and Women can be accused of a strength violation, nothing more. Asking for anything stronger than has already been done, so why repeal a resolution because it helps too little, when it has obviously done more acting as a good addition to Discrimination Accord than it would not acting at all

As the designated representative from The Allied States of Chupbra, I, Aleo Firewrath, do officially put our country for the Repeal. We do this in spite of our disagreeing with the way it has presented before this comittee. We do this because we stand behind the idea that Resolution #80 was too weak and should be reworded then brought back to the comittee.

Aleo Firewrath
Ambassador to the UN From The Allied States of Chupbra

It should be replaced with a resolution with more specific requirements.

I declare that we will leave the UN and if necessary refuse to cooperate with UN representatives.


If you dislike our policies, then please, with post-haste, leave the United Nations. Schamtek, however, would prefer to remind the honorable representative from Piedmont57769 that resolutions within your own bounds can be enacted to limit (define, or eliminate) how much the homosexuals may display in public.

Sir Cyril stands up and begins to address the General Assembly;

"Our nation in full agreeance that this heinous piece of ineffective legislation be repealed, and we commend the Glogian permanent representative for his eloquent and much anticipated proposal, and furthermore we hope, nay, anticipate further good work from His Excellency"

The translator sprung into action

"Repeal GOOD! Rights of Minorities and Women BAD! I masturbate furiously...

Sir Cyril: "WHAT?"

"...into this handkercheif..."

"I never said anything of the bloody sort!"

"...and give Glog Firemaker quick rogering up the..."

There was a sudden explosion as a pistol went off, and the translator slumped over his desk, dead. A military idiot stands over him holding a smoking revolver

"Thank you, Pointy"

"Don't mention it, Sir Susan"

"Cyril, Pointy, Cyril..."

Description: UN Resolution #80: Rights of Minorities and Women (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UN Law "Rights of Minorities and Women" BAD!!!

Article I say "No one race or culture is better than another." What mean "better"? UN law not tell what "better" mean. This not protect any rights.

The quote "No one race or culture is better than another" should be quite easy to understand; whichever race or ethnic group you identify with is not superior or inferior, in any way, to any other ethnic group.

Article II say "Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home". What mean "equals"? UN law not tell what "equal" mean. This not protect any rights.

A simple look at a dictionary will explain to you that equality means that both groups have the same things, in this case, rights both economically and legally. UN law is about making a difference, not forcing your vocabulary to expand, there is no ambiguity here.

Article III say "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another." This not tell what "better" mean either. Not tell what "right" mean. This not protect any rights.

Right in this case means to be correct. People are entited to freedom of belief, and should not be insulted or discriminated against because they do not follow the beliefs of their peers.

Article IV say: "One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex." What "express their love" mean? UN law not say. This not protect any rights.

You really are being thick on purpose, aren't you? To express love is to be able to show your feelings for someone, either in private or in a public setting.

UN law use word "should" too much. Not strong word.

Opinion noted, not important in international law.

UN law not protect rights of minorities. Only mention "race" once in preamble part. Mention "race or culture" in Article I. Never mention again.

However, it DOES mention both those words, and even includes two separate articles specifically based on those two topics.

UN law not protect rights of women. Only say "should be treated as equals" in Article II. Never mention again.

Once again, it is mentioned, and being treated as equals would give women the same rights as men, therefore by most people's logic, this legislation would protect women's rights.

UN law "Discrimination Accord" protect some rights. "Discrimination Accord" GOOD!!! "Discrimination Accord" still protect rights after this repealed. "Rights of Minorities and Women" not protect any rights.

UN Law "Rights of Minorities and Women" do nothing, just happy words to make UN people feel good. Stand in way of new law that protect rights.

I fail to see how this law interferes with any previous or future laws, there are no provisions saying that this law supercedes any others.

UN Law "Rights of Minorities and Women" BAD!!! UN repeal.[/QUOTE]

Bad is an opinionated word, and it requires somewhat more than that to persuade people to repeal laws that benefit so many people.

Ki Baratan, if you hadn't guessed, votes against repealing the law.

What is wrong with people trying to repeal this resolution? Glog says we should have more concise writing, right? He says "specify what equal means."
Are you kidding me? How about "Be identical to." But then, you need to define "identical," because then that word isn't specifed either. Then you define identical as "exactly alike." But then what does "alike" mean?
You see, words are defined by other words. You can't keep saying we need better definitions because you cannot define a word without using other words!
Now if they used a word like "similar" that would be okay to ask for a different definition, because it is so broad. Words and terms like "equal," "fair to all involved," "just," are pretty darn exact.
Glog says you should define words so that people know what they mean. How about this: We didn't define "the" either. While we're at it, we should also define "rights," and "mean," words that Glog himself used in the resoltion. He doesn't specify what "rights," are. He doesn't say what a "meaning" of a word is. Why don't we make him define those words?
What if we just passed a resolution with an entire dictionary? That way people could not get mixed up. I think that burden should be placed on Glog, the guy who started this whole upset about concise definitions.
It's not like we don't know what equal means! And anyway, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE TRUST SOMEONE WHO TALKS LIKE "Artical I say this," "this not protect rights," and "not say what 'equal' mean," TO REPEAL A RESOLUTION ON THE MERITS OF SPEECH AND GRAMMAR! We all know he can talk properly and he just looks like a clown trying to repeal this resolution on what he talks about.

In colcusion, my position: strongly against
*throws poo at the Perpetuating Liberty delegation*

If we had submitted a proposal without making sure it was written using proper language, we would have certainly been criticized, or at least asked to correct it.
Glog use English words in repeal. Every word in repeal English word. Glog ask Kennyites if words English. Kennyites say "yes Glog, words English". Glog satisfied. Kennyite people GOOD!!! Not lie to Glog.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

the Equal Rights Resolution.
Glog not know about "the Equal Rights Resolution". Shivydom people find copy of "the Equal Rights Resolution", bring to Glog.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

As a side comment, my country must lodge a most strenuous protest against the activities condoned by this Assembly. It appears that no fewer than fifteen mastodons have now been sacrified, by fifteen seperate delegations, as a gift or show of support for Ambassador Glog.

The mastodon, as we all know, is a highly endangered animal. So endangered, in fact, that it's extinct. The brutal slaughter of 15 mastodons catastrophically compounds the species' extinction. I must ask delegations to consider this before continuing their reckless behaviour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles
Mastodons plentiful in Glog land. 15 mastodons nothing. Glog kill that many before breakfast.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

This proposal is a disgrace to every UN member nation, if it were to pass. I feel this proposal is just a mockery of the whole UN system; where once anything reaches quorum, it's good enough to pass.

The wording in it is terrible. This is a direct quote from the proposal "This not protect any rights", which is said at the end of every sentence. I know there are some bad UN laws out there, but do the future UN members really want to look back at this proposal and say "My god, how did this pass with sentence structure and grammar such as this?"

Not only that, but the argument to repeal it is "UN no specify what the word 'the' mean. This not protect any rights." Does the UN have to define every word in every resolution? I'm sure everyone understand what "equal" or "better" means in this context.

But what I find the worst, is that this proposal shows the pure stupidity of the UN community. I know that the UN is essentially unable to enforce any resolutions made, but just passing a proposal into a resolution because it made quorum doesn't make any sense. As of now, there are 1,200 votes for it, and 800 votes against it. And once people see that the votes for it are too large to overcome, then those nations will just pass this resolution.

So, not only representing The Republic of The- Thing, but the entire Newgrounds region, I beg you to listen to my arguments and vote down this poorly written and poorly argued proposal set before you today.
*beats the delegation of The-Thing with sticks*

The Wolf Guardians;13219399']Wolfgang and IX stood and approached Glog. Wolfgang, with a huge grin on his face, barked pleasantly, the Guardian-slang equivalent for 'yes.' IX rolled his holographic eyes at the biological display. "What my commander means is that the Commonwealth commends your repeal and supports it wholeheartedly, good sir. We present you with a pair of complimentary Super Galactic Traveler class tickets aboard our Starship Titanic, the Ship that Cannot Possibly Go Wrong." Wolfgang withdrew the tickets from his coat and held them out to the interesting man and purred quietly.
Glog thank Wolfgang for starship tickets. Glog visit Wolfgang land soon. Glog never travel on starship before, is type of sled?

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

The Veblenian Republic is not opposing anything per se. What I am looking for is an assurance that the repealers would actually support a new, stronger resolution and are not merely using the weak language of the old as an excuse to eliminate whatever protections it affords.
Glog support replacement. Replacement written by SchutteGod people GOOD!!! Glog like.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

This repeal is absolutely preposterous.

How can anyone vote to repeal a resolution such as this? This protects our minorities and our women from the disgrace they would receive on a daily basis.

Unfair pay, poor living conditions, etc, etc.


Also, I don't know if that grammar in the repeal is just a joke, or in character crap, but if it is real, then I suggest you go back to elementary school.

I, President Vladimir Kozentov of Chernobyl Power Plant votes AGAINST the repeal.

I encourage all others after this post to do the same.



President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant.

*pelts the Chernobyl Power Plant delegation with rocks*

We find it somewhat amusing that delegates are being castigated for reproving of the language used in a repeal whose driving argument is the use of language. Pots should not reprove cauldrons for their blackness so.

That said, we are strongly against this repeal. Even were we to accept the arguments concerning the weakness of the language used, which we do not, the resolution Rights of Minorities and Women is a statement of principle. If the UN wishes to renounce those principles, we shall be greatly saddened.
"Statement of principle" mean "pretty words to make UN people feel good about selves but not really do anything"? Glog renounce UN law that say pretty things but not protect rights. Need to be repealed and replaced. Glog help with that.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

*bombards the Gobbannian delegation with half-putrified badger carcasses*

we find this repeal to be adequate in the way of minorities and women however, the right for same sex affection is an outrage. we will comply to the repeal only if this same sex affection category is removed. if we as countries let this homosexual atrocity become legal these so-called lovers will have sex and have NO children. without the productive families our countries will cease to exist. and as such is a threat to my and any other countries populations. as representative of the armed republic of piedmont57769 i declare that we will leave the UN and if necessary refuse to cooperate with UN representatives.

Iosef Vissarionovich Djugashvili
representative/ military adviser
Armed Republic of Piedmont57769

Glog not understand any of this.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

In my previous post, I established that words such as "equal" and "better," seem pretty fundemental. You can't simply ask that we specify every word in our resolutions. It's outrageous.
I got a response saying that the context in which "equal" is used actually changes its meaning. That's just dumb. Equal still means equal whether it says "they should be treated as equal," or "they shall be treated as equal," equal STILL MEANS THE SAME THING.
I think what some people are trying to say is that it varies in strength because of its context, i.e. the afore mentioned phrases are the not the same.
If that is the case, then the only violation this resolution makes is that it should be called Significant or Mild instead of Strong. That's it. So their case is that the person messed up with the strength and therefore it should be mooted. That seems like a pretty insignificant reason, if you ask me.
So if, in fact, this resolution did not protect rights, why not repeal every single resolution ever passed that is only Mild or Significant instead of Strong? It's because sometimes they're okay. Sometimes it's okay to say "clean energy should be made available at a reasonable cost." So, again, the problem is not in the fact that "should" must never be used in a resolution, just not if it is classified as strong. The problem is that this is such an important topic that it deserves stronger language such as "shall," or "must."
In response to that, that the resolution is on such an important topic that it should have a stronger classification, I say that we already have things that do that.
The original "Minority and Women Rights" doesn't need to be repealed because (1) It doesn't do anything (according to the people trying to repeal it) and (2) everything it says is covered by Resolution 99 Discrimination Accord.
This resolution is for the sole purpose of encouraging freedoms of women and all races. Anything stronger, as the general UN population seems to think they need, is already covered by Discrimination Accord.
At worst, Rights of Minorities and Women can be accused of a strength violation, nothing more. Asking for anything stronger than has already been done, so why repeal a resolution because it helps too little, when it has obviously done more acting as a good addition to Discrimination Accord than it would not acting at all


*throws more poo at the Perpetuating Liberty delegation*

Sir Cyril stands up and begins to address the General Assembly;

"Our nation in full agreeance that this heinous piece of ineffective legislation be repealed, and we commend the Glogian permanent representative for his eloquent and much anticipated proposal, and furthermore we hope, nay, anticipate further good work from His Excellency"

The translator sprung into action

"Repeal GOOD! Rights of Minorities and Women BAD! I masturbate furiously...

Sir Cyril: "WHAT?"

"...into this handkercheif..."

"I never said anything of the bloody sort!"

"...and give Glog Firemaker quick rogering up the..."

There was a sudden explosion as a pistol went off, and the translator slumped over his desk, dead. A military idiot stands over him holding a smoking revolver

"Thank you, Pointy"

"Don't mention it, Sir Susan"

"Cyril, Pointy, Cyril..."

Glog laugh out loud. Spew Bass Ale on monitor and keyboard.

:eek: It is very rare that something this clear and simple is voted into law. Most things are over worded and overstated and difficult to understand, but this is not. :)
:headbang:It is very clear in all meanings and does not deserve to be repealed just because it is not worded at length with too many strings attached everywhere!:rolleyes:
;)I say let sleeping dogs lay and they won't rise up to bite you in the rear at a latter date.:D

We remain solidly behind this repeal, including the argument that it does not adequately protect the rights it claims to. That said, Ambassador Thwerdock, you should be aware that "shall" and "should" can indeed mean the same thing. "Should" is the past tense of "shall". Both are auxiliary verbs and both can be used to express obligation or duty.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador and
former school marm

Thank you for the lesson in grammar, Ambassador Talone. We're quite familiar with modal auxiliaries. Shall (as it could have been used in the resolution) is clearly directive. Should is often hortatory or advisory, and imposes no clear requirement. It can quite logically and properly be interpreted as merely expressing a wish or suggestion. Its use in the resolution is clearly inappropriate. And the fact that should is, in some constructions, the past tense form of shall is totally irrelevant, since the resolution is attempting to set policy for the present and future, not record the past.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador at Large

Speaking sotto voce, totally unaware the microphone is indeed on...

Pig-headed dwarf. Entering into nit-pickery with me. I should pick up some of those rocks Glog's been tossing about and...

Turning toward the Ausserland delegation,

We remind you first, what it was you actually said in your comments, Ambassador.

"Should" does not have the same meaning as "shall"...

