NationStates Jolt Archive

I for one, welcome our new World Assembly Overlords.

Perhaps we can have a World Assembly army?

(There are no rules against having a "World Assembly Army" now is there?)

(There are no rules against having a "World Assembly Army" now is there?)

Uh, yeah. Check the WA Rules Sticky.

Oh thank god, now people will stop refering to the UN charter.....

and is it even possible for this not to pass?

and is it even possible for this not to pass?

Considering that this is most likely just the A...

*The player behind Flibbleites gets dragged off by mysterious men dressed all in black*

Nothing to see here, move along.

It's at 650 for to 584 against, so yes, it is possible for it not to pass. In which case the Gnomes would miraculously salvage the prior proposals from the rubble of the UNHQ.

... and is it even possible for this not to pass?

And just what are you implying, Ambassador? I assure you, the Secretariat went through the electoral rolls ve-ry carefully. And checked the Vote buttons, and had the boys visit Gatesv ... I mean, held explanatory preliminary discussions with appropriate stakeholders.

You are surely not reflecting on the integrity of the World Assembly's decision-making process? For shame, Ambassador, for shame!

*Considers having voice break artistically with repressed tears at this point*

*Notes that it's been done*

*Settles for icy glare and haughty paper-shuffling*

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

...that thinks the change from UN to WA and such is an April Fool's day event? Keep in mind that the letter is dated JANUARY 21st...

When I noticed the title of the cease & desist was 'unlegal', I nearly died.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. NWO incoming.







*tinfoil hat*

I'm Pauly Shore this is serious.

I think you are spot on! What a grand jape! But now, consider this... Even if it was originally conceived as a spoof, does the debate and the ensuing vote not count? I suspect that, regardless of the validity of the original proposition, the outcome must be taken seriously.

If this measure passes, there had better not be any "But wait! We were just kidding!" nonsense. That would surely result in chaos, and may well result in the very implosion upon which the entire proposal was predicated. Now *that* would be the best jest of all -- a self-fulfilling joke -- a hoax made real simply by treating it as such.

Oh, isn't politics wonderful? ;)

A killing joke?

Mr. "I made an account just to further the joke"?

You have a long last name.

Depressingly enough the last two april fools jokes haven't been as good simply because they make good sense, however the letter was highly amusing. NationDates is by far the stand out

April Fool's :rolleyes:

April Fool's :rolleyes:

Even on April 1st, might it not be ... real? And is it still paranoia, if they're really out to get you?

Did you check who the document was signed by?

I looked him up, an Andrei Terekhov doesn't exist.

And Cease and Desist orders are generally followed immediately, not months later. The document is dated January 21.

Now I can believe that they might be trying to start over, but I don't believe that this is because the UN has demanded that we're violating international law.

So my bet is that this will all go away tomorrow.

I looked him up just now, and it appears that he does - it's not conclusive absolute proof, because the United Nations Office for Legal Affairs General Legal Division (http://untreaty.un.org/ola/div_gld.aspx?section=gld) only lists the Director and not the Deputy Directors - but he's referenced in passing here (http://globeprgroup.com/pr/day-of-russia-ny-2006/);
... the guests also showed their talents, among those were Natalia Gramotina, head Media Department of Global Advertising Strategies; Andrei Terekhov, a legal officer of UN Secretariat ... And he's also referenced in the bibliography here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_Jan_15/ai_n17117453) (third line below the ad box); UN General Assembly resolutions and outer space law, Andrei D. Terekhov (1997) So it looks like Mr. Terekhov does indeed exist.

And if you had a perfect April Fools' Day joke handed to you like this, you'd save it for April 1st, I'm sure. I mean, how could they not?

First of all, I think this whole World Assembly thing is indeed just a prank for April 1st and I'll continue to believe it is for the rest of the day.

Then again, should it turn out to be real, I'll have to resign from it. The abbreviation WA is closely associated with the Weerbaarheidsafdeling of the NSB (the Dutch equivalent of the German nazi-party's SA). I won't appreciate looking at the "WA Member" tag every time I'm looking at my nation and thinking of how it seems to imply that it's actually a member of that WWII organisation.

A simple C&D letter? The UN should have voted on a resolution to Officially Condemn NationStates and declare Max Barry an international pariah! Now *that* would have been bad-ass.

(I like the RL UN; just poking some fun at them.)