Thank you for the lesson in grammar, Ambassador Talone. We're quite familiar with modal auxiliaries. Shall (as it could have been used in the resolution) is clearly directive. Should is often hortatory or advisory, and imposes no clear requirement.
You're quite welcome for the lesson, Ambassador Thwerdock. Alas, the hair you split has become so thin, it should clearly be able to slice a breakfast bread. The wordsmiths are neither vague nor hesitant in their definitions of the word, whatever you should wish to find there. Your interpretation of the use of "should" may, perhaps, be based on your customary use, but it remains out-of-touch with lexicography.

--L.T.

The Democratic States of Vista Buena is strongly against this resolution on the grounds that it is written in an undiplomatic and incomprehensible manner, and that the resolution's findings are, at best, weak.

As a nation that demands much from our citizens in their knowledge of the English Language, which is our National Language and the working language of the world, we cannot accept the resolution at hand to be an appropriate resolution, or indeed, a resolution that even deserves to be debated in these honourable chambers.

The Democratic States of Vista Buena, although only recently independent and admitted to the United Nations, do stand by UN Resolution 80, and has voted against this resolution to repeal Resolution 80.


Christoffel Anderson
Minister of State on United Nation Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

You really are being thick on purpose, aren't you?
*rolls a thick boulder down the aisle at the Ki Baratan delegation*

The Democratic States of Vista Buena is strongly against this resolution on the grounds that it is written in an undiplomatic and incomprehensible manner, and that the resolution's findings are, at best, weak.

As a nation that demands much from our citizens in their knowledge of the English Language, which is our National Language and the working language of the world, we cannot accept the resolution at hand to be an appropriate resolution, or indeed, a resolution that even deserves to be debated in these honourable chambers.

The Democratic States of Vista Buena, although only recently independent and admitted to the United Nations, do stand by UN Resolution 80, and has voted against this resolution to repeal Resolution 80.


Christoffel Anderson
Minister of State on United Nation Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena
Tell how findings weak. Christoffel Anderson person say many words to insult how Glog talk, not many words to argue against repeal. Why think UN Law #80 good? Tell what Vista Buena people think UN Law #80 do.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador
Cunning Linguist

*pelts the Vista Buena delegation with an assortment of animal bones and entrails*

Okay, I can see some things wrong with this whole scene on both sides of the fence.

First, a U.N. resolution is too serious a thing to be mocked by using caveman communication skills even though a caveman is a unique and entertaining idea for a nation. If the author of the debated resolution dislikes the language used in Resolution 80, the author should demonstrate in his own resolution what proper language is.

Second, appealing a resolution granting basic human rights is appauling at best. The lack of such a resolution would forcibly bring the culture of the entire world back to ancient times. If you want to have a caveman nation, go right ahead, no one will complain but forcing the world to have that type of culture is invasive and directly trumps the sovreignity of each and every nation.

Third, I realize the language of Resolution 80 is supposed to be a 'you will' instead of a 'you really should' to avoid a loophole allowing non-compliance but repealing it is unnessisary. As the old saying goes, "Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution." Instead of repealing Resolution 80, write a resolution that alters the 'you should' instances to 'you will'. That way the resolution would still remain in effect but would be patched so as to say what it should have said in the beginning.

Fourth, if this caveman resolution passes, I'm immediately going to write an updated version of Resolution 80 because forcibly revoking basic human rights for the entire planet is wrong beyond words.


*Edit* Um...FYI, just so you know, system administrators and forum moderators generally dislike it when an person posts two or more messages back to back instead of editing their first post. They call it double (triple, quadruple, quintuple etc.) posting and many times (depending who catches you) you can be warned, suspended or even banned from the forums. Reason being, its a bad use of limited server disk space and bandwidth, the later of which costs money the administrators would rather not dish out unless they have to.

Just so you know.

As a side comment, my country must lodge a most strenuous protest against the activities condoned by this Assembly. It appears that no fewer than fifteen mastodons have now been sacrified, by fifteen seperate delegations, as a gift or show of support for Ambassador Glog.

The mastodon, as we all know, is a highly endangered animal. So endangered, in fact, that it's extinct. The brutal slaughter of 15 mastodons catastrophically compounds the species' extinction. I must ask delegations to consider this before continuing their reckless behaviour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

*Ahem* If the mastodon is indeed extinct, would not the slaughter of 15 more mastodons actually be creating a negative number of those pachyderms? Can my honourable friend actually visualise "Minus fifteen mastodons" as a real concept?!? I fear that you are confusing the situation in your own nation with the situation across the NSUN -- and all of the other lands known to its members -- in general.
For example, the nations of Godwinnia and St Edmund possess navigators with sufficient talent to steer vessels between alternative versions of the Earth, and many of the versions that they have already found were lacking in sapient residents before their arrival so that various non-sapient species that had been exterminated by Man in more populous realities still survive there... Consequently, we have access to a very large number of mastodons, as well as (for that matter) to enough living space for our billions of people despite our original homelands being relatively small islands on a rather crowded Earth, and to natural resources such as -- for example -- fossil fuels as well...

H'mm, now there's a thought: If any of your nations wishes to restock its ecosystems with "extinct" species, contact us and we might -- for a fair price -- be able to help you.

This repeal is absolutely preposterous.

How can anyone vote to repeal a resolution such as this? This protects our minorities and our women from the disgrace they would receive on a daily basis.

Unfair pay, poor living conditions, etc, etc.

President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant.

If you care that strongly about the matter then why don't your own nation's laws provide your people with that protection anyway?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

*Edit* Um...FYI, just so you know, system administrators and forum moderators generally dislike it when an person posts two or more messages back to back instead of editing their first post. They call it double (triple, quadruple, quintuple etc.) posting and many times (depending who catches you) you can be warned, suspended or even banned from the forums. Reason being, its a bad use of limited server disk space and bandwidth, the later of which costs money the administrators would rather not dish out unless they have to.

Just so you know.
OOC: Noted

IC: *rolls a friggin enormous boulder (even bigger than the last one) down the aisle at The Self Willed delegation, pelts them with poo, beats them with sticks and sics a pack of wild dogs on them*

OOC: Noted

IC: *rolls a friggin enormous boulder (even bigger than the last one) down the aisle at The Self Willed delegation, pelts them with poo, beats them with sticks and sics a pack of wild dogs on them*

Are you pissed because you were caught not following common forum rules or because my argument is true and you have no logical rebutal?

If you want to have a caveman nation, go right ahead, no one will complain but forcing the world to have that type of culture is invasive and directly trumps the sovereignty of each and every nation.

We are against this repeal but we cannot allow such a blatant misconception of national sovereignty to continue existing (OOC: Unless I've misunderstood you sweetie. I haven't had my tea yet this morning).

In our view sovereignty is the supreme right to self-determination and the right to place national interests first and foremost thus repeals serve to promote national sovereignty by restoring rights to nations.

A repeal of Resolution #80 would not force nations to surrender any protection for minorities or a particular sex; members could continue to voluntarily comply with the spirit of Resolution #80 after any repeal via their legislatures. There is nothing stopping that.

Instead of repealing Resolution 80, write a resolution that alters the 'you should' instances to 'you will'. That way the resolution would still remain in effect but would be patched so as to say what it should have said in the beginning.
We believe that to be a rather inappropriate and short-term suggestion; for the sake of long term interests it would be prudent to repeal Resolution #80 and replace it with significantly more effective legislation after a short interim rather than create another resolution to compensate for the abysmal failings of #80. It is much better to re-build from the foundations upwards rather than try to restore a collapsing structure.

We do not believe that the level of abuse for minorities would increase drastically in that interim as nations are completely free to be as sadistic as they desire presently; within the confines of the Discrimination Accord which does some protect rights, of course.

Once again, we reiterate that while we share the desire to repeal this resolution but we cannot support the barbaric language utilised in this effort.

(OOC: If you were suggesting an amendment dear then they’re not possible, the game mechanics don’t allow them.)

Fourth, if this caveman resolution passes, I'm immediately going to write an updated version of Resolution 80 because forcibly revoking basic human rights for the entire planet is wrong beyond words.
We wish to note that it does not revoke anything as the original resolution affords no protection at all, if nations are presently protecting minorities and women then they chose to do that and will continue doing so after the repeal.

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

Are you pissed because you were caught not following common forum rules or because my argument is true and you have no logical rebutal?
OOC: Oh no. The Self Willed has "caught" me "not following common forum rules". Whatever will I do now?

Tell you what sport, let's wait for a real mod to weigh in on the subject of forum rules. In the meantime, shush.

A repeal of Resolution #80 would not force nations to surrender any protection for minorities or a particular sex; members could continue to voluntarily comply with the spirit of Resolution #80 after any repeal via their legislatures. There is nothing stopping that.

*Whew* Okay, good point. I feel better knowing that.

(OOC: If you were suggesting an amendment dear then they’re not possible, the game mechanics don’t allow them.)

I wasn't nessesarily thinking of going in and changing Resolution 80 itself but passing a seperate resolution reffering to Resolution 80 in which addresses certain passages, phrases or whatever else and would legally change the terminology so if anyone would want to read Resolution 80 or enforce it, the person would need to read and reffer to both Resolution 80 and the resolution patching it's terminology. I agree it's not as neat and clean but it gets the job done without repealing Resolution 80 completely. But then again, if the current resolution passes and people are going to submit a replacement for Resolution 80 after it's appeal anyways, well, finding out people are planning that would make me feel better and I wouldn't feel compelled to say anything further.

Lastly...all right, hold the phone. :confused: I'm getting terribly confused here! What exactly does "OOC" mean? I've never come across that before anywhere else online.

In my first post I was giving you some (intentionally) helpful advice for you to file away for future refference. I was not repremanding you. In my second post I was simply asking for clarification on your response as I could not find a purpose to it. There is no reason to get nasty. Also, you want a moderator's view on posting, you got it. Your response has been reported as being rude.

We vote to repeal this act.

In my first post I was giving you some (intentionally) helpful advice for you to file away for future refference. I was not repremanding you. In my second post I was simply asking for clarification on your response as I could not find a purpose to it. There is no reason to get nasty. Also, you want a moderator's view on posting, you got it. Your response has been reported as being rude.Rude? Rude?! Unless a post rises to actionable status, see the One Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), your sensibilities are out of luck.

As for Glog's response, he had already indicated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13218565&postcount=45) earlier in the thread that flinging poo would be his only response to complaints about language used in the repeal argument.

Also, since I see no thread in moderation containing your complaint, I'm taking a wild guess that you used the "Report Post" triangle instead of following site rules for requesting moderation involvement. This sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540653) is the most explanatory of why not to use the "Report Post" option. The OSRS contains instructions on getting moderator input for a large variety of situations.

In my first post I was giving you some (intentionally) helpful advice for you to file away for future refference. I was not repremanding you. In my second post I was simply asking for clarification on your response as I could not find a purpose to it. There is no reason to get nasty. Also, you want a moderator's view on posting, you got it. Your response has been reported as being rude.

ooc: If you'd read the past posts...Glog announced he'd pelt all those who say they're against. Not a great vote changing tactic, but what do you expect from a caveman? *ducks*
Plus he also says his support for a proposal that his been drafted by Schuttegod also available on this forum.

Someone else mentioned just replacing the Act. Um:
[b]To 'replace' you need to repeal.
You cannot amend.
Possibly you could write one on a similar topic and not be done for duplication/House of Cards, but there's always problems that way.

Glog: if you use the <snip> to get rid of the parts of quotes you don't need you can fit more on one post.

*Edit* Um...FYI, just so you know, system administrators and forum moderators generally dislike it when an person posts two or more messages back to back instead of editing their first post.I have more important things to worry about than double posting in a debate thread. If it was a major problem, I'd merge his posts.

Rubina:

His last response was rude. Besides that, the One Stop Rules Shop does talk about "Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc)." ...and... "You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming." And just in case you were wondering it does say right in the beginning... "Also, new rules may be added as circumstances dictate, and Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need." Therefore the term "actionable status" is an opinion. Just for the record, I wasn't getting bent out of shape about his Out Of Character angle, it was what he said and how he said it. (I just figured out what 'OOC' means, yay!) And I have read the OSRS.

Second, your comment and link on Glog flinging poo was just the clarification I was looking for in the first place. Thank you, sincerely. I was wondering what he was reffering to.

Thirdly, I indeed did not use the moderation forum as I personally believe grievances and requests for intervention should ideally remain a private message type of thing. The One Stop Rules Shop does after all speak of the get help page and that it's messages are private. But on another topic, no one told me the little red report topic triangle doesn't work, so thank you.

*Busts out note pad ... Note to self, don't use little red triangle.*

*pelts the Chernobyl Power Plant delegation with rocks*

*shoots Clog with an M4*

:mp5:

Rubina:

His last response was rude. Besides that, the One Stop Rules Shop does talk about "Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments ... I indeed did not use the moderation forum as I personally believe grievances and requests for intervention should ideally remain a private message type of thing. The One Stop Rules Shop does after all speak of the get help page and that it's messages are private.ooc: Glad to be of help. (Also fixed my link to the sticky.) The Getting Help Page, as it has been explained to me is for game-side requests. Anything forum-related is to go through the mod forum. There's also an IRC channel for getting in touch with the mods, but I've never used it, so ymmv.

I see more sarcasm and frustration in the post you see as rude. Either way, it helps to have a slightly thicker skin, as there are more truly egregious player interactions (*cough*General*cough*) and not enough mods to police the merely "rude", even if there was a desire to.

The Getting Help Page, as it has been explained to me is for game-side requests. Anything forum-related is to go through the mod forum.

Oh, well, I used the Getting Help Page. I didn't know that, next time (I hope there won't be one) I'll use the mod forum. Oops.

I see more sarcasm and frustration in the post you see as rude. Either way, it helps to have a slightly thicker skin, as there are more truly egregious player interactions (*cough*General*cough*) and not enough mods to police the merely "rude", even if there was a desire to.

Yeah, that's generally why I don't go on forums too often as I've noticed people tend to be more mean on the internet than they are in real life. I don't know why. I can see your point with "sarcasm and frustration". I called it "rude" because I was just trying to help, not chew him out and after I read his reply I felt I had been attacked.

But anywhoo ... now that this has been blown WAY out of proportion, perhaps we should all just calm down and get back on topic. We have a repeal resolution to...um, well...do something with.

we find this repeal to be adequate in the way of minorities and women however, the right for same sex affection is an outrage. we will comply to the repeal only if this same sex affection category is removed. if we as countries let this homosexual atrocity become legal these so-called lovers will have sex and have NO children. without the productive families our countries will cease to exist.

Interesting how you jump from the idea that homosexual relationships bearing no children would mean that your country would cease to exist. Are there no heterosexuals in your country? To imply that 'productive families' rely upon their being no homosexuals is both spurious and nonsensical.
Also, whilst stating that you disagree with homosexual relations becoming legal, it should be noted that this is not a resolution but a repeal of a resolution which already exists. Therefore, as a UN nation you and your nation should be already following the resolution whether you agree fully with it or not.

As for the repeal itself, I think it is an atrocity to remove the rights of women and minority as equals simply due to an inability to understand a few words. Especially when the nation proposing the repeal has limited understanding of language and resorts to throwing poo as a point of disagreement.
However, if said nation wishes to write up an improved version of the same resolution and present it as a future proposal, then it might be a tad more productive than poo flinging.

Germonic will vote against against this resolution, for it fail in expose a solid argument and are based on irrelevances.

It's not necessary to keep on repeating terms on every single Article to reinforce the argument. The UN Law is coherent and clean.

Hi,

I'm the founder of a new nation: Hedonistic Imperative.

Our stance toward Resolution 80 (unfunny, I'm afraid, but we'll try in future) is as follows:

The following would be acceptable to the people of H.I.:

ARTICLE I- No one race is inherently better than another.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

It is our view that it is possible to say that certain cultures are more effective than others at promoting the general happiness of individuals and groups. It is also our opinion that religion constitutes an external body of thought which can be freely rejected or accepted by the individual, in the absence of laws prohibiting freedom of choice. As such, it may be the case that some religions should receive more criticism than others We feel that some religions are notably more oppressive than others, and therefore "worse" as, in our opinion, oppression can objectively said to be more detrimental than beneficial with respect to any individual or group.

It is important not to allow an overarching tolerance or acceptance of all perspectives, views and opinions to degenerate into a belief in moral equivalence. While it is right to allow everyone the unfettered opportunity to express their opinions, it would be wrong to pretend that all views are equally valid, for to take from under them any objective grounding is also to deny their intrinsic meaning. Some systems of thought, opinions and ideological propositions are more rational than others; some are more effective than others at leading to realisation of their ultimate goal; some goals promote sustained happiness and self-development within a given individual, community, nation or society and some do not. We have a great deal of respect for those theorists who challenge the foundation of knowledge, thought, language and meaning, but to deny that we can attribute any meaningful value judgements to any concept is simply wrong, in our opinion.

Glog thank Wolfgang for starship tickets. Glog visit Wolfgang land soon. Glog never travel on starship before, is type of sled?

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

"Sure. An enormous, interstellar sled powered by a captive black hole, but yeah."

Interesting how you jump from the idea that homosexual relationships bearing no children would mean that your country would cease to exist. Are there no heterosexuals in your country? To imply that 'productive families' rely upon their being no homosexuals is both spurious and nonsensical.
Also, whilst stating that you disagree with homosexual relations becoming legal, it should be noted that this is not a resolution but a repeal of a resolution which already exists. Therefore, as a UN nation you and your nation should be already following the resolution whether you agree fully with it or not.

OOC: Thank you. I hate when people think the world will break down if some of us deviants get a break now and then. It's also pretty funny that they didn't realize that we're repealing what that person didn't like. And I still say that anyone not already behind the spirit of the original Res probably isn't in the UN anyway. Just because this is repealed doesn't mean you have to drop your own protections of the sort or anything like that. This Res creates no committees nor performs major actions, so its removal would hardly be noticeable when the rest of the Multiverse would probably have its own protections anyway. I can't honestly see that it being removed would do anything, really. Some deviant nations might go "Yay! Down with minorities!" I suppose, but, like I said, they probably would've found a way around it or exited the UN. </tangent>

*shoots Clog with an M4*

:mp5:

*reaches into desk and places Colt 1911a on desk next to his bottle of Wild Turkey(TM).*

(adresses the delegate from Chernobyl Power Plant)
Excuse me mate, but lets keep the party civil. If you want to respond, its perfectly permissable to throw the rock or mammoth s**t back at Glog. In fact It would liven up this rather dreadful debate. However I'd rather advise you to keep the firearms out of the debate. we don't need any escalations.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

(addresses Glog)
"Don't worry old boy, I've got you back."

Lastly...all right, hold the phone. :confused: I'm getting terribly confused here! What exactly does "OOC" mean? I've never come across that before anywhere else online.

OOC: OOC= Out of Character. Since a lot of people in this forum post in character (or IC) the OOC tag is used to denote when the person behind that nation is speaking.

Tell how findings weak. Christoffel Anderson person say many words to insult how Glog talk, not many words to argue against repeal. Why think UN Law #80 good? Tell what Vista Buena people think UN Law #80 do.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador
Cunning Linguist

*pelts the Vista Buena delegation with an assortment of animal bones and entrails*

To the Delegations of Glog,

International Politicking, and for that matter, drafting international legislations, requires language skills above and beyond what is normally needed for functional communications. The language of this resolution is not even suitable for normal communications. How can this even be passed as a UN resolution?

We have also consulted with our nation's Education Ministry, and they have said that under any circumstances, our nation's student will not be able to pass any examinations with "writings" like this. How can we stand for this resolution when we know it isn't even up to Secondary School level?

The language of this resolution (or lack thereof) aside, the resolution uses much technicality to make its point, when it is clear that any problems that arise from this resolution can be resolved at a national level. Although I would admit that we would like to see a stronger legislation, but our nation cannot stand to be insulted by this resolution, and we would ask all members to stand firm for good language and overall literacy.


Christoffel Anderson
Minister of State on United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

*shoots Clog with an M4*

:mp5:

While I'll thank the ambassador from Chernobyl Power Plant for their assisstance. I don't think shooting the clog will help this sink to drain any faster.

Nameless Maintence Man
UN Building Management

To the Delegations of Glog,

International Politicking, and for that matter, drafting international legislations, requires language skills above and beyond what is normally needed for functional communications. The language of this resolution is not even suitable for normal communications. How can this even be passed as a UN resolution?

We have also consulted with our nation's Education Ministry, and they have said that under any circumstances, our nation's student will not be able to pass any examinations with "writings" like this. How can we stand for this resolution when we know it isn't even up to Secondary School level?

The language of this resolution (or lack thereof) aside, the resolution uses much technicality to make its point, when it is clear that any problems that arise from this resolution can be resolved at a national level. Although I would admit that we would like to see a stronger legislation, but our nation cannot stand to be insulted by this resolution, and we would ask all members to stand firm for good language and overall literacy.


Christoffel Anderson
Minister of State on United Nation Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

Well, ain't you a cunning linguist. Look, Glog is a caveman. He speaks and writes like a caveman. And since apparently you don't like Glog's manner of speech.
*Bob walks over to Christoffel, picks him(?) up and defenestrates him(?)*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*Bob walks over to Christoffel, picks him(?) up and defenestrates him(?)*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Chief Legate to the United Nations will be treated with dignity, and his opinions will be treated with respect. Any actions otherwise shall be considered to be an affront to our nation's sovereignty and dignity.

Dr. Peter Fischer
President, National Transformation Council
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

"Oooh, a challenge!" Wolfgang pulled out his hologun and shot the uptight delegate. "And your opinions bedamned!"

The Chief Legate to the United Nations will be treated with dignity, and his opinions will be treated with respect

Dignity? Respect? For a UN ambassador? *stifle of giggle* Oh my. You must be new to this place. I offer my sympathies and apologies in advance.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

The Wolf Guardians;13221084']"Oooh, a challenge!" Wolfgang pulled out his hologun and shot the uptight delegate. "And your opinions bedamned!"

*The Vista Buena delegates fire back*

Glog: if you use the <snip> to get rid of the parts of quotes you don't need you can fit more on one post.
Glog lazy last night. Quote entire post. *shrugs*

*The Vista Buena delegates fire back*

Like a bat in the night, the black-clad nun from the Snefaldian delegation swoops down upon the warring delegations, waving her dangerous-looking Westcott ruler over her head and warbling a aiaiaiaiaiaiaia war cry while dispensing wrist-slaps to everyone involved.

"Now! I'll have none of this hooliganism! If you want to play with your little toys, take it outside! And no chewing gum! If you have gum, spit it out. Spit it out! I see you chewing, Mr. Askanabath! Don't make me call the Robotic Destructor Bunnies to send you all to detention!"

Like a bat in the night, the black-clad nun from the Snefaldian delegation swoops down upon the warring delegations, waving her dangerous-looking Westcott ruler over her head and warbling a aiaiaiaiaiaiaia war cry while dispensing wrist-slaps to everyone involved.

"Now! I'll have none of this hooliganism! If you want to play with your little toys, take it outside! And no chewing gum! If you have gum, spit it out. Spit it out! I see you chewing, Mr. Askanabath! Don't make me call the Robotic Destructor Bunnies to send you all to detention!"

Ikir smiles sheepishly, and spits the gum into a paper napkin. Looking around for a trashcan, he doesn't see one, so he whistles and tucks the napkin into the breast pocket of Markus Paulanus' suit. Paulanus, sitting next to him, simply sighs.

"But... but... I only fired once! And it was holographic! It didn't even do any damage!"

bottle of Wild Turkey(TM).*
What Wild turkey? Something to drink? Glog thirsty, might be good.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

I don't think shooting the clog will help this sink to drain any faster.
OOC: Apparently, firearms are increasingly being used in household and automotive repairs. (http://kitsapsun.com/news/2007/nov/10/sk-man-hurts-himself-trying-to-loosen-lug-nut/)

To the Delegations of Glog,

International Politicking, and for that matter, drafting international legislations, requires language skills above and beyond what is normally needed for functional communications. The language of this resolution is not even suitable for normal communications. How can this even be passed as a UN resolution?

We have also consulted with our nation's Education Ministry, and they have said that under any circumstances, our nation's student will not be able to pass any examinations with "writings" like this. How can we stand for this resolution when we know it isn't even up to Secondary School level?

The language of this resolution (or lack thereof) aside, the resolution uses much technicality to make its point, when it is clear that any problems that arise from this resolution can be resolved at a national level. Although I would admit that we would like to see a stronger legislation, but our nation cannot stand to be insulted by this resolution, and we would ask all members to stand firm for good language and overall literacy.


Christoffel Anderson
Minister of State on United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena
*Glog howls with God's own fury*

Glog ask Christoffel Anderson person why think UN Law #80 good? Tell what Vista Buena people think UN Law #80 do? Anderson person still talk about Glog language.

Glog see Bob Flibble throw Anderson person out window. Flibble GOOD!!! Anderson flying out window GOOD!!! Maybe Anderson not talk about Glog language now. Talk about cuts and bruises from fall instead.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

:headbang:

It's kind of obvious isn't it? We need to show that people are equal in riace, sex, etc. So why are we trying to repeal the rights of women? I personally think that we should keep the rights of women so that we can enjoy the social freedoms that we have.

Crapooza

:headbang:

It's kind of obvious isn't it? We need to show that people are equal in riace, sex, etc. So why are we trying to repeal the rights of women? I personally think that we should keep the rights of women so that we can enjoy the social freedoms that we have.

For the....love...of....whatever deities you may worship.

Can you, or any one else harping on the point for that matter, please tell me exactly what RoMaW does at all to protect anyones' rights? Anyone at all?

*listens to utter silence broken only by the whistle of air through the HVAC vents of the room, as no other sound emerges*

Exactly.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

For the....love...of....whatever deities you may worship.

Can you, or any one else harping on the point for that matter, please tell me exactly what RoMaW does at all to protect anyones' rights? Anyone at all?

*listens to utter silence broken only by the whistle of air through the HVAC vents of the room, as no other sound emerges*

Exactly.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

While Vista Buena believes that there should be a stronger resolution to protect the rights of Minorities and Women, the Vista Buena delegation cannot accept this repeal resolution, due to, again, language. We do not care how many times the Glog delegations will howl, we remain steadfast in our opposition to this resolution. We welcome other, more linguistically coherent resolutions to the same effect, but we cannot accept this resolution in its present form of cavemenwrite.

Christoffel Anderson
Minister of State on United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

While Vista Buena believes that there should be a stronger resolution to protect the rights of Minorities and Women, the Vista Buena delegation cannot accept this repeal resolution, due to, again, language. We do not care how many times the Glog delegations will howl, we remain steadfast in our opposition to this resolution. We welcome other, more linguistically coherent resolutions to the same effect, but we cannot accept this resolution in its present form of cavemenwrite.

So, even though you recognize that stronger protections for minorities and women are needed (which the original resolution blocks from taking effect), you remain opposed to this repeal because of its linguistics? Bah!

I can see why Glog is getting mad. I'm almost tempted to throw some rocks, poo or animal parts myself. This is just one of those laugh-to-keep-from-crying moments.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Ambassador Askanabath, surely you cannot deny that the grammar and language in this resolution is, without a doubt, lacking?

Christoffel Anderson
State Minister on United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

Ambassador Askanabath, surely you cannot deny that the grammar and language in this resolution is, without a doubt, lacking?

That's the way the Gloggians speak. I don't fault them for it. Nor do I ignore the fact that they've authored a good repeal of a worthless resolution because of it. Then again, the Altanari delegation has never placed style over substance, or grammar over results.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

While Vista Buena believes that there should be a stronger resolution to protect the rights of Minorities and Women, the Vista Buena delegation cannot accept this repeal resolution, due to, again, language. We do not care how many times the Glog delegations will howl, we remain steadfast in our opposition to this resolution. We welcome other, more linguistically coherent resolutions to the same effect, but we cannot accept this resolution in its present form of cavemenwrite.

Christoffel Anderson
Minister of State on United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena


Does it really matter what is in the body? We know what resolution it repeals. We know why it is repealing it. It isn't like we are making a new law that must be precise, we are removing an old one.

Glog, you have outdone yourself. You are welcome to hunt my country's native Blatter Beasts anytime you wish. Save the Mastadons, eat more beast.

Zarquon Froods votes FOR.

I disapprove of this resolution because of the grammatical errors that have been made. If this is the way the people of Glog speak then that is fine but if they are going to put forth a resolution then they need to show some intellect and write it correctly. In addition why should we repeal the rights of women and minorities aren't they human beings just like the rest of us. Wouldn't you want to get the same respect you get now if you were a women or a minority?

I vote: AGAINST

Beacasue - somone woho write "Rights of Minorities and Women" using words in their common senses!We cand atteched vocabulary to all resolutions!

I disapprove of this resolution because of the grammatical errors that have been made. If this is the way the people of Glog speak then that is fine but if they are going to put forth a resolution then they need to show some intellect and write it correctly. In addition why should we repeal the rights of women and minorities aren't they human beings just like the rest of us. Wouldn't you want to get the same respect you get now if you were a women or a minority?