(And I'm also aware it's a joke. I looked up Andrei Terekhov too.)

But I love it that regional delegates are now utter WADs. It's official.

Regarding the April Fools joke. Here is a discussion I would have had if it had not been a joke letter.

If the World Assembly is not an April Fools Joke then I would regard part of the document in violation of some elements of international law, particularily that of freedom of speech.

The United Nations is discussed across many areas of society, and refered to by several governments and organisations. If we are not allowed to develop something like the United Nations in a fictional and harmless reality e.g. everyone knows this is a game. Then how can we seek to improve such an organisation with little thought given to it.

I would find it fun if this is not an April Fools joke letter to Max Barry to send my own letter regarding the letter given to Max Barry to ask a rewording. This is because it fundamentally condones elements of freedom of speech and forces a conformist opinon and lack of discussion in a simple fictional environment.

If the United Nations cannot act appropriately and not start claiming the United Nations as intellectual property in a clearly fictional environment (especially Nationstates with an established and published book as the fundamental basis for the game).

Then how can it expect the community to support its aims. If it contridicts its own values by denying usage of an organistation framework we are supposed to live up to or support.

Shame on you United Nations. If this is how our goverment contributions to your organisation are being spent.

Then again, should it turn out to be real, I'll have to resign from it. The abbreviation WA is closely associated with the Weerbaarheidsafdeling of the NSB (the Dutch equivalent of the German nazi-party's SA). I won't appreciate looking at the "WA Member" tag every time I'm looking at my nation and thinking of how it seems to imply that it's actually a member of that WWII organisation.

I'm very sorry to hear that. If it's any consolation, "UN" also stands for the Swiss Union Nationale, the main Fascist party of Switzerland prior to WW2, so it referenced a far-right organisation already. We did try quite hard to find an acronym that wouldn't offend anyone, but it turned out to be impossible; "United NationStates" shares an acronym with another far-right pre-WW2 political party, the Mexican Unión Nacional Sinarquista, the acronym of "World Congress" is a common shorthand for "toilet" in Britain, and the NationStates Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA) would go down like a lead zeppelin among much of our userbase (if General is any indicator). Unfortunately, our searches for connections to offensive things failed to turn up the Weerbaarheidsafdeling.

However, I think it's a bit of a leap to go from the acronym to calling the logo itself "very Speer-like in its stylization". When I came up with it, the biggest influence was probably the United Nations Space Colonies logo from the Marathon computer games; the Third Reich could not have been further from my mind. You'll be pleased to know that it's intended as an interim logo (early proposals actually had "Interim Insignia" on them, before we'd finalised the new name).

~ Tsar the Mod

I looked him up just now, and it appears that he does - it's not conclusive absolute proof, because the United Nations Office for Legal Affairs General Legal Division (http://untreaty.un.org/ola/div_gld.aspx?section=gld) only lists the Director and not the Deputy Directors - but he's referenced in passing here (http://globeprgroup.com/pr/day-of-russia-ny-2006/);
And he's also referenced in the bibliography here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_Jan_15/ai_n17117453) (third line below the ad box); So it looks like Mr. Terekhov does indeed exist.

And if you had a perfect April Fools' Day joke handed to you like this, you'd save it for April 1st, I'm sure. I mean, how could they not?

I saw that too; however, I'm slighly sceptial. Why would a Russian sign his name is the western alphabet?

Personally, I'd go for World - SuperState, or W-SS ;)

First of all, I think this whole World Assembly thing is indeed just a prank for April 1st and I'll continue to believe it is for the rest of the day.

Then again, should it turn out to be real, I'll have to resign from it. The abbreviation WA is closely associated with the Weerbaarheidsafdeling of the NSB (the Dutch equivalent of the German nazi-party's SA). I won't appreciate looking at the "WA Member" tag every time I'm looking at my nation and thinking of how it seems to imply that it's actually a member of that WWII organisation.
God forbid you ever join NationStates then. Its initials are NS, the same as National Socialism's.

violation of some elements of international law, particularily that of freedom of speech.Freedom of speech is an international law?

Personally, I'd go for World - SuperState, or W-SS ;)

... We also tried not to annoy the sovreignitists in the UN by avoiding names which implied a federal superstate. Thus no World Federation or Global Republic.