I'm not even going to comment on the speech/writing issue coming up yet again, except for this.

*picks up one of the rocks on the ground from Glog's earlier barrages, and tosses it at the United Dependencies ambassador*

As for the idea that this is "repealing the rights of women and minorities" coming up yet again, it's not repealing those rights, because the original resolution never gave them any rights to repeal. The original resolution never did anything, except sing a lovely "we are the world"-style song to the idea of human rights.

I vote: AGAINST

Beacasue - somone woho write "Rights of Minorities and Women" using words in their common senses!We cand atteched vocabulary to all resolutions!

This is ironic.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Although it is regrettable that G L O G did not use proper grammar, it does not detract from the point. The point is that the wording of the resolution should be improved to strengthen it and make it more encompassing. Although in the future if G L O G wishes to bring a resolution to the UN's attention the government of Molarkan would request that the resolution be proposed through a more eloquent source while still giving credit for the idea to G L O G. Addressing the point that once this resolution is repealed (since it seems that such will be the case), a replacement resolution is in the works and will likely be proposed as soon as necessary in order to prevent discriminatory practices time to build up in the space of time where there are no UN mandatory provisions.

With all due respect,
Molarkan's Ambassador

The flaming liberals (in everything but the death penalty and homosexuality) of the Borderlands of Delmarva Jersey have spoken: YAY! For this law. True, it's useless, but it's better than nothing. Amend it to mean something, don't throw it out.

-Franklin G. Kava, Temporary Interim Special Ambassador to the UN from the Borderlands of Delmarva Jersey.

Our delegation has donated bats and clubs to Glog as we stayted on another thread. Because some are doing some tomfoolery you have made Glog mad.

Making Glog mad-->bad
Giving Glog clubs made of wood-->good

Now we want to donate some stones and other throwable things that Glog can use to throw at delegates who worry too much about Glogs speech patterns. We will also join Glog's throwing party whenever he starts.

Repeal-->good
Vague laws-->bad

I disapprove of this resolution because of the grammatical errors that have been made. If this is the way the people of Glog speak then that is fine but if they are going to put forth a resolution then they need to show some intellect and write it correctly. In addition why should we repeal the rights of women and minorities aren't they human beings just like the rest of us. Wouldn't you want to get the same respect you get now if you were a women or a minority?

Go back and read the damned thing! As Ikir Askanabath has said, the resolution did NOTHING! Sure, it made us all feel warm and fuzzy inside when we went home to our wives, those of us that have them, and told them we voted to secure their rights. Then when they ask what right we stutter like blithering idiots.

Where the hell is the nutcracker we used during the Max Barry Day InstaRepeal™? I think it's time for some intense deliberations.

I vote: AGAINST

Beacasue - somone woho write "Rights of Minorities and Women" using words in their common senses!We cand atteched vocabulary to all resolutions!

We have a saying in Zarquon Froods. You've probably heard of it. It deals with a pot calling a kettle "black."

I vote: AGAINST

Beacasue - somone woho write "Rights of Minorities and Women" using words in their common senses!We cand atteched vocabulary to all resolutions!

Ah! I am glad to see that this august Assembly's new recruitment drive and assisted insertion policy is bearing fruit.

I bid the honourable ambassador from Punckeds welcome, and wish him well.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1664/servurcuntryaz1.png


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

"Archduke Mattamo agree with G l o g!" states noted cave dweller and citizen of New Mattamo, Ugg Smith."People of New Mattamo like Duke Mattamo and like his decisions! He give me slab of meat! So I say nice things! He so great!" *Ugg stops speaking in order to munch on a large piece of raw lamb*

The flaming liberals (in everything but the death penalty and homosexuality) of the Borderlands of Delmarva Jersey have spoken: YAY! For this law. True, it's useless, but it's better than nothing. Amend it to mean something, don't throw it out.

*At this statement, Ikir Askanabath lets out a scream of frustration*

That's it. I'm done. I can't handle this freaking debate anymore. I'm going to my office now to get good and drunk, screw this. Jaris, can you take over? Thanks.

*Without waiting for a response, Ikir storms out of the GA, as Jaris Krytellin calmly shifts over to the microphone*

Well, I saw that coming. Crazy kid.

Okay, Ambassador Kava, let me try to explain politely why you're incorrect.

Something useless is not better than nothing. If it's useless, how is it even possible for it to be better than nothing? It serves no purpose if it's useless, therefore it may as well be nothing. A useless resolution is, in fact, even worse than no resolution at all, because as long as the useless resolution is in force, a better one can't be passed.

You also can't "amend it to mean something", because amending a resolution isn't possible. It's against the rules. You have to toss it out to make way for something better. I hope that explanation helps.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

OOC: After trying to fuddle through about 11 pages of crap, I've come a conclusion. Glog is more enlightened than the majority of opponents to this repeal.

You say "I don't like it because of..." and we say "Oh but that's not really the case, see if you actually think about it..." and you say "Think? This is the UN, we don't do that here,"




IC: I've heard the same argument dozens of times, it's been refuted many times but ignored. I would like to argue that Glog's right to free speech before this wonderful assembly, is protected in these halls. Trust me on this, he's more physically fit than anything you got. If you happen to beat him in a fight, you've gotta face the rest of the supporters.

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, we're smarter than you, we're stronger than you and we look a lot cooler in a fedora(the whip is optional... unless you're the Kennyite delegation).

Speaking of "stronger", I've got another secret for the honorable delegates.

You can't amend a bad resolution at all, and you can't replace it until it's repealed. Why is it so important to keep a completely useless law on the books? Do you actually stand against the rights outlined therein? If so I'd think you'd still want it repealed... Unless...

Is it a conspiracy? Pass a resolution that does none of the things it claims to, just to add a stumbling block to anyone trying to actually do something?

Brilliant, too brilliant in fact for any of you yokels to have thought of it.


Oh, and for the record: Trey Dreizehn votes FOR this repeal.

Repeal Good. Asylum Manager's UN-Representative vote FOR.;)

That's the way the Gloggians speak. I don't fault them for it. Nor do I ignore the fact that they've authored a good repeal of a worthless resolution because of it. Then again, the Altanari delegation has never placed style over substance, or grammar over results.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

To the delegates of Altanar,

I don't care how the Gloggians speak. They are in an International Organization which uses proper English, the only working language of the world. They need to conform to our rules and regulations. Why should we bend to their whims?

Christoffel Anderson
State Minister for United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

To the delegates of Altanar,

I don't care how the Gloggians speak. They are in an International Organization which uses proper English, the only working language of the world. They need to conform to our rules and regulations. Why should we bend to their whims?

Delicious, delicious irony...
ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.
This if anything shows just how weak the resolution under repeal is.

--L.T.

Delicious, delicious irony...

This if anything shows just how weak the resolution under repeal is.

--L.T.

To the delegates of Rubina,

There are limits to everything, and this is no exception. How can the Gloggian Delegation propose this utter piece of rubbish to this table? I am almost tempted to have building management to clean the area where the resolution now rests.

Yes, all cultures are different, but no one would tolerate me coming in with words of oath and other vulgarities. There are limits to this, and violating the standard conventions on English grammar and usage is a line we shall never, EVER, cross.

Christoffel Anderson
State Minister for United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

Having reviewed the ShutteGod resolution, and being in agreement with Glog and others that it offers superior protection of human rights than resolution #80, I am voting in favor of the repeal.

The problem with the existing resolution is not that the meaning of "equal" or "better" are unclear, but that their application is vague and problematic. Resolution #80, as written, could in fact be used as a legal shield for "separate but equal" doctrines of segregation that have disgraced the legislatures and courts of other nations at other times. The new resolution, once passed, offers concrete guarantees of fair treatment under law. If Resolution #80 is an obstacle to the ShutteGod resolution's passage, then it should be struck down immediately.

Ignatius Thorwald
UN Ambassador
Democratic Republic of Veblenia

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

"Hellao it is me Borat Sogadiev!! I would like to thank Glog for making this a very nice proposal!! You would be an Uzbek to vote against it! In my country we say "Very nice...how much!?" to very nice women thus respecting their rights. For minorities we have the "Running of the (x minority)" to recognize them as part of our society. There is no need for such bill in the first place. Nor does any bill have any enforcement of government's domestic policies anyway.... Therefore we vote FOR this proposal. Thank-a-you again Glog!!"

-Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad

Notice by Chief Legate Office of The Democratic States of Vista Buena

In light of recent events and abuses from certain nations towards our esteemed delegations, The National Transformation Council of Vista Buena has decided to summon the State Minister of United Nations Affair and the Chief Legate of the United Nations, Christoffel Anderson, back to our nation's capital, Victorsville, for consultation.

In the meantime, our nation's Vice-Legate to the United Nations, Dr. Juliana Kittleson, will be our nation's Highest Representative at the United Nations until Legate Anderson's return.

To the delegates of Rubina,

There are limits to everything, and this is no exception. How can the Gloggian Delegation propose this utter piece of rubbish to this table? I am almost tempted to have building management to clean the area where the resolution now rests.

Yes, all cultures are different, but no one would tolerate me coming in with words of oath and other vulgarities. There are limits to this, and violating the standard conventions on English grammar and usage is a line we shall never, EVER, cross.

Christoffel Anderson
State Minister for United Nations Affairs
Chief Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

Actually, you better fucking believe that we would tolerate oaths and obscenities. It's less common than it used to be, but it's hardly unknown.

And I would suggest that you seriously re-evaluate your priorities if you honestly believe that protecting standard English is more important than eliminating a barrier to protecting actual people from unfair discrimination.

I may be crazier than an alligator-wrestling tootsie roll, but even I can see that unfair discrimination is a much more serious issue than the conventions of standard English.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I would like to congradulate glog on his fine work, and i further add my support to this noble action:)

Actually, you better fucking believe that we would tolerate oaths and obscenities. It's less common than it used to be, but it's hardly unknown.

And I would suggest that you seriously re-evaluate your priorities if you honestly believe that protecting standard English is more important than eliminating a barrier to protecting actual people from unfair discrimination.

I may be crazier than an alligator-wrestling tootsie roll, but even I can see that unfair discrimination is a much more serious issue than the conventions of standard English.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones


Discriminations are, of course, serious, but English is important as well. We will stand against discrimination and FOR good English today.

Dr. Juliana Kittleson
Vice-Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

If we should choose to repeal the "Rights of Minorities and Women" Act, what shall replace it? You cannot simply vote to repeal the Act. It has been stated that the simple and basic language used in the document is not enforceable and thus the Act should be repealed, but that works against what we are trying to accomplish. If the act is repealed, I ask you, what shall replace it?

If we should choose to repeal the "Rights of Minorities and Women" Act, what shall replace it? You cannot simply vote to repeal the Act. It has been stated that the simple and basic language used in the document is not enforceable and thus the Act should be repealed, but that works against what we are trying to accomplish. If the act is repealed, I ask you, what shall replace it?

A proposal submitted by the excellent ambassador of Zlorptopia, mayhap?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

If we should choose to repeal the "Rights of Minorities and Women" Act, what shall replace it? You cannot simply vote to repeal the Act. It has been stated that the simple and basic language used in the document is not enforceable and thus the Act should be repealed, but that works against what we are trying to accomplish. If the act is repealed, I ask you, what shall replace it?

OOC: Maybe the replacement draft being discussed a few lines down from here in this very forum?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542690

Discriminations are, of course, serious, but English is important as well. We will stand against discrimination and FOR good English today.

Dr. Juliana Kittleson
Vice-Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

*Zarquon had been sitting back in his chair watching this seemingly endless debate go on. His head, however, suddenly popped up when he heard the closing words of Dr. Kittleson. He rose and pulled his hood back.*

Are we to accept your stress on the word "FOR" as meaning Vista Buena has changed it's vote? By the powers it's about damned time!

*Zarquon had been sitting back in his chair watching this seemingly endless debate go on. His head, however, suddenly popped up when he heard the closing words of Dr. Kittleson. He rose and pulled his hood back.*

Are we to accept your stress on the word "FOR" as meaning Vista Buena has changed it's vote? By the powers it's about damned time!

Vista Buena casts its votes in concrete and stone. We will never change our opinion and vote. This resolution, as it is, is the worst legislation we have ever seen, and we will not vote for resolutions that was written by unschooled persons.

Dr. Juliana Kittleson
Vice-Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

Are we to accept your stress on the word "FOR" as meaning Vista Buena has changed it's vote?...Or even "its vote"? :p

(Sorry.)

Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner attempts to quietly comment on the distinct nature of repeals as opposed to other legislation. Standard resolutions, whether misspelled, excruciatingly stupid, or just plain awful, can be repealed by future resolutions, seemingly implying that the UN is capable of progress, or at least rectifying its most blatant errors. Even if an astoundingly agonizing resolution fails to be repealed at an apparently fortunate opportunity, it remains possible for future lawmakers to get rid of it. Repeals, however, cannot be undone: while the legislation they nullify can be replaced, the actual content of the repeal is fated to linger in the record books for all eternity. If the UN would consider the legacy they-

beep beep kzzt sss...

...It may be time for delegate Gardner to leave the floor, but he expresses his admiration for Dr. Kittleson's persistence.

This debate makes me giggle. People are talking but other people are being redundant and aren't listening in the first place. Then people are called stupid because their not listening and being redundant then more poo is thrown. hehehe

Knowing the resolution being repealed will be replaced with a much more accurate and adequate version makes me feel much better about the effort to safeguard the rights of all, however I still have to agree whole heartedly with Vista Buena. I personally believe that if someone is going to try to pass something into law, they should respect the governing body and it's members and processes by submitting a proposal that retains the proper amount of respect, dignity and seriousness. The current proposal's lack of the aforementioned qualities forces me to still vote against this resolution even though I would like to see Resolution 80 replaced. However, if someone else took his current proposal and rewrote it using the aforementioned qualities while giving full credit to Glog and his current proposal, then I would wholeheartedly vote for it instead of against it. I would rather see equal rights delayed than see a proposal disrespect the seriousness and dignity of the U.N. and it's processes. So call me patriotic...or maybe just stubborn and hard-headed.

*Picks up Band-aids and poo shield expecting an onslaught from everyone.*

The Chief Legate to the United Nations will be treated with dignity, and his opinions will be treated with respect. Any actions otherwise shall be considered to be an affront to our nation's sovereignty and dignity.