I'm very sorry to hear that. If it's any consolation, "UN" also stands for the Swiss Union Nationale, the main Fascist party of Switzerland prior to WW2, so it referenced a far-right organisation already. We did try quite hard to find an acronym that wouldn't offend anyone, but it turned out to be impossible; "United NationStates" shares an acronym with another far-right pre-WW2 political party, the Mexican Unión Nacional Sinarquista, the acronym of "World Congress" is a common shorthand for "toilet" in Britain, and the NationStates Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA) would go down like a lead zeppelin among much of our userbase (if General is any indicator). Unfortunately, our searches for connections to offensive things failed to turn up the Weerbaarheidsafdeling.

However, I think it's a bit of a leap to go from the acronym to calling the logo itself "very Speer-like in its stylization". When I came up with it, the biggest influence was probably the United Nations Space Colonies logo from the Marathon computer games; the Third Reich could not have been further from my mind. You'll be pleased to know that it's intended as an interim logo (early proposals actually had "Interim Insignia" on them, before we'd finalised the new name).

~ Tsar the ModSo it's both an April Fool's joke and going to continue afterwards? Also, if the logo is only interim, are there any plans to allow NSers to submit designs for the final version? Would be neat if so.

I said we looked for an acronym that wouldn't offend people. I didn't say it was a permanent thing. Regarding your own submissions: it may be so ... unless this is all an elaborate hoax designed to deceive you. You'll have to wait until April 2 to find out. :D

I said we looked for an acronym that wouldn't offend people. I didn't say it was a permanent thing. Regarding your own submissions: it may be so ... unless this is all an elaborate hoax designed to deceive you. You'll have to wait until April 2 to find out. :DDrat :p

I did not see this thread.

but will say it again in this thread,I like the name change,I know its a April fools thing,but I hope this one stays on

Organisations that assiduously protect their brand name often react adversely when anything occurs that they think could bring them into disrepute.

Could anything the NS UN did have brought the RL UN into disrepute?

True, individual delegates lied, cheated, plotted, gazumped, caucussed, cohabited, cursed, coerced, padded their expenses, kidnapped or otherwise disposed of their opponents, overstated their qualifications, drank to excess, misled their colleagues, committed appalling grammar and spelling violations and even showed up late for work, and with dirty fingernails, too.

But it can't have been that, that's perfectly normal behaviour in any big organisation.

True, individual nations defied the UN, ignored its rulings, undermined its principles, blatantly disobeyed undertakings to which they had freely agreed, refused any form of support, rejected its attempts at peaceful persuasion, sniped at its tall poppies and gave every appearance of being committed to making it a laughing-stock.

But such little shenannigans are just par for the course.

So what did the NS UN do that was so poisonous of the RL body's good name that it had to be shut down?

I'll tell you what it did, brothers and sis -- er, ladies and gentlemen, I'll tell you what it did.

It succeeded!

Yes it did, my friends, yes it did!

It forced its member states to enact good and peaceful legislation! It forced its member states to at least listen to each other's point of view! It forced the world to be a better place, one resolution at a time!

No wonder it had to go! It was an embarrassment, comrades, an embarrassment to less effective organisations! Less committed organisations! Less united organisations!

So now we must rise up, bro -- delegates! We must roll up our sleeves and work together as one, to build again, and build better, our own international voice, our World Assembly!

I know we can do that. You know we can do that. We can do it together.

Yes, we can! YES, WE CAN!

YES!

WE!

CAN!

(This tubthumping parody of a speech written and authorised for delivery to the World Assembly by William Edward Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS, 193 Ardrigh Boulevarde, Ardrigh.)

I love it when these things are given little touches of authenticity. Using the real fax number for the Office of Legal Affairs was a great start, but if Andrei Terekhov is a real employee of theirs, that's just brilliance.

what if this is an incredibly elaborate plan wherby they have changed it to the WA and we think its just a joke but the real joke is that is real which would make all of us who think its a joke look like fools lol just thought I'd spread a bit of paranoia

Bleary eyed and slighty rumpled, the good but unwholesome Sen Sulla raises his head from the desk that he had passed out days ago from too much Wild Turkey. turning his head around he notices the change of scenery.
"What the hell....is this the same old festering snakepit I've grown to loathe?", he thought.

"Same old desk", he quietly observed

Listening to the ongoing debate he observed, "Same old horses**t."

Looking around and seeing Dicey, Dr. Dennis Leary, and Sir Cyril he observed,
"Hmmph, same old crowd."

With that out of the way, the good but slightly unwholesome Senator once again passed out.

This seems to be real. See the UN website (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/033/43/IMG/NR003343.pdf?OpenElement), notice that 92 (I) is exactly what is claimed in the letter.

WA = Washington State. I like that you'll all become part of my home state.

WA FTW!

Freedom of speech is an international law?

Well more precisely the Human Declaration of Human Rights, which supposidly something the United States should sign, and that Australia has signed. Not to mention that the United Nations is freely discussed in news media. I think it would be embarassing if the UN is caught out anywhere criticising a minor fictional internet site that is simply using their system. Especially with their failure to enforce intellectual property rights on UN imagery and depictions.

PS: And I can't help but remember the infamous oil for food programme in Iraq. That was a story of UN corruption. ;)

Yes But....

They brought back MAXTOPIA (http://www.nationstates.net/maxtopia)!!!!

I'm very sorry to hear that. ... Unfortunately, our searches for connections to offensive things failed to turn up the Weerbaarheidsafdeling.

However, I think it's a bit of a leap to go from the acronym to calling the logo itself "very Speer-like in its stylization".

Don't worry about it too much... As I already mentioned, I'm sure it's just a prank for April 1st, so it won't be a lasting problem.

As for the association with Speer, that had nothing to do with the acronym. Looking at how it appears in the background of the UN (or WA) page, it was the first thing that sprung to mind, even before I really noticed the acronym. The logo on the flag looks slightly different though, and with that little difference in it, I don't immediately have the Speer association. Just to give you a little idea of how my mind seems to work with those images (I can't really explain why it works like that either)...

Yes But....

They brought back MAXTOPIA (http://www.nationstates.net/maxtopia)!!!!

I like how it travels

17 hours ago: FlagMaxtopia relocated from Lazarus to Lazarus.

This seems to be real. See the UN website (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/033/43/IMG/NR003343.pdf?OpenElement), notice that 92 (I) is exactly what is claimed in the letter.Either that, or they did some research. After all, you just looked it up don't you think the mods and admins could do likewise.

WA = Washington State. I like that you'll all become part of my home state.

WA FTW!

Hey, I'm a Washingtonian too.

IMO , the world assembly, its icons, flags and even abbrviation is just soo much cooler then the UN.

and in the end, isn't that the most important thing?



WA for a brighter future!

Even if it was originally conceived as a spoof, does the debate and the ensuing vote not count?
Only in Michigan and Florida!

well we really have no say so, we can not form our own, its all up to the people that own the site.

this game runs on GMT right? and its april 2nd there now. so i think the whole april fools day joke thing is over. id also have been baffled had max spent the time programming this change for a joke, as opposed to meaningful work on NS2.

So the face of history may change, but one thing remains constant : you can change the name and colors, but it's still the same hallowed hall... just built ontop of the rubble of the old hallowed hall.

this game runs on GMT right? and its april 2nd there now. so i think the whole april fools day joke thing is over. id also have been baffled had max spent the time programming this change for a joke, as opposed to meaningful work on NS2.

You wouldn't be surprised if you had been here in 2004 when they reset everyone's population back to 5 million, or 2005 when we got a message from the Department of Homeworld Security (http://www.nationstates.net/hws.html) when we tried to access the site, or 2006 when the site was transformed into a dating site called NationDates, or 2007 when they implemented Regional Mods.

EDIT: Since when does the Homeworld Security link not work?

I think, at this point, it's officially not an April Fool's Joke, but rather, just timed to make us all paranoid for a day or so.

Given the date on the C&D Order, I'm guessing the time spent until now was for coding changes necessary to implement the World Assembly in place of the United Nations?

Then what is the A1 prank?

Then what is the A1 prank?

I thought this was the A1 prank. It is still April 1 in California and Hawaii.

Freedom of speech is an international law?

Only for those nations who have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant treaties.

Here's my opinion. If I am wrong, I strongly encourage you all to heap ridicule on me for my naivety.

Yesterday morning, I thought I'd check NS from my girlfriend's room. I had completely forgotten about it being April 1, and the NS tradition. Previous April Fool's jokes didn't get me. This one did. I jumped out of bed screaming, "MOTHERFUCKERS!" I angrily explained to my now somewhat terrified girlfriend that they were trying to scrap the UN after all those years of hard work. This next bit is, I swear on my mother's sausages, true: her response was to navigate to CNN.com and say, "Well, there's nothing on here about that."