Dr. Peter Fischer
President, National Transformation Council
The Democratic States of Vista BuenaFine then, the next time I defenestrate someone from your nation, I'll do it with the utmost dignity.

Vista Buena casts its votes in concrete and stone. We will never change our opinion and vote.

Dr. Juliana Kittleson
Vice-Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista BuenaThen you madam, are a close minded pinhead.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Apparently, firearms are increasingly being used in household and automotive repairs. (http://kitsapsun.com/news/2007/nov/10/sk-man-hurts-himself-trying-to-loosen-lug-nut/)OOC: You know, I clicked on that link thinking that it would be some redneck from the South who did that. But no, the guy is from the same state as me.:rolleyes:

OOC: After trying to fuddle through about 11 pages of crap, I've come a conclusion. Glog is more enlightened than the majority of opponents to this repeal. It took you 11 pages to figure that out?:p

<snip> This resolution, as it is, is the worst legislation we have ever seen, and we will not vote for resolutions that was written by unschooled persons.


You see my fellow delegates, no one is safe from the effects of bad grammar. Damn the grammar. He could have used a series of grunts for all I care, so long as I know what the hell he is talking about.

Vote it down if you want. That only means that we have to wait for another repeal to be drafted, then reach quorum and finally go to vote yet again. We have it here before us now. I say let the repeal be passed so that we may right this terrible wrong.

Discriminations are, of course, serious, but English is important as well. We will stand against discrimination and FOR good English today.

I'd just like to note that if you vote against this repeal, you're merely voting for Vista Buena's form of English, and for discrimination. I'd point out the irony of what exactly you're doing to his language(it starts with a d and ends with an iscriminating), but your head may just explode Madam Kittleson.

I would like to state that I am appalled at the intolerance Glog is receiving in these halls from nations that spout their tolerance to the world. This is pure and simple racism on their part towards the cavemen of G L O G, and I for one will not stand for it. I'm mobilizing my military as we speak. Let actions speak louder than words.


OOC: Can we remember for a moment that this isn't the real world? You'd think the mere fact that a caveman authored the proposal would be a great big hint. Sadly... not so much.

Lo siento. Se me olvidó que en otras paises, no siempre se hablen las linguas que yo sé. Es muy importante que los Naciones Unidos permitan gente hablar en todas linguas. Quiero que nuestro proximo ley sea en un lingua que no hablo.

-Plutonian Ambassador Raymond Gardner

This is pure and simple racism on their part towards the cavemen of G L O G, and I for one will not stand for it.

No one is expressing any animosity towards Glog or his nation or his nation's citizens my friend, just his language in a serious (yes, simulated) U.N. resolution. That's all.

*Edit* Lets see if I still got it. Um..."Me no hablar espanol." I hope that was actually spanish he said, and I'm pretty sure I misspelled everything.

There are limits to everything, and this is no exception.So you support rights for people, but not really? You think RoMaW is a robust resolution, but you don't yourself implement it to the strength you attribute it?

More importantly, you would restrict full participation in the UN by a culture such as Glog's simply because its development doesn't mirror your own? How very superior of you.

Glog's analysis of the utility of RoMaW is quite sophisticated even if his people's language doesn't appear to be as developed as others here.

--L.T.

Lo siento. Se me olvidó que en otras paises, no siempre se hablen las linguas que yo sé. Es muy importante que los Naciones Unidos permitan gente hablar en todas linguas. Quiero que nuestro proximo ley sea en un lingua que no hablo.

-Plutonian Ambassador Raymond Gardner

There is no need to apologize, Ambassador. We all have moments of forgetfulness.

And you're quite right that it's important for the United Nations to permit people to speak in all languages. I am personally disappointed that there are not more languages used on the debate floor, as I enjoy learning new ones.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

"I agree, other nations don't always speak in a language I understand. It is very important for the United Nations to allow people to speak in all languages. I think that our next resolution should be in a language I don't speak,"

Or as I like to call it, a language we all can understand. Sarcasm.


OOC: I could be off the mark, that's babelfish and a human brain working in tandem to translate. I don't speak Spanish at all though, so who knows.

OOC: Babelfish is cheating. I did it the natural way. :p

Hello Friends,

I'm abit new here and am in the position of de facto Ambassador of the Progressive Allied Union. My feelings are mixed towards this proposed repeal, as I fear backpedaling by certain dictatorial nations which will take advantage of this repeal to block on-comming legislation which will act as an improvement to what currently stands.

Despite this, I along with PAU will be voting for this resolution. We will be proposing an alternate to replace the existing resolution shortly.

No one is expressing any animosity towards Glog or his nation or his nation's citizens my friend, just his language in a serious (yes, simulated) U.N. resolution. That's all.

Ahh but you are. This UN is comprised of many different races, cultures, and languages. Now, of course we've a de facto language of English here, but Glog's repeal is in English, merely his own version of it. To say it is inferior, because it is not yours, is to do him a disservice. He could just as easily say our form of English is inferior because of all of the superfluous words(like using superfluous when I could say "extra"). Who are you to judge his language, when you don't even speak it? Glog used his language to craft a concise and easily readable resolution that covered every problem with what it was meant to repeal. You'd be surprised at how much you can say with so little.

Trey no like mean man. Trey use puny man as club. Trey smash UN podium with new club! Why new club leaking?


OOC: OOC: Babelfish is cheating. I did it the natural way. :p

But to note, it wasn't that easy... here's what it pops out at you...

I feel it. One forgot to me that in others paises, not always is spoken linguas that I know. It is very important that the United Nations allow people to speak in all linguas. I want that ours proximo law is in lingua that I do not speak.

Which I turned into

I agree, other nations don't always speak in a language I understand. It is very important for the United Nations to allow people to speak in all languages. I think that our next resolution should be in a language I don't speak.

Seeing as how I don't speak Spanish, I had no idea of the actual translation. I had fun with it though. ;)

I would rather see equal rights delayed than see a proposal disrespect the seriousness and dignity of the U.N. and it's processes. Riiiight. Because the dignity of this body...ahahahaha, oh ho ho ho, oh the gods, I'm going to wet myself...ahem, yes... is ever so much more important than making sure people aren't denied adequate housing because of the color of their skin or the gender of their affections or that women aren't beaten for not wearing the right costume. Oh yes, this body's dignity and processes are so very much more important than that. And cow's tits taste like ice cream.

...in a serious (yes, simulated) U.N. resolution.ooc: It's general etiquette to restrict acknowledgments of the game or discussion of its characteristics to out-of-character posts. The players behind the (vast majority of) passionate, serious posts are quite aware they're playing a game. Remember, the first rule of fight club is.... :)

--L.T.

OOC: But to note, it wasn't that easy... here's what it pops out at you...

I feel it. One forgot to me that in others paises, not always is spoken linguas that I know. It is very important that the United Nations allow people to speak in all linguas. I want that ours proximo law is in lingua that I do not speak.

Which I turned into

I agree, other nations don't always speak in a language I understand. It is very important for the United Nations to allow people to speak in all languages. I think that our next resolution should be in a language I don't speak.

Seeing as how I don't speak Spanish, I had no idea of the actual translation. I had fun with it though. ;)

OOC: Yeah, Babelfish ain't exactly reliable. I know it's hard to get a good translation from. I tried using it with languages I have some knowledge of, and it's almost always a very bad translation. You're lucky to even get the gist of it.

To the delegates of Altanar,

I don't care how the Gloggians speak. They are in an International Organization which uses proper English, the only working language of the world. They need to conform to our rules and regulations. Why should we bend to their whims?

To the delegates of Vista Buena, whichever ones of you are still in here:

The words they are using are English words, last I checked. As for "proper" English, as my colleague Ikir pointed out earlier, some of the most horrid linguistic abortions I have ever seen can be found in legislation that this esteemed body passed. The very resolution that the Glog delegation is trying to repeal isn't exactly a work of great literature. So, my stance on "proper" English is this: stuff it.

As for your "the only working language of the world" comment, I think there are many speakers of French, German, Spanish, etc. etc. ad infinitum who would strongly disagree with you. So, again, stuff it.

And your comments about forcing delegates to conform to "our rules and regulations" (meaning, your interpretation of them) strikes me as a very good illustration of the backwards attitude that practically demands RoMaW be replaced by something that would actually protect people from dogmatic blowhards such as your delegates.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

no really.. is this a joke?

HRM Renesslaer XIV is not amused.

G l o g is making a mockery out of the United Nations and we will not stand for this!

Renesslaer;13222060']G l o g is making a mockery out of the United Nations and we will not stand for this!

Then perhaps you should sit for it instead, and stop talking.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

To the delegates of Vista Buena, whichever ones of you are still in here:

The words they are using are English words, last I checked. As for "proper" English, as my colleague Ikir pointed out earlier, some of the most horrid linguistic abortions I have ever seen can be found in legislation that this esteemed body passed. The very resolution that the Glog delegation is trying to repeal isn't exactly a work of great literature. So, my stance on "proper" English is this: stuff it.

As for your "the only working language of the world" comment, I think there are many speakers of French, German, Spanish, etc. etc. ad infinitum who would strongly disagree with you. So, again, stuff it.

And your comments about forcing delegates to conform to "our rules and regulations" (meaning, your interpretation of them) strikes me as a very good illustration of the backwards attitude that practically demands RoMaW be replaced by something that would actually protect people from dogmatic blowhards such as your delegates.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

I would agree with the honorable Ambassador on his assessment of such blatant ignorance towards other cultures and nations. As such, I would suggest that any legislation which will be made to replace that which is being repealed now include a section which places emphasis on the legitimacy of the cultures of our various nations and allow for the protection of languages as included within the rights of minorities and cultures within the UN in general.

Evoinia, Ambassador of PAU

OOC: In retrospect, there should have been an accent over the first "o" in proximo (that's what I get for lacking "special characters" on my keyboard). I'm pretty sure "lingua" is correct, but "paises" might be wrong: the singular "pais" should have an accent on the i, but I assumed that gets eliminated in the plural.

Glad to amuse you, though. :)

*fiddles with Sith-O-Matic translator device. Finds 'Caveman' setting.*

Glog smart. Sith like. Sith vote repeal. UN Law say "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another." This not right. The Force is only way. Join Dark Side! Power! Big power! Cookies! Erk! Glork! Raaaaaa!
*blinks. looks confusedly at translator device.*
I say, we seem to have a technical difficulty here...back in a moment.

Darth Fescus
Ambassador of the Armed Republic of Darth Ron Paul

We defend Glog. He talk good. Easy to understand. No headaches.

Others use big words that mean nothing. Just like this bad law. Gives headaches.

Respect Glog and we respect you. Criticize Glog for dialect and we criticize your ivory tower jargon. He smarter than you. We raise our enemybone in Glog's honor! Hooah.

Renesslaer;13222060']no really.. is this a joke?

HRM Renesslaer XIV is not amused.

G l o g is making a mockery out of the United Nations and we will not stand for this!

Give Zarquon club. Zarquon want hit someone. Zarquon make new law for Froods. Tomorrow be "Glog Is Good Day." Everyone talk like Glog in Zarquon Froods tomorrow.

People want vote against Glog's repeal make good targets for sling.

And you're quite right that it's important for the United Nations to permit people to speak in all languages. I am personally disappointed that there are not more languages used on the debate floor, as I enjoy learning new ones.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith
Aceque. Me usecho Nordèbrutelliense.

Noi do della salude tuttevere lingùe o stile useco in la lejasleto, astrimpas la lejasleto s'clara, s'comprendettía, e s'chiara. La resoluzione per enzare (Resoluzione #80) do della qualifitece; neío es il effencemmía. Me massegneci con oltra di l'enzare gritece la lingùe e stile di l'enzare, mentral minotteco la fate batanta con resoluzione #80 ilse scritecce jíechal, e senza altaregiene, borché.

L'enzare s'clara, s'comprendettía, e s'chiara. E per deoque strancce, sul vosi sece hoci resoluzione #80 scatta piú in storre, messeche il in nostri costituzione, nostri laggi, nostri decreti, tuttevere. Noi do dell'sece il, noi sece bonenesse. C'e noi oíenzarece e palitece. Noi dell'oáemendece hoci in NSUN, caya?

E io, la Nazioni Unnonecca s'bledettía? Craiton, realtal. E sunt es delegatettu tra do dell'ici realtal passe masio digne sbarttecche son. Scone, qua me breche mai oltra?

Maddelena Pedrana
Reppresentetto Vinca Nordèbutelliense te la Nazioni Unnonecca

Well, then. I'd be using Nord-Brutlandese.

We don't care whatever language or style is being used in the legislation, as long as the legislation is clear, understandable, and unambiguous. The resolution for repeal (resolution #80) does not qualify; neither is it effective. I'm surprised that some of the opponents of the repeal attack the language and style of the repeal, whilst forgetting the stark fact that resolution #80 itself was poorly written, and without class, to boot.

The repeal is clear, understandable, and unambiguous. And for God's sakes, if you want that crappy resolution #80 still in place, put it in your constitution, your laws, your decrees, whatever. We don't want it, we want better. So we must repeal and replace. We cannot amend here in the NSUN, okay?

And also, the United Nations is respectable? Come on, really. And there are delegates who don't really have that much dignity to start with. Sorry, why would I give them some?

Mother Cargaminh frowns, then rushes so fast at the delegates of Zarquon Froods and ShogunKhan it looks like she's floating on air.

"What did I say!" she screeches, raising her Westcott ruler and slamming it onto the palms of the offending delegates. "I will have proper grammar in this chamber! The good lord didn't give you a tongue so you could mangle the King's English!"



ooc: no, don't ask why a snefaldian catholic nun would speak the King's English. I don't know either.

Let me be Frank, someone else be Jane.

I'm all for ambassadors speaking in different languages before this assembly. But, if it is not too much trouble, could they please translate it as well?

OOC: I'm having a hrd time deciphering Brut's post, I know it is Italian. I can pic some of the words from classical latin but can't get the rest.

Mother Cargaminh frowns, then rushes so fast at the delegates of Zarquon Froods and ShogunKhan it looks like she's floating on air.

"What did I say!" she screeches, raising her Westcott ruler and slamming it onto the palms of the offending delegates. "I will have proper grammar in this chamber! The good lord didn't give you a tongue so you could mangle the King's English!"

Excuse me Madame, but I was never ruled by any King. I lived in an autonomous collective until I united my Froods as Emperor Extraordinaire. So kindly take your ruler and shove it up the King's ass!!!

*Zarquon took his cane and knocked Cargaminh halfway across the chamber. Turning to his aide he said.*

Who would have thought that nuns could fly?