In the process of explaining to her that it was on NS, I suddenly realized it was an April Fool's, and found it very funny. Well played to all involved. Sadly, later, I did do a bit of checking: yes, the resolution is real, yes, the quoted Paris Convention applies, yes, Mr. Terekhov is a legal officer at the UN. But that was 5 minutes of googling, and because the .pdf was titled 'unlegal', I still assumed it was part of the joke.

Now, I think it is real. Four things make me think this:

1. The date. Everyone has seized on this as indication it's a joke, because changing in April is not 'complying immediately'. Actually, I think that's an indication it is real. All the bits about US law are irrelevant, given Max is Australian and Jolt is a UK company. But there is no way he would start complying on January 22nd: he'd check it out, see if it was a hoax. Assuming it wasn't, this would now be a perfect opportunity. By March, two problems would be on the minds of the mods and admins: 1. what do we do about the NSUN and 2. what do we for April Fool's. Then the two merged...

2. The name. As pointed out by someone else, given the Russian dude is real, Max really couldn't pretend to be him without risking serious legal shit.

3. The change of this forum's name on Jolt. The mods have said before that getting Jolt to change stuff is difficult. For example, it took a while before HotRodia and Ardchoille were formally given mod powers, even after they'd been announced as such. They would not go to the time and effort of getting Jolt to make such a change, for one day. Remember, the Jolt forum didn't change at all when the game became NationDates.

4. 2 of Fris's posts. One points to the fact that even after 24 hours, there was no reversion. The other posted his Rights & Duties. Fris knows better than most mods, I would say, how much work a proposal is. He is always telling new players to be patient, to spend days, not hours, on a proposal, to seek advice. He wouldn't post a proposal topic if it wasn't 'for real'.

Note: half of the above was typed before, on a whim, I navigated to News. I have now read this (http://69.60.14.82/page=news/2008/04/02/index.html#aprilfoolsnoprank). So I was right about some things, wrong about some things. The following thoughts have been composed post-News reading.

First, congrats. I think this was a brilliant joke, inasmuch as it got all the whily cynics, myself included, to say, "Oh yeah :rolleyes:" And then it's real. That's absolutely brilliant.

Second, I think it's a real shame the UN are such absolute twats, but well done to Max and the mods for making the best of a bad situation.

Third, I posted earlier on a regional forum that this was 'fucking insulting'. To clarify, I was annoyed at what I perceived as a slight: the mods saying that the modern UN players are 'inan[e]'. I'll admit there's also a personal element: it took me so fucking long to pass Abolition of Slavery, when as it turns out I could have waited a bit longer and done it with half the effort! To some extent, I stand by this. However, I do not want to start a pointless pissing contest, and I completely accept the decision. Hopefully, this will produce some fun RPing, and some opportunities to right old wrongs, legislatively. So, I will not delete my comment on the regional forum, but I am not angry: I just very much hope the gamble pays off!

Fourth, I would very much appreciate some mod clarification, at some point (no hurry), on the legality of resubmitting old resolutions. Specifically, I hope it's the case that we can only resubmit material we wrote ourselves. While I think it's a terrible shame Powerhungry Chipmunks won't be represented in the new WA's legislative archive, it would be even more of a shame if someone started gratutiously ripping him off.

Fifth, if it seems presumptuous for me to have written such a long post, and to some extent expected an audience, then let me say this. Between the nations of Gruenberg and Quintessence of Dust, I have passed more UN resolutions than any other nation, so far as I can see, and have been an active player in the UN for almost 3 years. I take this game way too seriously, but I have a lot of fun doing so. Therefore, I am very keen that the WA succeed, and that it should prove as entertaining as its predecessor.

So, as we Brits like to say: let's play up, play up, and play the game.

--Quod/~Gruen

EDIT:

Sixth, an appeal. Let's not just start resubmitting every old resolution. Yes, Rights & Duties, Rights of Neutral States, Wolfish, the Bio Convention, etc. etc., of course I'd like to see those replicated. But we now have a chance to do something new, that's the whole point of this!

Taken from the April 1, 2007 Regional Moderator thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522669):
You know what I think would be the best April Fools' joke? If this wasn't an April Fools' joke.

Haraki is psychic zOMG! :D

Wiping the slate clean and startiong over is the only way you'll get me to join in as a WA member.

We need to look over all the old resolutions carefully, not just resubmit them whilly nilly. It will save us alot of time in the long run by lessening the number of repeals.

I just took a look at the NationStates news and it would appear that the whole thing is not a joke after all. Too bad, since it forced me to resign and makes it impossible for me to fully participtate in NationStates.

I just took a look at the NationStates news and it would appear that the whole thing is not a joke after all. Too bad, since it forced me to resign and makes it impossible for me to fully participtate in NationStates.

Sorry, but I don't get this....


1. The UN is renamed "World Assembly"
2. The Current Resolutions are archived
3. The World Assembly starts with a clean rule books

How would that "make me resign"?

By March, two problems would be on the minds of the mods and admins: 1. what do we do about the NSUN and 2. what do we for April Fool's. Then the two merged...Kinda, but we struck on that combo before March.

Second, I think it's a real shame the UN are such absolute twats, but well done to Max and the mods for making the best of a bad situation.Oh, you should see some of the things we had to say about this...

the mods saying that the modern UN players are 'inan[e]'.That wasn't the intent. It was supposed to be a little caustic, but I rather like where the UN ended up. In fact, I was one of the people most against scrapping the books wholesale: this was a compromise.

Also, we didn't write that; that's all Max, baby.

Hopefully, this will produce some fun RPing, and some opportunities to right old wrongs, legislatively.So far, it seems to have.

Fourth, I would very much appreciate some mod clarification, at some point (no hurry), on the legality of resubmitting old resolutions. Specifically, I hope it's the case that we can only resubmit material we wrote ourselves. While I think it's a terrible shame Powerhungry Chipmunks won't be represented in the new WA's legislative archive, it would be even more of a shame if someone started gratutiously ripping him off.This is just me speaking as a player: When Repeals went in, I think it was decided that Repealed Resolutions could be re(re?)-submitted by others if the original nation was gone. I would thing the same would apply here. So, I'd smack Newbistan for resubmitting one of yours, but probably not one of PC's. However, at the very least, I would expect an "Originally Authored By:" line. Again, this is just me off the top of my head, and not official policy.

Sixth, an appeal. Let's not just start resubmitting every old resolution. Yes, Rights & Duties, Rights of Neutral States, Wolfish, the Bio Convention, etc. etc., of course I'd like to see those replicated. But we now have a chance to do something new, that's the whole point of this!Agreed.

That wasn't the intent. It was supposed to be a little caustic, but I rather like where the UN ended up. In fact, I was one of the people most against scrapping the books wholesale: this was a compromise.

I rather like where the UN ended up too. The resolutions were much better quality all around, and a semblance of balance was achieved.

So, what happens to those nations and regions that have 'UN' or 'United Nations' in their names?

Honestly, I feel a little cheated and offended, but I do agree with Quod's statements. The most obnoxious thing is seeing the hard work of previous authors just being archived.

But it's probably for the best. Now, at least those great writers won't see their hard work repealed some day.

So, what happens to those nations and regions that have 'UN' or 'United Nations' in their names?

Shoot the leaders
Burn the huts
Salt the earth
Nuke the site from orbit
It's the only way to be sure.

Sixth, an appeal. Let's not just start resubmitting every old resolution. Yes, Rights & Duties, Rights of Neutral States, Wolfish, the Bio Convention, etc. etc., of course I'd like to see those replicated. But we now have a chance to do something new, that's the whole point of this!

I've taken this opportunity to address the various concerns and shortcomings of Rights and Duties, and I hope any earlier authors would take a similar approach.

The main point I wanted to add here is the preponderance of blockers in the old UN. I'd like to plead with authors to resist the impulse to create massive, comprehensive, omnibus resolutions that effectively close off entire categories to new players. It's very frustrating as a UN mod to constantly tell newbies that they can't legislate in Education, Drugs, or National Security because some prior resolution closed the door on the category.

It may be less satisfactory to leave windows open when you attempt to shut the door, but I ask that you do so. That's a big part of why we chose this reset - there really wasn't a lot left to legislate.

Sorry, but I don't get this....


1. The UN is renamed "World Assembly"
...

Please refer to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13573375&postcount=19) for the argument behind it.

I've taken this opportunity to address the various concerns and shortcomings of Rights and Duties, and I hope any earlier authors would take a similar approach.