OOC: In retrospect, there should have been an accent over the first "o" in proximo (that's what I get for lacking "special characters" on my keyboard). I'm pretty sure "lingua" is correct, but "paises" might be wrong: the singular "pais" should have an accent on the i, but I assumed that gets eliminated in the plural.

Glad to amuse you, though. :)

Actually, "lengua" is the correct word. That's how I knew you weren't a native speaker.

Aceque. Me usecho Nordèbrutelliense.

Noi do della salude tuttevere lingùe o stile useco in la lejasleto, astrimpas la lejasleto s'clara, s'comprendettía, e s'chiara. La resoluzione per enzare (Resoluzione #80) do della qualifitece; neío es il effencemmía. Me massegneci con oltra di l'enzare gritece la lingùe e stile di l'enzare, mentral minotteco la fate batanta con resoluzione #80 ilse scritecce jíechal, e senza altaregiene, borché.

L'enzare s'clara, s'comprendettía, e s'chiara. E per deoque strancce, sul vosi sece hoci resoluzione #80 scatta piú in storre, messeche il in nostri costituzione, nostri laggi, nostri decreti, tuttevere. Noi do dell'sece il, noi sece bonenesse. C'e noi oíenzarece e palitece. Noi dell'oáemendece hoci in NSUN, caya?

E io, la Nazioni Unnonecca s'bledettía? Craiton, realtal. E sunt es delegatettu tra do dell'ici realtal passe masio digne sbarttecche son. Scone, qua me breche mai oltra?

Maddelena Pedrana
Reppresentetto Vinca Nordèbutelliense te la Nazioni Unnonecca

Well, then. I'd be using Nord-Brutlandese.

We don't care whatever language or style is being used in the legislation, as long as the legislation is clear, understandable, and unambiguous. The resolution for repeal (resolution #80) does not qualify; neither is it effective. I'm surprised that some of the opponents of the repeal attack the language and style of the repeal, whilst forgetting the stark fact that resolution #80 itself was poorly written, and without class, to boot.

The repeal is clear, understandable, and unambiguous. And for God's sakes, if you want that crappy resolution #80 still in place, put it in your constitution, your laws, your decrees, whatever. We don't want it, we want better. So we must repeal and replace. We cannot amend here in the NSUN, okay?

And also, the United Nations is respectable? Come on, really. And there are delegates who don't really have that much dignity to start with. Sorry, why would I give them some?

OOC: The best I could do with my limited Italian was pick up the general gist of your statements. I was just a little confused because I thought the Italian phrase for United Nations was "Nazioni Unite." But thanks, it gives me something to practice on. :)

Let me be Frank, someone else be Jane.

I'm all for ambassadors speaking in different languages before this assembly. But, if it is not too much trouble, could they please translate it as well?

OOC: I'm having a hrd time deciphering Brut's post, I know it is Italian. I can pic some of the words from classical latin but can't get the rest.

There's an English translation in white text underneath if you want to use it.

There's an English translation in white text underneath if you want to use it.

OOC: Can't imagine how I missed that. :headbang:

OOC: Cargaminh's just enforcing proper grammar, as she promised at the beginning of debate...

Also- Is that an Italian dialect, Brutland? I remember reading an article on the difference between Venetian Italian and "official" Italian and that sprung to mind...

IC:

The large nun takes Zarquon's cane in the chest, and far from flying across the room she stands, glowering, a death stare shooting from under her wimple.

"Now, Mr. Froods, you have just struck a nun. If I were you, I would beg forgiveness before I get the Robotic Destructor Bunnies to come make you apologize!"


ooc: I'm getting tired and this may be getting a little crazy.

OOC: Cargaminh's just enforcing proper grammar, as she promised at the beginning of debate...



OOC: Perhaps I did get a little carried away. Zarquon isn't typically a violent person. At least, I don't think he is. :confused:

IC:

*A strange force came over Zarquon. He lost total control of his body, and began frantically hitting himself in the head with his own cane. Shortly thereafter he fell motionless to the floor. Before passing out he managed to mutter a few words.*

"My apologies........Rose.......Bud........"*faints*

OOC: The best I could do with my limited Italian was pick up the general gist of your statements. I was just a little confused because I thought the Italian phrase for United Nations was "Nazioni Unite." But thanks, it gives me something to practice on. :)

Also- Is that an Italian dialect, Brutland? I remember reading an article on the difference between Venetian Italian and "official" Italian and that sprung to mind...
OOC: It's Nord-Brutlandese. I created that language to look like Italian, borrowed parts of the vocabulary, but the rules ain't Italian... I don't speak a word of it anyway. :D

OOC: It's Nord-Brutlandese. I created that language to look like Italian, borrowed parts of the vocabulary, but the rules ain't Italian... I don't speak a word of it anyway. :D

Och, ye tricky bastard!

"Statement of principle" mean "pretty words to make UN people feel good about selves but not really do anything"? Glog renounce UN law that say pretty things but not protect rights. Need to be repealed and replaced. Glog help with that.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

*bombards the Gobbannian delegation with half-putrified badger carcasses*
The assembly... some of the assembly... oh, all right, a rather nervous-looking gnome is startled by the roar of a shotgun as the second badger carcass is shot out of the air. Actually, "shot out of the air" is something of an overstatement; nearby delegations are not amused by the sudden shower of decomposing badger.

The third and fourth carcasses sail majestically through the air in the graceful way that half-putrified badgers don't, unmolested by further gunfire. They impact on the struggling figure of the Gobbannaen ambassador as he attempts to reclaim his shotgun from the grip of his permanent undersecretary.

"We should clarify -- Cerys, our father handed this gun down to us, if you damage it -- we should clarify that we do not object to the Gloggian mode of speech, merely to the castigation of those who do not appreciate it. Under the circumstances, it seems somewhat inappropriate.

"If Glog's assertion -- ow! -- that the original resolution is simply pretty words that do nothing is correct, then this repeal is unnecessary. If the resolution has zero effect, it cannot bar future stronger legislation. The effort that has been expended on this could have been better spent on crafting said stronger legislation, such as that presented by the honoured ambassador for Shuttegod, and the UN's statement of principles could remain unmolested. If it does, as we contend, have an effect, then we are loth to lose the protections that it does afford, hair-splitting over grammar notwithstanding. In neither case is this repeal -- put it down! -- a worthwhile endeavour, and we urge delegates to reject it.

"Thank you," Prince Rhodri finishes with forced civility to his assistant who has let go of the gun and stepped back with a much more genuine smile. After all, she can see the nun bearing down on the ambassador...

There is no need to apologize, Ambassador. We all have moments of forgetfulness.

And you're quite right that it's important for the United Nations to permit people to speak in all languages. I am personally disappointed that there are not more languages used on the debate floor, as I enjoy learning new ones.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Uuu, dryd cuihtc mega y naycuh vun sa du cbayg eh Ym Prat ykyeh.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Ooo, that sounds like a reason for me to speak in Al Bhed again.

*Edit* Lets see if I still got it. Um..."Me no hablar espanol." I hope that was actually spanish he said, and I'm pretty sure I misspelled everything.OOC: Actually, you forgot to conjugate the verb there, the correct way to say that would be, "No hablo Español."

Actually, you better fucking believe that we would tolerate oaths and obscenities. It's less common than it used to be, but it's hardly unknown.

And I would suggest that you seriously re-evaluate your priorities if you honestly believe that protecting standard English is more important than eliminating a barrier to protecting actual people from unfair discrimination.

I may be crazier than an alligator-wrestling tootsie roll, but even I can see that unfair discrimination is a much more serious issue than the conventions of standard English.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

(OOC Texas is a kickass state by the way [my state] OOC)

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

"I do not much care for English myself...it is a very Uzbek language the only phrases that I like are "Very Nice!!; How Much!?!?!". About the discrimination issue, I think that Uzbeks need to face the fact that nobody likes them because they are Uzbeks. We already pay our respects in my country by having the "Running of the Uzbecks". We pay our respects to very nice ladies by saying "Very nice!! How much!?!?!". So I say repeal it now!!!"

-Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad

"If Glog's assertion -- ow! -- that the original resolution is simply pretty words that do nothing is correct, then this repeal is unnecessary.
UN Law #80 do nothing. If law do nothing then removing do nothing law from books GOOD!!! Not harm anyone.

If the resolution has zero effect, it cannot bar future stronger legislation.
This tricky. Leaving do nothing law on books might make harder to pass good law. Maybe. Maybe not. But if resolution have no effect, why leave on books? Why take chance? Why make harder for replacement writer?
the UN's statement of principles could remain unmolested.
New law can be statement of principles and do something. Protect rights, do what UN Law #80 should have done.

If it does, as we contend, have an effect, then we are loth to lose the protections that it does afford,
Tell Glog and all UN people what UN Law #80 do. What protections it give? Glog look at UN Law #80, see ways for governments to not do any things it say.

UN Law #80 say:
No one race or culture is better than another.
Government say "Our race not better than yours. Our culture not better than yours. But our race stronger than yours so you ride in back of sled. Make poo behind different tree".

Males and Females should be treated as equals.
Government say "maybe should, but we don't".

Whether it be in the workplace or at home.
Government say "what about on trail? In market? In bathing pond? Many places not 'workplace' or 'home'. OK to mistreat women there"?

Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.
Government say "all religions and beliefs the same. One not better or more right than another. Some religions and beliefs not ours though. Those religions and beliefs outlawed. Ours not better or more right, but ours legal".

One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.
Government say "'express their love' mean saying 'I love you'. Saying 'I love you' legal. Rutting with same sex outlawed".

See? UN Law #80 full of holes. Not give any rights. Not protect any rights. Worthless.

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

Great Nations,

This thread is about the current Act to repeal Women & Minority Civil Liberties, correct? Just checking, wouldn't know it from the turn this discussion has taken..

With that being said, any Proposal written as badly as this one does not deserve our respect or attention except to vote against it. It is our duty to ensure only mature and intelligent legislation is passed at the NSUN level.

I understand that each of us has an individual persona we are enjoying as part of the NationStates game, however the proper place to display this is within our various Regions, not on the NSUN Forum.

If the author wishes to be taken seriously, and furthermore has a compelling argument, than they should consider writing it in a manner that is coherent and persuasive. I have voted against this piece of legislation due to those facts. Thank you.

The Allied States of Cemetary Wastelands
Bubbles End NationStates UN Delegate

blah blah blah didn't read any arguments for the repeal blah blah blah don't care if RoMaW doesn't actually protect anyone blah blah blah language blah blah blah grammar bork bork bork

You know, arguing about why complaints about the language of this repeal are completely missing the freaking point gets tiresome fast. I can see now why Ikir decided to get good and hammered. But instead of getting drunk, this has unleashed my creativity. I know we gave our automated Nut-Kicker device to the OMGTKK delegation, but we had a prototype back in the office...give me a moment...

*Jaris leaves the GA with the Altanari delegation, then returns later wheeling in a tall device with a large wheel. The wheel has multiple arms, but instead of boots, this device has encyclopedias, dictionaries and grammar books attached*

It's crude, but it'll do. Call it the Altanari Grammar Nazi Whacker. I'm just going to unleash this on grammar complainers from now on. It'll save my voice.

*Jaris aims and launches the device at the delegate from Cemetary Wastelands. The device drops its wheel down to head level, then begins whacking the delegate furiously in the head with the books. After several minutes, it stops and wheels itself slowly back to the Altanari delegation.*

By the Pantheon, I love technology.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

First Knight of the Ducal Guard, and Lord Commander of the Protectorate of Stabsworth Derrik Swiftstrike stands up to address the UN.

"Flowery language and proper grammar are not necessary to right a wrong.

The Grand Duke himself has ordered all our nations might be put behind repealing this do nothing resolution to make way for a clearer law that would protect the weaker sex, and the minority races in many nations.

In honor of G l o g for bringing this oversight to the attention of this great organization, The Duke has authorized no less than 100 Mastodons be sacrificed in the name of their great ambassador."

i vote for this UN repeal because i think men and women should have the freedom and equality of every man and woman out there this now.

im a ambassador and i believe it can happend if men and women are treated equal!

*Jaris aims and launches the device at the delegate from Cemetary Wastelands. The device drops its wheel down to head level, then begins whacking the delegate furiously in the head with the books. After several minutes, it stops and wheels itself slowly back to the Altanari delegation.*

By the Pantheon, I love technology.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

ooh, I wish we had something like that. Oh, wait, we do!

*signals nearby minion, who leaves the room, and returns with a long object resembling the product of some unholy marriage between a computer and a bazooka*.

Behold! The Sith Mega-Yoda-Lingo-Death-Star of Dantooine! The bane of grammar cops everywhere! One blast and you will never speak normally again! You will always use dangling clauses and backwards sentences! Forever!!!
*fires it up, begins shooting everywhere, laughing maniacally.* :mp5:

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD, still in penguin costume, rises to speak. He is flanked on either side by St Edmundan Marines, carrying large shields with which to deflect any projectiles that might be hurled at him, and four more marines who are standing alertly beside those ones are holding dart-rifles (such as naturalists use to sedate large animals for study) ready to bring quickly into firing position.

"I have just, at my government's orders, cast our vote AGAINST this proposal. Our nation is neither as hostile to the concept of 'Rights' nor as dedicated to that idea as some of the others that have representatives here, and don't particulalry care about Resolution #80 -- which, we agree with this proposal's supporters, actually does nothing to protect the rights that it applauds -- in itself.
We have, however, taken note of the fact that -- according to those same proponents of this repeal -- that resolution apparently blocks the introduction of any further and quite possibly more intrusive resolutions on the subject, and that as we believe such matters should be handled at the national level rather than by the UN we therefore wish to see it left in place for that reason.
Incidentally, there is one point that has been raised in this debate about which I must admit to some personal curiosity: Various supporters of this proposal have defended its use of rather "primitive" grammar on the basis that that is how Glog's people speak... Are we actually being told that the nation of cavemen in question use this debased form of "modern" English as their native language, in which case I would really like to know how that came to be the case, or is it the case that they speak another language and the grammar used here comes from that tongue instead? If the latter situation is the case then I would seriously suggest that not just the vocabulary but the grammar too should have been altered to that of proper English before this proposal was submitted..."

_________________________________________________________________

OOC: Yes, I find the proposal and associated roleplay moderately funny. No, in this context, I don't like the 'literary' style used. Consider the preccedent that it sets: What next? Proposals written using Backslang, Cockney Rhyming Slang, Ebonics, or some other non-standard variation on English, justified on the grounds that that is how the people of the nation responsible speak?