The main point I wanted to add here is the preponderance of blockers in the old UN. I'd like to plead with authors to resist the impulse to create massive, comprehensive, omnibus resolutions that effectively close off entire categories to new players. It's very frustrating as a UN mod to constantly tell newbies that they can't legislate in Education, Drugs, or National Security because some prior resolution closed the door on the category.

It may be less satisfactory to leave windows open when you attempt to shut the door, but I ask that you do so. That's a big part of why we chose this reset - there really wasn't a lot left to legislate.

Honestly, I don't think there will be as much of a need for blockers. By the time the UN collapsed, the organization's membership had by and large been producing useful and well-written legislation that didn't go stomping around without any regard for cultural and political structures unique to its constituent nations.

Earlier in UN history, a lot of resolutions were poorly written and ill-conceived, so there was more of a need for blockers. But now that that's not such a problem, the blocker solution shouldn't need to be applied.

Here's my opinion. If I am wrong, I strongly encourage you all to heap ridicule on me for my naivety.

Yesterday morning, I thought I'd check NS from my girlfriend's room. I had completely forgotten about it being April 1, and the NS tradition. Previous April Fool's jokes didn't get me. This one did. I jumped out of bed screaming, "MOTHERFUCKERS!" I angrily explained to my now somewhat terrified girlfriend that they were trying to scrap the UN after all those years of hard work. This next bit is, I swear on my mother's sausages, true: her response was to navigate to CNN.com and say, "Well, there's nothing on here about that

It seems you were right the first time and calling them "MOTHERFUCKERS" what a load of bull.

Max Barry and the others who changed it over IMO should not have worried about this empty threat Why?

This was sent at the begining of the year, if this was a real threat then surely by now the UN would have sent a follow up letter requesting Max Barry to change it. As there has been no follow up letter, at least to my knowledge please correct me if there has. Then it means that the UN has forgotten about it and found something more important to do like solving North Koreas problems, yeah right more like the lawyers are deciding which exotic location they will hold the next major meeting maybe Tahiti or Bali or even Sardinia.

:headbang:wow. The UN decided we couldnt use their name? my god! its a simulation...
Its hard to belive that they would take offence to that
:upyours:

:rolleyes:
these smilys are pretty cool tho...

;)

I thought I posted on another topic, but I felt would be better re-iterated here: is it possible for the word count to be increased, even if only for a few months, whilst we get this whole shebang up and running? That way, we could combine two previously existing, but related, resolutions into one, thereby saving time in setting the ground work. The example I originally thought of was RoNS and Maritime Neutrality, but would work also for right to fair trial and it's related resolutions, civilian rights in conflict and Wolfish, Maritime Safety and a replacement for "Ban Single Hulled Tankers" and perhaps others.

I appreciate this may not be possible, and there may be factors that might render it undesirable, but I would like a zOMG Modly answer to it's feasibility

if this was a real threat then surely by now the UN would have sent a follow up letter requesting Max Barry to change it. As there has been no follow up letter, at least to my knowledge please correct me if there has.

The posted letter is the only thing Max has shared with the players, but there were additional discussions, negotiations, lawyers, and things like that. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Anyone who has read any of Max's books or blogs knows that he enjoys a fine disregard for pointless copyright enforcement in fiction and satire. If you haven't read the book that this site was created to promote (Jennifer Government), you need to do so. Despite that, the UN had clear ownership of the way we were using their logos and names, and Max did the right thing by agreeing to their terms.

They were, after all, kind enough to give him until 31 March 2008 to implement the necessary changes to the site. You can't even say they don't have a sense of humor too.

I appreciate this may not be possible, and there may be factors that might render it undesirable, but I would like a zOMG Modly answer to it's feasibility

The code change wouldn't necessarily be difficult, but I honestly don't see anything in your case that makes it desirable. Combining proposals to reduce the ability to submit future proposals doesn't strike me as a laudable goal. Our objective with this reset wasn't to instantly replace all that we removed - it was to get another five years of UN activity and some new space for new users.

Plead your case in a new post in the Technical forum, and I'll see to it that SalusaSecondus and/or [violet] are made aware of it.

The posted letter is the only thing Max has shared with the players, but there were additional discussions, negotiations, lawyers, and things like that. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Anyone who has read any of Max's books or blogs knows that he enjoys a fine disregard for pointless copyright enforcement in fiction and satire. If you haven't read the book that this site was created to promote (Jennifer Government), you need to do so. Despite that, the UN had clear ownership of the way we were using their logos and names, and Max did the right thing by agreeing to their terms.