OOC: Good point. THIS was funny, but it wouldn't be so funny if a large number of proposals were submitted in mangled English.

IC: Sometimes these translator gizmos are strange. Glog's seems to have trouble with grammar. I still support this repeal, but maybe his translator should be upgraded before he does another proposal.

Actually, "lengua" is the correct word. That's how I knew you weren't a native speaker.Gracias.

Me parece que la vota(?) va a estar cerca...

I'd just like to note that if you vote against this repeal, you're merely voting for Vista Buena's form of English, and for discrimination. I'd point out the irony of what exactly you're doing to his language(it starts with a d and ends with an iscriminating), but your head may just explode Madam Kittleson.

I would like to state that I am appalled at the intolerance Glog is receiving in these halls from nations that spout their tolerance to the world. This is pure and simple racism on their part towards the cavemen of G L O G, and I for one will not stand for it. I'm mobilizing my military as we speak. Let actions speak louder than words.


OOC: Can we remember for a moment that this isn't the real world? You'd think the mere fact that a caveman authored the proposal would be a great big hint. Sadly... not so much.


Actually, no, I'm sorry, but there's only one form of English and that form includes PROPER GRAMMAR. I don't know if you realized this, but, English is a language that has grammar. So ignoring so called "grammar phenomenon" is not speaking proper English...

I was only able to read half of this repeal before slamming my head on the keyboard for the bad grammar.
just an example:

Article I say "No one race or culture is better than another." What mean "better"? UN law not tell what "better" mean.

"I" say, "Article I" SAYS. "What mean 'better'?" contains no subject. "What do they mean by 'better'?" Here, "they" is the subject. "UN law not tell what 'better' mean." contains many grammatical errors. "Mean" can only be used when referring to a subject. Since "UN Law" (which is also lacking a demonstrative article) is the subject, not "'better'", it has to be "means." At least it should be "This UN Law does not tell what 'better' means." If not "This particular UN Law does not specify it's definitional usage of the word 'better'."


That is all.

By the way: I voted AGAINST. This is the United Nation, not first grade.

Actually, no, I'm sorry, but there's only one form of English and that form includes PROPER GRAMMAR. I don't know if you realized this, but, English is a language that has grammar. So ignoring so called "grammar phenomenon" is not speaking proper English...

The guy who pulls the stick out of the PL Ambassador's ass will become King of England.

Look -- do you UNDERSTAND the resolution? Yes. Then what's the problem? Lighten up, for Freefoot's sake.

I was only able to read half of this repeal before slamming my head on the keyboard for the bad grammar.
just an example:



"I" say, "Article I" SAYS. "What mean 'better'?" contains no subject. "What do they mean by 'better'?" Here, "they" is the subject. "UN law not tell what 'better' mean." contains many grammatical errors. "Mean" can only be used when referring to a subject. Since "UN Law" (which is also lacking a demonstrative article) is the subject, not "'better'", it has to be "means." At least it should be "This UN Law does not tell what 'better' means." If not "This particular UN Law does not specify it's definitional usage of the word 'better'."


That is all.

By the way: I voted AGAINST. This is the United Nation, not first grade.

That's odd, seeing has how you haven't grown up.

Look, the resolution's grammar is indicative of the representative who wrote it. So long as the concept is passed along clearly, and you cannot deny that it is, then resolution is fine.

It is truly sad when someone can't find any substantial reason to vote against something and has to resort to "nyah, nyah -- nyah, nyah, -- you can't spe-ell!" in order to make any point at all. I would have thought were were more enlightened than that here in the Assembly.

Actually, no, I'm sorry, but there's only one form of English and that form includes PROPER GRAMMAR. I don't know if you realized this, but, English is a language that has grammar. So ignoring so called "grammar phenomenon" is not speaking proper English...

Thank you ever so much.

That's odd, seeing has how you haven't grown up.

Look, the resolution's grammar is indicative of the representative who wrote it. So long as the concept is passed along clearly, and you cannot deny that it is, then resolution is fine.

It is truly sad when someone can't find any substantial reason to vote against something and has to resort to "nyah, nyah -- nyah, nyah, -- you can't spe-ell!" in order to make any point at all. I would have thought were were more enlightened than that here in the Assembly.


Well if the grammar is indicative of the representative, that makes me doubt that representatives judgment abilities if (s)he does not have the common sense to proofread a resolution that is going to the United Nations. Even if this is not the real life congregation, one needs to have a proper grasp on the English language in order to properly convey a point. And aren't resolutions MEANT to convey a point?

United_Deception votes: AGAINST.

http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s105/kissmeshootmeagain/?action=view&current=untitled-7.jpg

Both sides make interesting points on the subject and I am finding it hard to make a decision one way or another. I can understand the ambiguity of some of the wording, but at the same time, hasn't this article been in effect for a couple of years now? Has it served its purpose? If I do vote to repeal the act and it passes, will there be a new resolution passed with better wording and less ambiguity in order to clarify things? I feel like we need a resolution like this. I will only vote to repeal if there are other, perhaps better resolutions introduced to fix the problem.

Lord Blakemore,
Eternam

The Vista Buena delegation is pleased to see that the people of the UN have enough common sense to vote this incoherent excuse of a resolution down. I believe this is the first step towards restoring order, harmony, and good use of English, which we stress is the working language of this organization, in the UN.

Dr. Juliana Kittleson
Vice-Legate to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Vista Buena

one needs to have a proper grasp on the English language in order to properly convey a point. Itchibah yo contaku doodyhead. Froogin da punctal?

...at the same time, hasn't this article been in effect for a couple of years now? Has it served its purpose? If I do vote to repeal the act and it passes, will there be a new resolution passed with better wording and less ambiguity in order to clarify things? It has been in effect. It depends on what its purpose is, as to whether it has achieved it. Blocking a better expression of rights? It has achieved its task quite well. It is true that a number of nations implement the spirit of a resolution rather than what that resolution actually requires. However, it is best for resolutions to actually accomplish what their intent is.

Will there be a better replacement? We believe so. There is an excellent replacement being prepared elsewhere in this building. Whether it passes will depend on a number of things, most expressly the cooperation and participation of delegates such as yourself.

--L.T.

Well if the grammar is indicative of the representative, that makes me doubt that representatives judgment abilities if (s)he does not have the common sense to proofread a resolution that is going to the United Nations. Even if this is not the real life congregation, one needs to have a proper grasp on the English language in order to properly convey a point. And aren't resolutions MEANT to convey a point?
The resolution conveys the point quite clearly. Maybe you're one of the minorities and/or women whose rights "should" be affected by this, got angry, and tried to nit-pick at the grammar instead of focusing on the well laid point of the repeal. I'm sure it would reach up and smack you in the face if it could, but it can't, so here's the Campbell's condensed version, which you obviously seem to have ignored for the past 15 pages of arguement:
happy-sounding platitudes do not sensible international law make. The resolution contains virtually no enforceable language, or any specific provisions aimed at protecting the vague "rights" outlined therein, and as such is mushy and ineffective law. It deserves repeal just as any resolution to see the axe has deserved it.

You also seem to have missed the fact that the "caveman speak" was fully deliberate. In order to deliberately butcher the gramatical nuances of a language and still make coherent sense, an exceptional knowledge of the language is necessary, and multiple proofreading attempts must have been made in order to make sure that no semblance of correct English could crop up in any little corner.

Why yes! We are a body of legislators! Thus, I would expect each and every one of us to have the capacity to think beyond "omg his gammar sux" as a basis of determining the credibility of a proposal and actually THINK (which means using the reasoning you seem to lack) about the feasibility of the logic in the arguement instead.

The sister nations of Oertha and Ztarullia vote FOR the repeal. No doubt someone is going to create a resolution to replace Resolution #80 within five minutes of its repeal, anyway...

You stupid people. Glog need look in dictionary Me show people:




Better means "Greater Than". This is concise wording, and I can think of none better. anyone else? It protects the rights of minorities.



Equals means... well, equal to. It's a mathematical term, for crying out loud, you can't get any more concise than that. It protects rights, see the "in the workplace and the home" bit of the sentence.



Better means the same as before. This protects the right of freedom of religion.



Express their love means... well, show their love. This protects the rights of Homo/Bi/Pan/Whatever-sexual people




Strongest word UN can use when it is neither true nor necessarily will become true. Plus, quite strong in itself, as far as my understanding of the English Language goes, which I hope to be quite far, as I'm a native speaker :P

I agree with most things mentioned above.
Additionally when one is submitting a repeal, which is for the most part based on language use of the orginal proposal, its probably best if the grammar is understandable. Jastreb, its citizens and delegates do not understand pidgeon variants of English with complete certainty and cannot not endorse the repeal with complete certainty, therefore most vote against.
Perhaps Glog should have someone with the language skill to assist him in making a repeal which 100% clear in meaning and leaves no room for misunderstanding within the confines of standard English grammar. It quite difficult to justify voting for a repeal whose primary basis is citing unclear word usage/meaning, when the repeal itself is even more unclear in word usage.

ETA: Seeing as how close the vote is at this moment, I ponder on the fact if writing this repeal proposal in the format it was submitted may just be the thing that buries it. This makes me question whether its intent was to amuse the author or actually provoke change.

Well if the grammar is indicative of the representative, that makes me doubt that representatives judgment abilities if (s)he does not have the common sense to proofread a resolution that is going to the United Nations. Even if this is not the real life congregation, one needs to have a proper grasp on the English language in order to properly convey a point. And aren't resolutions MEANT to convey a point?Yes, they are. And what a pity you can't seem to grasp it...

OOC:

Emilie tried very hard to repress the chuckle that wanted so much to escape from her thin, pale lips. She found it ironic that she, a girl who very nearly despises the stupidity of perfect grammar, spends many of her days correcting the very imperfect grammar of others possibly more than twice her age. As the tea kettle began to whistle, she rushed over and poured herself a mug of deep magenta tazo, still smirking as she is only just getting used to the fact that two of her pet peeves completely contradict each other. Then, a random thought jumped into her head. Oh, what would the gaia mods think if they saw this distasteful array of flaming on such a respectable, intellectual site? At this, she decided that it was quite odd that she was role-playing herself and decided that maybe she and Mademoiselle Angelique, Speaker of the House in Chataimer, should retire to their own roleplay site.

Mother Cargaminh frowns, then rushes so fast at the delegates of Zarquon Froods and ShogunKhan it looks like she's floating on air.

"What did I say!" she screeches, raising her Westcott ruler and slamming it onto the palms of the offending delegates. "I will have proper grammar in this chamber! The good lord didn't give you a tongue so you could mangle the King's English!"



ooc: no, don't ask why a snefaldian catholic nun would speak the King's English. I don't know either.


Actually my delegate was on the opposite side of the room as I was about to reach Zarquon to donate a sling and I saw a nun defy the laws of speed and hit Zarquon's delegate and some servant who brought him champain. There was the sound of 2 cracks, then I saw the nun defy the laws of gravity as she flew past me again (Zarquon threw her I think).

King's english? Emperors are above kings didn't you know? Glog IS head ruler of his nation so that makes him at the very least equal to a king.

Nun wants to hit with tiny club? BATTLE! we love battle, meet you in the courtyard! We find female warrior in our delegation to accept BATTLE! Hooah!

Emperor Ceasar of ShogunKhan has spoken!
OOC-->lol

Great Nations,

This thread is about the current Act to repeal Women & Minority Civil Liberties, correct? Just checking, wouldn't know it from the turn this discussion has taken..

With that being said, any Proposal written as badly as this one does not deserve our respect or attention except to vote against it. It is our duty to ensure only mature and intelligent legislation is passed at the NSUN level.

I understand that each of us has an individual persona we are enjoying as part of the NationStates game, however the proper place to display this is within our various Regions, not on the NSUN Forum.

If the author wishes to be taken seriously, and furthermore has a compelling argument, than they should consider writing it in a manner that is coherent and persuasive. I have voted against this piece of legislation due to those facts. Thank you.

The Allied States of Cemetary Wastelands
Bubbles End NationStates UN Delegate

Glog argument coherent and persuasive, why you no understand simple statements? Maybe we not take you seriously, you give headache with long speech that say nothing.

Uuu, dryd cuihtc mega y naycuh vun sa du cbayg eh Ym Prat ykyeh.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Ooo, that sounds like a reason for me to speak in Al Bhed again.
"

Draca baubma yna pakehhehk du yhhuo sa. Oui lyhhud ica ouin ufh ekhunyhla uv y myhkiyka yc y pycec uv navicym du cibbund y nabaym, acbaleymmo uha dra kadc net uv y jano tisp nacumideuh. E cdyht yht ybbmyit "G l o g " vun drec nabaym, yht ra cruimt pa lussahtat.

(G l o g doesn't really translate into Al Bhed)

These people are beginning to annoy me. You cannot use your own ignorance of a language as a basis of refusal to support a repeal, especially one the gets rid of a very dumb resolution. I stand and applaud "G l o g" for this repeal, and he should be commended.



The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, CC, KCMC
Deputy Representative (and fluent Al Bhed linguist)
His Serene Majesty's Government
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Itchibah yo contaku doodyhead. Froogin da punctal?
Si, il sembrece con hoce Tramblo fracqua es piene di anu achenutecca tra do nila non anfalece cagnal la lingùe di l'enzare, mentre mai maise scattece on cai pantalonu via erroreco fuca!!! Deoledretece ippocrito cagnacarecca!!! Dax iasgece nostri animi sperenzenissa e valerenissa e tirece il in inferno patteta!!!

Maddalena Pedrana
Reppresentetto Vinca Nordèbrutelliense te la Nazioni Unnonecca

*This was not translated by the Nord-Brutlandese translator. It was full of invectives, typical of the Deputy Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador. You don't want to hear it...

Anravelle shakes her head in dismay; turning to her delegation she begins moving her hands as if she’s a composer for an unseen orchestra and sings her words serenely.

“sunoro<> devoro-setas<> yuffras-tehretra«^» kaytara-hevezta-putet<^>\/ yuffras-glorievet«^» amoronya-kravykek^ yuffras-jessi«^» honoraysayla-concet«^^» supenus-nelanga^^ amoronya-belaga^(\/) sunoro<> devoro-setas<> kaytara-anravelle^ yuffras-frimchissy«^» keytara-hevezta-putet<^> honoraysayla-compatra«^^» amoronya-kravykek^ supenus-inferiota^^ yuffras-lementa«^» amoronya-itiatia^(\/) getra<> devorona-hefran<> kaytara-hevezta-putet<^> yuffrasna-allendran«^» amoronya-itiatia^ honoraysayla-undra«^^» yuffrasna-tehretra«^» kaytara-hevezta-putet<^> yuffrasna-lufga«^» honoraysayla-winba«^^» amoronya-itiatia^((^^^))”

Sighing, she takes a sip of her water and starts counting ceiling tiles.