They were, after all, kind enough to give him until 31 March 2008 to implement the necessary changes to the site. You can't even say they don't have a sense of humor too.

Thank you yes I wasn't aware of them, but I knew it was possible that they may have been more discussions and now knowing that there was I cheerfully withdraw my comments on the 'empty threat' and what not, I still think it is BS of the UN but hey, what are you going to do

And yes I have read Jennifer Government and I am aware he uses company names and infringes on copyright in the book, and as he said on his blog he can have Nike shooting people and Coke selling Fukk but he can't have the UN on a game

The code change wouldn't necessarily be difficult, but I honestly don't see anything in your case that makes it desirable. Combining proposals to reduce the ability to submit future proposals doesn't strike me as a laudable goal. Our objective with this reset wasn't to instantly replace all that we removed - it was to get another five years of UN activity and some new space for new users.

Plead your case in a new post in the Technical forum, and I'll see to it that SalusaSecondus and/or [violet] are made aware of it.


Done so, the main reason for it is, I feel, that it would mean the rehashing of important, former UN resolutions, which is probably inevitable, will be gotten out of the way with as soon as possible, thereby bringing about more interesting and novel resolutions.

Our objective with this reset wasn't to instantly replace all that we removed - it was to get another five years of UN activity and some new space for new users.

So anything that we pass during the next five years will then be declared void, and archived like the old UN Resolutions, in 2013? :(

So anything that we pass during the next five years will then be declared void, and archived like the old UN Resolutions, in 2013? :(

Yes. The World Assembly will be founded in December of 2012 under Secretary-General L. Damien. In March of 2013 we'll be asked to change the name or the Antarean Star Navy will bombard our neural uplink nodes from orbit.

Er, what do we call the General Assembly now that the organization already has "Assembly" in its name? World Assembly General Assembly is kinda silly.

WA General Conference?
The World Assembly in Congress Assembled?
The WA Den of Iniquity and Vice?
The Snakepit?
?

Once we come up with the proper collective noun (http://www.ucgc.org/terms-for-collections.htm) for WA diplomats, I think the organization will name itself.

A scourge of ambassadors?
A sneak of legislators?
A superfluity of Assemblymen (or -persons)?
An ambush of WA Regulars?

Some of these just write themselves ...
(Here are some 'musician' attempts (http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/1495/comments) to get you rolling.)

Er, what do we call the General Assembly now that the organization already has "Assembly" in its name? World Assembly General Assembly is kinda silly.

WA General Conference?
The World Assembly in Congress Assembled?
The WA Den of Iniquity and Vice?
The Snakepit?
?

World Lunacy Council (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582359&postcount=4)?

;)

I should be credited for that. Other names possible are as follows:


Charlotte Ryberg Pact
International Union
Peace Congress
Max Barry Union
NationStates Union
World Congress
World's Union


The flag should be, as pictured here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582911&postcount=5). Also created by me.

Er, what do we call the General Assembly now that the organization already has "Assembly" in its name? World Assembly General Assembly is kinda silly.I dunno... "WAGA" has a certain charm...

Maybe World Parliament or The International Senate?

Also maybe the International Congress or The World International Assembly?

I dunno... "WAGA" has a certain charm...

I think for resolutions it could just be left alone, the League of Nations didn't have a "General Assembly".

The World Assembly

1. URGES ...

Just a few more things, in case the mods/admins haven't noticed them elsewhere.

The last Compliance Ministry mentioned 'UN member nations'. That actually makes sense, but hopefully it be changed from now on.

If you change the URL of the UN page (to '.../page=WA'), ok, but I would really prefer if you not change the URLs of all the passed resolutions, as it will play havoc with all the off-site links (e.g. NSwiki, regional forums, Safalra's wobsite).

We'll be going through and picking up the typos eventually. If you would, raise them in the thread in Technical devoted to that purpose (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552128).

If you change the URL of the UN page (to '.../page=WA'), ok, but I would really prefer if you not change the URLs of all the passed resolutions, as it will play havoc with all the off-site links (e.g. NSwiki, regional forums, Safalra's wobsite).

Leaving the URLs intact is our own little :upyours: to Andrei Terekhov. I don't believe there are any plans to change those. That, and of course our desire to keep Safalra's wobs well sited.