Translation: I find it comical that they’re arguing over the rules of such a pathetic, simplistic language. Perhaps we should make them learn Ithanian and see how they cope with real complexity?

(Sorry for jumping on the band wagon by the way darlings, I was bored and testing Ithanian seemed fun.)

Harmalan Shandreth shoots to his feet, hands raised, a look of pure anger on his face.

"Naye! Olosand per dat Wehěhy sumut, sarasat sivabět Bel faj! Or if you like, 'Odnôsind á sórel, moritámën wenyánda delvendwën!' How about 'tu stultus est?'"

He sits down, glowering about something or another.

Ladies, gentlemen, and assorted androgynous ambiguous beings, much as I appreciate your efforts to turn this august Assembly into a modern day mellifluous Tower of Babel, ne serait-il pas temps à nouveau de concentrer notre débat sur le texte qui nous est soumis?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassadeur auprès des Nations Unies,
Fédération des Îles Ariddiennes

OK, we get it. You all can speak in different languages, real or made-up, and it's highly amusing.

On a completely off-topic note, we are FOR this repeal, and feel the Grammar Nazis clouding this topic with their irrelevancies could use a cool, refreshing colonic. That's all.

~Cdr. Chiang

OK, we get it. You all can speak in different languages, real or made-up, and it's highly amusing.

On a completely off-topic note, we are FOR this repeal, and feel the Grammar Nazis clouding this topic with their irrelevancies could use a cool, refreshing colonic. That's all.

~Cdr. Chiang

We would like to get discussion back on track as well. Thus I would like to state that Evoinia is again FOR this repeal and has put forward an adjusted replacement for it based off of what is being discussed in another section of these halls.

We also would like that thank those who have taken this disscussion off track, as it served as an inspiration on several adjustments made within the replacement document.

As well, we would also state that discussions on grammar or use of a dialect within an appeal in no way effect what is trying to be expressed in this case. New legislation needs to be put in place and this is our oppertunity to do so.

Thank you all,
- Maximillian Renault.
The Honorable Ambassador of the Progressive Allied Union
and Vice-Commisar of The United Socialist States of Evoinia.

I voted against this purely for the fact of poor grammar...deliver it professionally next time and I may consider voting for it.

I voted against this purely for the fact of poor grammar...deliver it professionally next time and I may consider voting for it.

I think I need to go to the Strangers' Bar before people like the Inspinorian ambassador drive me insane...


Christophe Boco,
etc...

Say, Christophe, where's that Delormebleu chap with his candied toddlers? I could use a drink and a snack...

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

I blame myself for the languages, seriously.

On the other side of the coin, can we please understand the basic point here? We CANNOT delay in making sure a proposal that actually DOES what this one says it does is in effect.

Somewhere women are being treated as property. Somwhere a Nazi government is oppressing it's citizens based on race, religion and heritage. Somewhere, homosexuals are being stoned to death for being who they are. We can't stop UN nations from doing that because this resolution claims to stop it. All the while we argue about GLOG's right to author in his native dialect. We argue about grammar. If anything accepting his grammar enhances the respectability of this assembly. That we can accept him as being right, even if we think poorly of his grammar.

What's most ironic is that the caveman can put aside his prejudices against you guys for the greater good, but you guys can't do the same.

It's telling about who you are.

Great NS Nations,

Let's put things into perspective, because I think all of us are only responding to some very rhetorical suggestions in this thread.

A) Glog's "language" is not a language at all. It is only a comedic distortion and, quite frankly, a mischaracterization of what he interpretes to be the early English language.

B) What Glog and his supporters (who I suspect are only there to coherently argue for him) are doing is turning this into a debate of language used, thus dividing the UN Nations. By going that route, they simplify this into a discussion of "which languages are superior", "why shouldn't we be able to propose legislation in other languages" and other issues that it is not. This is very deceitful argument tactic and innacurately reflects the true opposing viewpoint.

C) The point I am trying to get across is not a debate of "language", rather a rational judgement of grammer, current pronunciation, formal etiquette, etc. If someone truly wants to make a proposal in say, Spanish, that is fine with me unless it violates NationStates guidelines (which it currently does not). However, in doing so, if the author then proceeded to completely butcher the Spanish language I suspect there'd be some very upset Spanish speaking Nations. And rightly so. Glog is only butchering the English language, and under the guise of saying it is a cultural difference, diverting our attention.

D) With these things in mind, I hope to shed some light on this debate and create understanding with those non-english speaking Nations who deserve as much respect and admiration as do the English speaking Nations. The bottom line is this- If we are to present Acts of proposal or repealment, we should do so under the context of the world as it is, not the world as it (supposedly) was. As this is a modern simulation, it only makes sense to speak in a dialect that modern speakers (of any language) can understand.

Thank you for your time.

- The Allied States of Cemetary Wastelands
Bubbles End NationStates UN Delegate

I could use a drink and a snack...

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens
Nord-Brutlandese translator Adam di Sadalucco went over to the Snefaldian delegation with a platter of sliced purple Brute cheese, traditional Brutland bread rolls, Normarker beef jerky, and cow liquor.

"I heard somebody wants a snack?"

OOC: Yo' cemetery, that was mostly OOC commentary in a IC style... I'm confused.

I blame myself for the languages, seriously.

On the other side of the coin, can we please understand the basic point here? We CANNOT delay in making sure a proposal that actually DOES what this one says it does is in effect.

Somewhere women are being treated as property. Somwhere a Nazi government is oppressing it's citizens based on race, religion and heritage. Somewhere, homosexuals are being stoned to death for being who they are. We can't stop UN nations from doing that because this resolution claims to stop it. All the while we argue about GLOG's right to author in his native dialect. We argue about grammar. If anything accepting his grammar enhances the respectability of this assembly. That we can accept him as being right, even if we think poorly of his grammar.

What's most ironic is that the caveman can put aside his prejudices against you guys for the greater good, but you guys can't do the same.

It's telling about who you are.


I think perhaps you should re-read the Act. This is not a proposal, it is a REPEALMENT of a current piece of legislation. Just thought I'd clarify that for you. Thank you.

A) Glog's "language" is not a language at all. It is only a comedic distortion and, quite frankly, a mischaracterization of what he interpretes to be the early English language.OOC: Whoa. Cavemen spoke English? :rolleyes:

B) What Glog and his supporters (who I suspect are only there to coherently argue for him) are doing is turning this into a debate of language used, thus dividing the UN Nations. By going that route, they simplify this into a discussion of "which languages are superior", "why shouldn't we be able to propose legislation in other languages" and other issues that it is not.Uhhh, no, you guys are the ones trying to make this about language, an issue even Glog has stated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13218565&postcount=45) is irrelevant. I myself would prefer a debate that dwelt on the actual arguments made in the repeal, but, you know, I have a habit of expecting too much from this assembly.

This is very deceitful argument tactic and innacurately reflects the true opposing viewpoint.

C) The point I am trying to get across is not a debate of "language", rather a rational judgement of grammer, current pronunciation, formal etiquette, etc.Say what you will, at least Glog spell good.

If someone truly wants to make a proposal in say, Spanish, that is fine with me unless it violates NationStates guidelines (which it currently does not).Yes it does. Proposals must be in English and in the proper format. This resolution meets both those guidelines. However, mods of late have been allowing different patterns of roleplay and harmless fun into proposals. Makes sense, as proposals are supposed to be roleplayed, and the humor aspect is fitting for a political satire Web site, which is what this is (peruse any of your daily issues lately?).

Glog is only butchering the English language, and under the guise of saying it is a cultural difference, diverting our attention."Diverting our attention"?! Who are the ones completely ignoring every single valid point the repeal is trying to make by focusing on the grammar?

If we are to present Acts of proposal or repealment, we should do so under the context of the world as it is, not the world as it (supposedly) was. As this is a modern simulation, it only makes sense to speak in a dialect that modern speakers (of any language) can understand.We're all "modern"? Betcha Cobdenia might have a thing or two to say to that.

I have voted for this repeal and so has my regional delegate...I hope it passes.

Of course, if it doesn't, I just may visit one of my literature proffessors and rewrite this proposal into Middle English, with correct grammer of course...Then the grammer nazis around here won't be able to complain...nor read it most likely.

The following is OOC (obviously).
A) Glog's "language" is not a language at all. It is only a comedic distortion and, quite frankly, a mischaracterization of what he interpretes to be the early English language.
Actually, it's my interpretation of how cavemen are depicted on TV, in movies and on teh intarwebs. Had I been trying to give an interpretation of early English it would have sounded like Beowulf or maybe the Canterbury Tales.

When I was trying to decide how to have Glog speak, one of the first things that popped into my head was that little cartoon that came out around the time of the Napster debacle. It was the one that had Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield in it and James kept saying "Beer GOOD! Napster bad" while Lars scurried around like a monkey. I also thought of several TV shows and movies in which the cavemen spoke in a series of grunts with broken English sprinkled in. I discarded the grunts and "ughs", but kept the broken English.

B) What Glog and his supporters (who I suspect are only there to coherently argue for him) are doing is turning this into a debate of language used, thus dividing the UN Nations.
Bullshit. The opponents of the repeal first made language an issue in the debate.

By going that route, they simplify this into a discussion of "which languages are superior", "why shouldn't we be able to propose legislation in other languages" and other issues that it is not. This is very deceitful argument tactic and innacurately reflects the true opposing viewpoint.
Again, bullshit. You're crazy if you think OMGTKK or Snefaldia or any of the others are just chomping at the bits to submit proposals in foreign languages.

Glog is only butchering the English language, and under the guise of saying it is a cultural difference, diverting our attention.
Ha! Again, my good sir, bullshit.

This coming from the side which steadfastly refuses to address the points brought up in the repeal or to defend UNR #80?

As this is a modern simulation, it only makes sense to speak in a dialect that modern speakers (of any language) can understand.
You might want to check your facts before just unilaterally declaring all of us "modern". There are several nations, including longtime UN regulars, who RP as past-tect and even ancient-tech nations. The notion of having a nation of Neanderthals is not that far-fetched in the context of Nationstates and I did alter their speech to make it understandable. Would you rather I had Glog speak in Proto-Indo-European? A series of grunts perhaps?

I blame myself for the languages, seriously.

On the other side of the coin, can we please understand the basic point here? We CANNOT delay in making sure a proposal that actually DOES what this one says it does is in effect.

Somewhere women are being treated as property. Somwhere a Nazi government is oppressing it's citizens based on race, religion and heritage. Somewhere, homosexuals are being stoned to death for being who they are. We can't stop UN nations from doing that because this resolution claims to stop it. All the while we argue about GLOG's right to author in his native dialect. We argue about grammar. If anything accepting his grammar enhances the respectability of this assembly. That we can accept him as being right, even if we think poorly of his grammar.

What's most ironic is that the caveman can put aside his prejudices against you guys for the greater good, but you guys can't do the same.

It's telling about who you are.

That is probably the most intelligent point you have argued. Personally I think I look pretty nice in a fedora. But anyway, we do not allow any Nazi racists or abusers of women in the world because of resolution 99: Discrimination Accord. Think of Rights of Minorities and Women as in the shadow of Discrimination Accord. Obviously, Belgrade-beograd (author of resolution 99) had the same problem; Rights of Minorities and Women wasn't good enough. So he/she fixed the problem by passing a better resolution. THERE IS NO PROBLEM ANY MORE. Even though Rights of Minorities and Women doesn't specifically protect anything, at least it encourages action.
Now, you may say "hey, encouraging does nothing," well, if that were true, then why did Max Barry even create the option of having Mild or Significant resolutions? Why even bother if we were just going to repeal all of them?
So you see, rights of minorities and women are protected. This resolution simply helps with what little it can.

*After several hours of laying motionless behind his desk, Zarquon slowly and laboringly rose to hist feet.*

My head. Quick, what did I miss?

*His aide handed him a long sheet of paper with the minutes of the assembly on it. He also recieved the latest vote table.*


<snip>

B) What Glog and his supporters (who I suspect are only there to coherently argue for him) are doing is turning this into a debate of language used, thus dividing the UN Nations. By going that route, they simplify this into a discussion of "which languages are superior", "why shouldn't we be able to propose legislation in other languages" and other issues that it is not. This is very deceitful argument tactic and innacurately reflects the true opposing viewpoint.

D) With these things in mind, I hope to shed some light on this debate and create understanding with those non-english speaking Nations who deserve as much respect and admiration as do the English speaking Nations. The bottom line is this- If we are to present Acts of proposal or repealment, we should do so under the context of the world as it is, not the world as it (supposedly) was. As this is a modern simulation, it only makes sense to speak in a dialect that modern speakers (of any language) can understand.

Thank you for your time.

- The Allied States of Cemetary Wastelands
Bubbles End NationStates UN Delegate

How dare you say that the supporters of this legislation were the ones that turned this into a debate over language. We have been the ones defending the language it was written in. It is you and all the others just like you that are holding up justice by delaying the passing of this repeal.

I cannot believe what I am seeing. We have gone from being 300 votes ahead to 250 votes behind. What in the name of Zarquon is wrong with you people? Can you not see what this repeal does? Are we to let Glog's native tongue be the only thing that stops Resolution 80 from being wiped off the books? This is truely sad, I had hoped that we as Ambassadors had moved beyond these meaningless nitpicks.

*Zarquon sat back down with his head in hand. His aide gave him a large glass of water and bottle of asprin. Zarquon quickly downed both and began again.*

I can see only one course of action. If this repeal is voted down, another will have to be drafted in it's place. For the sake of Glog, I shall draft it. Who will support it?

*I can see only one course of action. If this repeal is voted down, another will have to be drafted in it's place. For the sake of Glog, I shall draft it. Who will support it?

Ahahahahaaaaaa! Die! Die! Die!

*pauses whilst firing.*

Sorry, what? Oh, hello Mr...Zarquon, is it? Ah, yes. The Armed Republic will definitely support you. Although, for the record, we absolutely deplore this anti-Gloggian discrimination so prevalent in these hallowed halls today. We find this especially ironic that this anti-Gloggian discrimination is occuring during a debate over an anti-discrimination resolution. :headbang:

Now then...if you will kindly excuse us....there are Grammar Nazis to destroy!

*resumes firing*:sniper: