NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal has just reached Quorum. Thank you for the support of all those who helped me with it and approved it.

The proposal can be found here. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=UNABS)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UNABS
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Free Press

Description: "Unified News Agency & Broadcasting Service"


The Nations of the World Assembly,

Observing that each specific nation has its own views on the mass media;

Taking into account the fact that most nations have their own media organisations which are allowed different levels of freedom in reporting daily news from inside and outside their borders;

Believing that all citizens of World Assembly member nations have a right to the truth, and utilize that right to be educated about affairs in their own nation along with world affairs;

Noting with regret that in some nations press is so restricted that citizens are blinded by government created news and never find out what is really going on in their nation, or outside their borders;

Alarmed that in other nations press is so free that citizens do not know what is true and what is false due to the rights of the press to print whatever they want;

Guided by the system of some news media organisations from nations which have world news that is free to report anything yet regulated to provide only the truth;


The World Assembly hereby establishes a Unified News Agency & Broadcasting Service (UNABS) which is free to report news from and to all World Assembly nations, no matter what each nation’s specific views on free press are, following the guidelines below:

1) All World Assembly nations will allow the UNABS access inside their borders and the freedom to report news from anywhere, at the discretion of the reporters and each nation’s government (clause 2).

2) Nations reserve the right to restrict the UNABS from reporting news in areas where allowing reporter access would pose a genuine threat to National Security. If it is thought that the nation is restricting too much access then an appeal can be made, which must be taken to, and decided on by, the regulatory committee (clause 3).

3) The World Assembly UNABS will be regulated by a committee fully staffed with impartial members who will ensure only the truth is reported. In matters where the truth isn’t clear, the report must be totally objective and unbiased, again to be regulated by the committee.

4) It is up to the UNABS to decide what relevant news is from the nations it is reporting from, in the same way a regular media organisation does.

5) Nations of the World Assembly will give their citizens full access to the news being reported by the UNABS via all available broadcast media, including the internet, television, radio and newspapers. For nations with limited availability of those mentioned, the news must be provided using the maximum possible means (i.e. radio and newspapers for those without TVs and computers)

6) The UNABS will: provide internet updates via a website; transmit radio and television broadcasts; distribute summarised news reports to be printed in local newspapers; and make news available via any other popular broadcast media. These will be available to all citizens of the World Assembly in accordance with clause 5.

7) Television and radio broadcasts will be 24 hour rolling news services to cater for the difference in time zones for nations.

8) The UNABS will be a non-profit organisation, being funded by every World Assembly member nation. Each nation must provide a percentage of the funds needed to run the agency, based on a combination of how many member nations there are and the size of their GDP at the time of funding.


Voting Ends: Tue Sep 16 2008

While I wouldn't mention it as an ideological ban, this would make very difficult for Police States.

As well, it is worth mentioning the impossibility of creating a report that is "totally objective and unbiased."

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain, while not against this proposal as of yet, are not willing to stand for it.

Collectivity will support the establishment of a free world press. The problem is however, those who 'pay the piper' will want to "call the tune". I think the conception is fine Broughdom but the headkickers may lambast you on your detail.

First, why is it necessary to create this cumbersome mechanism? Why not simply pass a law requiring press freedom? That would allow private news organizations to play an equivalent role without being an unnecessary drain on resources. You are, after all, asking heavily-indebted poor countries that can't feed themselves to pay for a 24 hour rolling news network. 'Thousands continue to die because the money we might have spent on anti-malaria drugs is being spent building radio infrastructure' will be broadcast at all hours, fine, but isn't there a possibility private investors could have paid for such services?

Second, without wishing to open some massive discourse, I question your belief in the existence of some absolute, unquestionable external truth. There being one universally accessible truth-world is a distinctly troublesome proposition. What, for example, would the content of reports on a supposed religious miracle or supernatural event be? Well might one approach such occurrences with a healthy degree of scepticism, but I wonder what 'the truth' about the divinity of Christ, for example, is.

Third, your proposal totally ignores the concept of privacy.

Fourth, do you at least have a ball-park estimate of how much this would all cost?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Well thank you Quod for your helpful comments. However why did you not give any kind of support when this was in it's draft stage? I had a topic on here for quite a while before I posted this proposal, in which a few good people helped me refine it. Where were you? I find it disheartening that only now, when it may be too late, you decide to pipe up with your comments.

But I suppose I'd better answer you as best I can.

1) With over 18,000 member nations and with a large number of these having a decent economy, I'm sure it won't take much to fund. Considering every nation is paying the same percentage of their GDP, those poor nations will not have to give anywhere near the amount a large prosperous nation would have to give. And don't you think there would be even more problems with countries allowing people from the private sector iwithin their borders than a WA santioned news organisation? Surely those part of the WA are more inclined to adhere to and respect it's rules than that of the private sector.

2) When did I ever say that there was the "existence of some absolute, unquestionable external truth"? The clause clearly states that when the truth isn't clear, the report should be unbiased and objective. That pretty much allows cases like you mentioned above to be reported with both sides of the story and for whoever is watching to decide what they believe. I never said there was a total truth at all, and accounted for that in the proposal.

3) How does this differ from any other media organisation? A little more detail on what you mean would be helpful.

4) No I don't. But according to NSDossier, you spend 45 trillion dollars (36% of your GDP) on Education. You are one nation out of over 18,000 who will be funding this and paying the exact same amount based on a percentage of their GDP. I hardly think it will cost enough to even put a slight scratch on your economy, and therefore the same goes for every other member nation, who are paying the same percentage. It could costs trillions of dollars to set up, but with so many nations with such huge economies and GDP's, the cost will be so spread out it won't make the slightest difference to any nation.

We have a quorum! Well done... just assure us that this agency will not replace our national agencies and you have my vote.

What's this. Now a WA assembly inspector will come to my capital and take my nation's money away to spend at a pet WA project? If the WA wants to have a media organization, why not do it with it's own budget?

Because it doesn't have a budget.

Thank you Charlotte Ryberg, I'm very happy :) I can assure you that this agency will be in addition to all other national agencies and will not replace them. I probably could have put that in the proposal. Oh well, I can assure you on here at least.

:tongue:

sorry, no money = no UNABS

As I explained in my post above, the cost would be mininal to each nation.

An interesting point here: I see that this is currently queued behind a proposal which bans the WA from collecting anything but "donations" from member nations, making the means for funding this illegal.

This is somewhat of a unique situation, or at least I don't think it's been encountered before.

First of all I congratulate Broughdom for getting this on the queue. There appears to be a backlog of relatively good proposals on the queue and this is a pleasant change from the normal faire of waiting we have been experiencing lately.

Never the less this resolution gives me an anxiety attack whenever I see it. First a resolution whose title is only a five letter acronym isn’t institutively obvious as to what it is all about. Second is the first two letters of the acronym. Yes the letters does stand for “Unified News” but having lived through that dreadful event, the memories of those terrorist lawyers descending on us all with those nasty cease and desist letters is still quite vivid in my mind.

The resolution creates an international news organization (UNABS) with an independent committee to determine what is and what is not news worthy. It will then be granted relatively unlimited rights to report from member nations and to the citizens of the member nations; all under member nation’s expense.

Make no mistake; I am a firm believer in freedom of the press. But I am strongly worried about this UNABS, an organization that is accountable to no one, with a potentially unlimited budget being given unfair competition advantages against regular for profit international news organizations.

Other nations, I’m sure will object to the blatant interference on national sovergnity.

Did I mention the title is not fluffy friendly? Yes I think I indirectly mentioned that.

1) With over 18,000 member nations and with a large number of these having a decent economy, I'm sure it won't take much to fund. Considering every nation is paying the same percentage of their GDP, those poor nations will not have to give anywhere near the amount a large prosperous nation would have to give. And don't you think there would be even more problems with countries allowing people from the private sector iwithin their borders than a WA santioned news organisation? Surely those part of the WA are more inclined to adhere to and respect it's rules than that of the private sector.
First, this is the problem with using GDP. A nation's GDP does not necessarily correlate to the wealth of its government. A neocolonial periphery with EPZs, for example, could have quite a high GDP, but its government might well not receive much income, particularly if favourable rates have been agreed.

Second, you are requiring us to subsidise competition to our own news sources, while not allowing our news sources any kind of press freedom. This proposal doesn't prevent censorship, or attacks on journalists, or suppression of information: it just creates an agency that we have to pay for! But journalists from the Quintessential Press might still suffer repression, lack of access, even threats of violence, and will be unable to broadcast the news. If you had concentrated on press freedom, there would be no need to create the UNABS, because state and private news agencies would have been given the access to do the reporting for themselves, at no cost to WA nations.
2) When did I ever say that there was the "existence of some absolute, unquestionable external truth"? The clause clearly states that when the truth isn't clear, the report should be unbiased and objective. That pretty much allows cases like you mentioned above to be reported with both sides of the story and for whoever is watching to decide what they believe. I never said there was a total truth at all, and accounted for that in the proposal.
But you can't negate bias by simply passing a law saying everyone has to be unbiased! How, for example, would the UNABS be able to comment on a nation's angry resignation from the WA, the WA passing an embarrassingly bad resolution, or a case of corruption or incompetence within the WA secretariat? You can require objectivity all you like: it's unlikely to be attainable.
3) How does this differ from any other media organisation? A little more detail on what you mean would be helpful.
At present, we have certain restrictions on what the press can cover. For example, we don't allow newspapers to print the names and addresses of rape victims in the bylines of their crime stories. That restriction is rendered illegal by your Clause 1. We don't allow reporters - or anyone else! - into certain historic or environmentally sensitive area, because human activity there could destroy or damage centuries old architecture, or disrupt ancient habitats. That restriction is rendered illegal by your Clause 1. And we have, in Quintessence of Dust, the concept of 'private property', and hence reporters can only enter someone's house having been given permission by the owner. That restriction is rendered illegal by your Clause 1. We would also be required to allow journalists completely unfettered access to hospitals, prisons, police stations, crime scenes, etc.
4) No I don't. But according to NSDossier, you spend 45 trillion dollars (36% of your GDP) on Education. You are one nation out of over 18,000 who will be funding this and paying the exact same amount based on a percentage of their GDP. I hardly think it will cost enough to even put a slight scratch on your economy, and therefore the same goes for every other member nation, who are paying the same percentage. It could costs trillions of dollars to set up, but with so many nations with such huge economies and GDP's, the cost will be so spread out it won't make the slightest difference to any nation.
How can you make that claim, moments after saying that you don't have any idea how much it'll cost? Bear in mind many nations have billions of citizens each, meaning we have to print off tens of trillions of newspapers each year now. That alone is going to start to strain 18,000 pockets.

-- Samantha Benson

Yes, I have to say the concerns of the Cobdenian Government are the same as the Quodites, especially concerning privacy, libel, and cost. The cost is going to be enormous, make no doubt. Furthermore, the existance of one rolling news television and radio station will be about as much use as a chocolate teapot - not everyone speaks the same language (in Cobdenia alone we have hundreds)

Assuming that WA General Fund passes, you will have a fund to which to finance your news agency. No need to collect a separate fund. Also there's no limit on how much your news agency can collect from all WA nation which I find most allarming.

I fail to see where this has any role in being adopted and sanctioned by the World Assembly? I fail to see why any importance should be given to a proposal that realisticly is a WA sanctioned equivalent of a corporate "Associated Press" type agency where news is syndicated across several allied publications.
Even if you forget all that, what is alarming to me is that the WA is now trying to legislate for what is acceptable news? Please forgive my indignance to this resolution honoured delegates but in my nation the people who are reasonably well educated have the right to read everything from the erm, Articles in our popular rag "Hoobies Boobies" to the high brow haughty taughtyness of our nations broadsheets with their small fonts and zero nakedness policy. I would be fully against any resolution that interfered with the rights of any publishing corporations to publish in their marketed publications anything other than what they saw fit to print under the free market economy of our nation.

Furthermore, the existance of one rolling news television and radio station will be about as much use as a chocolate teapot - not everyone speaks the same language (in Cobdenia alone we have hundreds)
*slaps forehead*

That hadn't even occurred to me - yes, that's going to be a massive problem!

*scratches forehead*

And the author has resigned from the WA.

Yes, I have to say the concerns of the Cobdenian Government are the same as the Quodites, especially concerning privacy, libel, and cost. The cost is going to be enormous, make no doubt. Furthermore, the existance of one rolling news television and radio station will be about as much use as a chocolate teapot - not everyone speaks the same language (in Cobdenia alone we have hundreds)

I’m not sure this means what you are implying it means. The clause “Television and radio broadcasts will be 24 hour rolling news services to cater for the difference in time zones for nations,” seems to be simply a requirement that the “services” be 24 hours so that news can be reported to all possible time zones. The notion that these services can be translated into a plethora of regional languages is a logical and reasonable assumption that can be made even though it would be a significant added expense. (But then again so is news collection from a plethora of regional languages and so is translation that happens every day within the World Assembly.)

But you can't negate bias by simply passing a law saying everyone has to be unbiased! How, for example, would the UNABS be able to comment on a nation's angry resignation from the WA, the WA passing an embarrassingly bad resolution, or a case of corruption or incompetence within the WA secretariat? You can require objectivity all you like: it's unlikely to be attainable.This is very true. To maintain unbias in the press in PC requires the press be independent of government and that any business ties (which would present conflicts of interest) are publicly acknowledged. Add to that the idea of competition among news agencies (making it unprofitable to be biased, as that would soon be pointed out by competitors and the news agency would lose customers) and a few libel laws the press has a fence around it preventing it from being immensely biased.

Of course, there will always be some bias in the press, and there's always a slant toward sensationalism, but with "the fence" of libel laws, competition and disclosure of possible conflicts of interest, the majority of damning press sins are avoided. I don't see any such "fence" in the UNABS (which for the life of me I thought was the "United Nations...something, something"--old habits die hard, I guess).
5) Nations of the World Assembly will give their citizens full access to the news being reported by the UNABS via all available broadcast media, including the internet, television, radio and newspapers. For nations with limited availability of those mentioned, the news must be provided using the maximum possible means (i.e. radio and newspapers for those without TVs and computers) I assume, and PC's government will demand, that the UNABS is paying either PC's government or the correlating businesses for use of broadcasting infrastructure.

I mean, I assume this means there will be a "UNABS channel" that will cover stories written by the UNABS, and not that the PCNN and PCOXNEWS cable channels and the NPCR news radio are now being governed by the UNABS as to what they have to broadcast. I interpret "give all their citizens full access to" as meaning PC will allow the UNABS to buy airtime like every other news agency, and pay suppliers for the distribution of its independently produced newspaper ("The UNABS Times-Herald"?).

To be explicit in this, "Full access" is a term meaning "access that's the greatest possible" or "access that's not curtailed or limited based on a rubric". If I want a "full cup" of soda, it means I want the greatest measure possible within the terms of the cup I'm using. The amount of soda I get is dependent on the size of the cup which I'm "filling". In order for there to be "full access", there must be a measure, or rubric, of access established by current news agencies in PC and "full access" is access in the greatest terms of that rubric. "Full access" in PC is the right to purchase airtime and publish newspapers like all other news agencies. We would not curtail this right for the UNABS (i.e. filling the PC-news-access cup any less for the UNABS than for any other news agency), and thus we would give citizens "full access" to UNABS stories. To ask for more than this would be to ask for "super-full access".

Oppositely, the UNABS could write stories and try to sell them to the news outlets for syndication (in RL, like the Associated Press). In that case "full access" would mean just as much access as other such news groups. PC, though, does not force individual news outlets in PC to buy stories from any particular news group, so "full access" is that UNABS stories are made available to news outlets for purchase and the news outlets themselves (like PCNN, for example) are allowed to determine if the story is worth the money they'd pay for it. PC doesn't force the news outlets to purchase other stories, why force them to purchase UNABS stories? That, again, is "super-full access".

Which brings me to my point. Journalism is a business and must comply with business exigencies. Its business is producing a story--albeit based on verifiable facts--that consumers find compelling enough to "purchase" access to the media outlet ("purchase" by means of money for a newspaper or by the sacrifice of time to sit down and watch the news story...thus exposing themselves to the ads which fund the broadcast news). If a news organization is producing stories that are uninteresting, then no one will purchase access to the media outlet and the news organization will go under. I submit that the UNABS, if it weren't being propped up by PC taxpayers would go under very quickly.

8) The UNABS will be a non-profit organisation, being funded by every World Assembly member nation. Each nation must provide a percentage of the funds needed to run the agency, based on a combination of how many member nations there are and the size of their GDP at the time of funding.

The UNABS is reporting on stories, I suppose, from all over the world. Many of these stories will have very, very little bearing on the lives of PC citizens, and thus the citizenry of my country will be ambivalent towards them at best. They will not want to purchase access to the UNABS stories. So, PC citizens' apathy towards news from foreign lands, many of which they've never even heard of (which is only logical given how many thousands of individual nations they'd have to keep up with...) will make UNABS stories in PC profoundly unpopular, and thus there would be little money coming out of PC relative the cost of providing PC citizens UNABS stories.

Yet PC is required to pay for the UNABS the same as another WA nation of the same GDP as PC that may be more interested in international news. Payment is not based on usage but on GDP. GDP is independent of usage. High GDP nations can be uninterested and low GDP nations can be very interested. I don't see why GDP is the unit of measure we're using...it should be usage.

Again, I just don't know if there's enough interest in international news (in any WA nation, not just PC) to justify this organization--which will have to be immense by the way. I mean, you need: (for the sake of simplicity) 1 reporter per WA nation (and that's super skimpy coverage), then you need editors for those reporters--and with that many reporters you'll need lots of editors for what they write (and these editors will need to be familiar with the various countries their batch of reporters is covering, so the reporters can't get away with saying PC is a country inhabited entirely by squirrels--meaning the editors need a large knowledge of many nations and languages, meaning they need a huge salary to keep them editing in the UNABS rather than doing cooler things with their international know-how, like diplomacy, international business or spying). There're huge indirect costs for infrastructure to connect these reporters who are spread worldwide and to fund the construction of the central buildings in which all this information is processed, plus the costs of managing that many employees (an HR nightmare--given the huge area covered and given the diversity of the employees, and the mandate to keep everything unbiased, so these employees will need to be met with and interviewed and have their performance reviewed regularly to maintain their unbiased-ness). Then there are the direct costs of purchasing time on cable, satellite, radio and broadcast channels in each WA nation, and the technical costs of producing and translating each story, the costs of marketing (courting advertisers to run their commercials in the UNABS channels), not to mention legal fees for a huge number of lawyers so the laws of each member nation are understood by the UNABS and respected...

This business model is, let's just say, 'liability heavy'. I don't see where the UNABS will come up with the assets to even marginally offset these expenses--unless I'm mistake and nations are full of billions of people interested in foreign lands and dying to dispose of their cash to hear about them. The UNABS would, as a business, have a hugely negative net worth. Who pays for this? WA member nations. These expenses fall right back on WA nations that are having this 'necessity?' thrown upon them with this resolution. And this, again, is charged WA nations according to their GDP, and not proportionate to their usage of the UNABS services.

I’m not sure this means what you are implying it means. The clause “Television and radio broadcasts will be 24 hour rolling news services to cater for the difference in time zones for nations,” seems to be simply a requirement that the “services” be 24 hours so that news can be reported to all possible time zones. The notion that these services can be translated into a plethora of regional languages is a logical and reasonable assumption that can be made even though it would be a significant added expense. (But then again so is news collection from a plethora of regional languages and so is translation that happens every day within the World Assembly.)

Yes, but there is a limit to the number of radio and television stations one can have due to frequency issues (there is a limit to the number of frequencies one can use for radio and television broadcasts). Whilst some wavelengths can be used in some areas and reused in another due to limited range, it would still be more or less physically impossible in many nations to have have a news and radio channel for every language - there just isn't enough air, so to speak.

Furthermore, the frequency issues cause other problems. You wouldn't need one "English" news radio station. One would need one in every English speaking area of each country, and a large country may need thousands in order to ensure total coverage (OoC: think about driving in your car in the US over a long distance. If you keep your radio tuned to the same FM frequency, you'd end up listenening to hundreds of different radio stations as one station one that frequency get's out of range, and another comes into range) Such could all be on the same frequency, but the cost would be enormous. Of course, it could be solved by "XM", but not every country has that technology. The same goes for television, although TV rays have a longer range. In a country the size of, say, the fictional US, one would need a thousand English radio stations at least to ensure total coverage. In a country with multiple languages...well...this would cost more than the entire WA's defense expenditure!

However, I have found a solution to the cost that Cobdenia will incure. We shall simply increase the price of purchasing radio frequencies, etc, for international news organisations, so that the cost to UNABS will be the same as the money the WA takes out of Cobdenia.

We could send more satellites up into space to increase frequency ranges but that could clutter space. I guess it is down to scientists to further research of nano, nano-technology.

Right, I get the feeling this is going to have to be one hellishly long post, so I’ll get straight to it.

I’m pretty much losing faith in the WA, for a number of reasons. The main reason is the way some of you WA hardcore’s are so pedantic and nitpicky about everything, and in fact some of the time you’ve read it wrong or started out looking for things to find wrong about the proposal and didn’t even give it a chance. I’m aware it’s a pretty big ask and pretty far out as far as proposals go, but some of you don’t even want to help, you just feel content with giving it hell and that’s it.
*scratches forehead*

And the author has resigned from the WA.
It’s stuff like this sarcastic twaddle that annoys me. What does it matter that I’ve resigned from the WA? I have a life in NS outside of this forum. I defend many regions and gather intel on regions for defensive purposes, which means I need to be chopping and changing my WA nation all the time. I’m not a full on WA nutjob like some of you, and after seeing some of the reaction to this proposal I’m glad I’m not.

This is my first ever proposal. Ever since I started the game in 2003 I’ve wanted to get a proposal onto NS and get the whole WA to vote on it as a resolution. I wouldn’t be bothered if it got defeated, as long as I’d got it to the resolution stage. As long as there isn’t some kind of huge campaign against it, that’s what I’ve done and I’m happy with whatever the outcome is. I did not however expect all this trouble I’d get about it. I’m sure this will happen with other proposals but I’m not a regular committed WA nation which is always writing or talking about proposals and frankly I’m finding it really hard to keep up with all the points people are making. I do have a life outside NS and am trying my best to counter arguments but it’s pretty difficult when some arguments are due to fussy WA hardcore’s. I’m just not experienced to deal with it.

After reading some comments I was becoming aware that some issues (especially the cost) are getting to everybody, and was thinking that if this proposal got defeated or repealed, I would work on improving it and trying again. Not now. I’m not going to spend countless hours working on fixing every little pedantic problem you have, so I can put it up as a draft, get a few helpful comments, get it queued up and then get another bashing from all you nitpickers when it’s too late to do anything about it because you couldn’t be bothered to help me in the draft stage. This is what has happened this time and I’m really not into the WA enough to keep at it like that.

Having said all that, I have seen glimmers of helpful criticism from some nations on here and I thank you all for that. I’m going to try and answer some problems you’re all having because of this, but I doubt I’ll be re-submitting this if it fails after what I’ve experienced this time.

The cost is such a major problem with you all you’d think you actually had to pay for this damn thing yourself out of your own real life pockets. I’m not a role-player but I can understand why those of you who are would get annoyed at this. I can’t answer everything individually, but who’s to say the UNABS has to be set up straight away and all the money has to be plonked down in one go? Could it not be spread out over a period of years and therefore spread out the cost of the organisation? And to the point about how it should be based on usage as opposed to GDP, how in the world do you measure that? Any nation which didn’t want to pay as much could easily fake usage reports or restrict a certain area of viewing so usage figures would be brought down. To someone who said about printing newspapers... nowhere in that proposal does it say the UNABS would be printing newspapers. It says “distribute summarised news reports to be printed in local newspapers”. The UNABS does no printing at all, it just sends out news reports for local newspapers to include in their own papers (probably for a small charge, it’s just like advertising I suppose). It’s this kind of not reading what the proposal actually says that annoys me about some comments being said.

Just how detailed do you want me to be in this proposal? Some of the points you are making about privacy, language and even radio frequencies are decisions for the UNABS committee to make when it is set up. I’m allowed 3500 characters in a proposal, I can’t detail everything about the UNABS and how it will work. It’s not even something that the WA should concern itself with. The proposal is to create a news service and that’s what the WA should be asking itself. It’s not up to you to be trying to work out how it’s going to be run or how privacy is going to be kept; it’s for the regulators to do. There could be so many solutions to all the problems you have proposed, but I am one man, I can’t answer everything. Hell, I don’t even understand some of the stuff you guys are on about. However the people regulating and co-ordinating the building of such organisation will, and will find solutions to such problems.

To be honest, I’m probably not putting up a great case here. But that doesn’t surprise me. I’ve got no experience in the WA and even if I did, I doubt I’d be able to go up against 9 or 10 people all with huge arguments about fussy things. I just can’t do it. This is especially true when some arguments are irrational or are about things which I honestly don’t even understand. I don’t see why you couldn’t all come and give these opinions when it was in its draft stage so I could be enlightened to some points before it was too late. There’s no way I can now justify my proposal to all of you. It’s too time consuming and I have a life outside of NS. I’m just going to monitor what happens and be happy with the outcome, whatever it is. I’ve got this far and if you hardcore WA roleplay nutters want to duke it out or type huge essays about why this proposal is wrong then be my guest. I’ve created a debate I suppose, even if it is slightly one sided. If you get this un-queued or defeated, you won’t see it again. I’m sure that will make some of you very happy. I submit defeat to your nitpicking ways. Nationstates just isn’t fun anymore to someone like me when this level of debate is brought into what is essentially a roleplaying item. I enjoy nationstates for the invasion/defensive, running a region, chatting with people side. I was enjoying the WA side of it until the proposal got queued. It’s funny how things change so quickly.

I hope you enjoy the roasting I’m sure you’ll give to this post and more on my proposal.

Broughdom

I’m pretty much losing faith in the WA, for a number of reasons. The main reason is the way some of you WA hardcore’s are so pedantic and nitpicky about everything, and in fact some of the time you’ve read it wrong or started out looking for things to find wrong about the proposal and didn’t even give it a chance. I’m aware it’s a pretty big ask and pretty far out as far as proposals go, but some of you don’t even want to help, you just feel content with giving it hell and that’s it.You know what, You're right.

Yes, I wrote a long critique of the proposal, but I still think you're right. We in the forum are probably too apt to criticize and not as quick to praise. I'm sorry if my critique in particular was unhelpful and more deriding than productive. As for other complaints or posts, I can't speak.

This is my first ever proposal. Ever since I started the game in 2003 I’ve wanted to get a proposal onto NS and get the whole WA to vote on it as a resolution. I wouldn’t be bothered if it got defeated, as long as I’d got it to the resolution stage.

-snip-

I do have a life outside NS and am trying my best to counter arguments but it’s pretty difficult when some arguments are due to fussy WA hardcore’s. I’m just not experienced to deal with it.
I think it's most overwhelming with one's first proposal (which is largely why I chose a harmlessly simple, undivisive proposal for my first proposal). The WA forum is really like being naked in front of a big crowd--a big crowd holding rocks. I don't know why, that's just how it is, and how it always has been.

I'm sorry the behavior of the forum is a shock to you. You're right, it is harsh, but I also think you get used to it after a while. I think that the next proposal you submit (and I really do hope you keep submitting them) you'll be more ready for the forum's critiques, and it'll be easier for you to sift the good advice from the mindless derision.
I’m not going to spend countless hours working on fixing every little pedantic problem you have, so I can put it up as a draft, get a few helpful comments, get it queued up and then get another bashing from all you nitpickers when it’s too late to do anything about it because you couldn’t be bothered to help me in the draft stage. This is what has happened this time and I’m really not into the WA enough to keep at it like that.
Actually, I think it's a blessing--albeit a very well disguised blessing--that this many people have gotten involved (remembering of course the downside that some of those involved are not very friendly or just plain asses). I mean, it gives you a chance to put together the heads of many more people in the working out of any kinks in the proposal. I guess, like you're pointing out, you have to wade through a lot of comments that aren't working out kinks but putting up smokescreens for opposing the proposal.

Don’t fret too much, though. I don't think you’ll need to work out every objection raised. But one needs to pay attention to the objections that are raised again and again. Those that are just asses in the WA forum will oppose your proposal, but each of those asses will have a different reason for doing so--some bull story for why it’s horrible. Those who are more interested in helping will look at it more objectively, and are more likely to concur on a specific weakness the proposal may have. In this case, I'd say the more objective crowd has a sort of consensus of what it's concerned about with mostly:

1) cost
2) logistics
3) maintaining journalistic standards
4) privacy/jurisdiction

With #1, well, there's no way not to get into big-time debates. Since the WA, and the UN before it, have existed no one's agreed on how best to fund the WA. I'm sorry that this proposal touched the third rail of WA funding accidentally. I know I chided you for it. I was wrong to do so. I guess I complained more from my frustration with the general problem of WA funding and not particularly with your proposal's addressing of the problem. I misdirected my comments. What I said about costs and GDP taxation and an unrealistic business model is going to be true about just about any WA proposal...I'm sorry I wrote it like it was a problem just with your proposal.

I think you're right about #2-3 being able to be handled by the committee set up. And, hey, if people want the proposal to more specifically say "The committee will handle the maintenance of journalistic standards, distribution, and logistics" that can be done very easily the next time around. Maintaining the large number of good things that’s already that’s in the proposal.

Edit: Tzorsland has good comments on #4
I hope you enjoy the roasting I’m sure you’ll give to this post and more on my proposal.

Broughdom
Well, I for one won't be roasting this post: it's sincere. Anyone who mocks sincerity--regardless of the sincere viewpoint expressed--deserves to be shot and pooped on.

I’m pretty much losing faith in the WA, for a number of reasons. The main reason is the way some of you WA hardcore’s are so pedantic and nitpicky about everything, and in fact some of the time you’ve read it wrong or started out looking for things to find wrong about the proposal and didn’t even give it a chance. I’m aware it’s a pretty big ask and pretty far out as far as proposals go, but some of you don’t even want to help, you just feel content with giving it hell and that’s it.

I’ve lost faith in the WA back when it was called the UN. Fortunately, people on occasion hand me a fresh box of faith whenever they actually do submit proposals that are downright reasonable. I'll even settle for those that are well written.

We are an ornery bunch in this forum. It’s ironic because really this forum is immaterial to a proposal’s success or failure. On the other hand it doesn’t help to spot insults where I believe none were intended. Quintessence of Dust, for example, mentioned you were not in the WA any more in the context of a major potential problem to the legislation. I don’t know what was in his mind but you can’t submit a resolution with modifications if you are no longer in the WA, and it’s against the rules to plagiarize a resolution even with modifications necessary for passage, so should this fail it’s going to be difficult to resubmit with any necessary changes.

There was an old TV comedy about a cartoonist whose character (IIRC you never did see the comic) was a cow. When the cartoonist was asked what was the hardest thing to draw on the cow he replied, “the udders; they have to be there but they can’t be obvious.” The same is true about the WA; the hardest thing to understand is the bizarre numbers; you have to assume them but you can’t make them obvious.

The World Assembly has 18,664 member nations and 1,597 Regional Delegates. There are plenty of nations in the WA where the population exceeds the current real world population. The world contains 74,902 nations in 8,948 regions. (That means only 25% of the nations are in the WA. Out of those nations probably 20% actually vote.) Thus you have to take a number of factors into account when writing proposals and this includes the two facts that the numbers do go crazy and that your resolution doesn’t impact most of the world because resolutions only apply to WA member states.

Quintessence of Dust has already mentioned the biggest problem of the proposal and it’s not about cost. This proposal creates an organization with total access and control of news within the member nations of the WA. This is far more than an “international” news organization; this is a fully funded full service news information outlet in all member nations. This organization would effectively eliminate all private news sources within the member nations of the WA as they simply could not compete. Moreover there is no mechanism for quality assurance. This is true no matter what source of funding exists since even under the “WA General Fund” funding is based on budgetary considerations. Neither editorial decisions nor quality assurance can be maintained in this model because there is no mechanism that will ensure it. They are given the ultimate power of determining what is and what is not news worthy.

Cost does come in but this is because it is so reaching. It is a single organization that does everything within member nations of the WA from reporting to distribution. The various clauses in the proposal doesn’t help especially the over use of “maximum.”

Given this big brother approach you’ve written into this proposal there is guaranteed to be some lively discussion.

For the record, it’s nice of you to be active in the forum. We’ve had a number of resolutions up for vote where the author was never in the forum.

I think the problem here, really, was too much detail. You'd be suprised by how useful being vague can be at times, and letting some leeway of national interpretation. You also need to think "what is the underlying thing I require"? In this case, I'd say press freedom, in which case, there may be more feasible methods which can be persued to this end, such as a "freedom of press resolution".

Furthermore, in my mind, part of the fun is finding loopholes, plugging them, conceding points, and going to press with a watertight, feasible proposal. It's suprisingly satisfying

Powerhungry chipmunks - Thanks for your comments. I realise now I may have to go through some rubbish before I get to some constructive information. It being my first time doing this I guess I just got a bit overwhelmed by it all. I appreciate your help and understanding. I especially appreciate you taking the time to write some long posts regarding the proposal and in response to what I said earlier. I also hear what you say about going for a more simple proposal first time around. I just wanted one which was a bit different and would stand out. Less run of the mill I suppose. I guess I achieved that. Anyway, you've been most helpful, thanks:D

Tzorsland - I hear what you are saying, I suppose I was asking for some lively debate with this proposal. The points you make are good also.If I decide to re-write this should it fail, I'll definitely take into account what you're saying, especially about the numbers business.
Quintessence of Dust, for example, mentioned you were not in the WA any more in the context of a major potential problem to the legislation. I don’t know what was in his mind but you can’t submit a resolution with modifications if you are no longer in the WA, and it’s against the rules to plagiarize a resolution even with modifications necessary for passage, so should this fail it’s going to be difficult to resubmit with any necessary changes.Were I to re-submit this, I would simply put Broughdom back into the WA to do so. This was always my plan as the only nation I would want on record as submitting a resolution is Broughdom and none of my other nations, which is why I didn't see any point in bringing it up. However, are you saying that I can't even do that or is that fine?

Cobdenia - I think you're right. There probably are better ways to achieve the final end result.
Furthermore, in my mind, part of the fun is finding loopholes, plugging them, conceding points, and going to press with a watertight, feasible proposal. It's suprisingly satisfyingI may have found this more fun if all these comments had came in the draft stage, to which I had a topic up for around two weeks before putting it up, but nobody voiced these opinions until I had already "gone to press" and got enough approvals. I am aware that there are problems with the proposal, and I would have been inclined to sort them out had I know about them earlier, but nobody bothered. That's probably what annoyed me the most. However, that's by the by, I'll see what happens to the proposal when it gets voted on, and go from there.

Thanks guys
Broughdom

Right, I get the feeling this is going to have to be one hellishly long post, so I’ll get straight to it.

I’m pretty much losing faith in the WA, for a number of reasons. The main reason is the way some of you WA hardcore’s are so pedantic and nitpicky about everything, and in fact some of the time you’ve read it wrong or started out looking for things to find wrong about the proposal and didn’t even give it a chance. I’m aware it’s a pretty big ask and pretty far out as far as proposals go, but some of you don’t even want to help, you just feel content with giving it hell and that’s it.
Broughdom, I'm sorry if you were offended by my being so critical. When I pointed out you'd resigned from the WA, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was just curious, really: it's not unknown for people to write damaging proposals, then resign so they don't affect them.

But the fact is, I have a life too (well, sort of) and that's why I didn't make these comments before. I was away from the computer all weekend, and when I have been using it I've mainly been concentrating on my own proposal, an RP thing I was trying (and failing) to do, and faffing around on NSwiki now it's back. I saw your proposal but didn't have time to read it for a while.

Such that you don't think I'm totally insincere, if you were willing to rework the proposal, I'd try to be more helpful this time.

What you have written is incredible piece of work. You are promoting what I think the WA should do: participation in the community and promotion of free speech.

We are looking forward to see you back in the WA if you wish: if this resolution is passed then you have made a good contribution to the WA.

Quintessence of Dust - I think I'm more inclined to come back to the WA and maybe re-work the proposal or do another one now. Your reasons are fair, and I would appreciate any help in future endeavours, thanks.

Charlotte Ryberg - Thanks very much for the comments. Like I said I feel a bit better about the WA now, and may return in future to do another proposal. Thanks again.


I can't wait to see the mass debate when it get's voted on by the whole WA haha

*hides in the foetal position in a corner of the WA's hallowed halls*

You know, if you wanted to rework the proposal, you could always ask the mods to delete without penalty so you can submit again. Once it gets to vote, obviously, it cannot be changed or deleted. And from where I sit, that seems like the best option. This proposal really does need a lot of work.

Because it doesn't have a budget.

WA General fund is going to pass ,I am fairly confident. Then it will its own funding.


As this proposal stands for more or less the same reasons stated by others. I couldnt support it, Nor did I give it my approval, because I did not think it fit to come a vote.

This idea is great. But why do we have to pay for it ? Can,t they just let us watch news from other countrys for free? We don,t need to pay.

We must say we innately mistrust the notion of a w.a. news agency, especially where there is no strong democratic oversight of such an entity. The tendency for it to be used as a mouthpiece for w.a. public relations would be overwhelming and therefore would make it self defeating.

yours e.t.c.

...This is my first ever proposal. Ever since I started the game in 2003 I’ve wanted to get a proposal onto NS and get the whole WA to vote on it as a resolution. I wouldn’t be bothered if it got defeated, as long as I’d got it to the resolution stage. As long as there isn’t some kind of huge campaign against it, that’s what I’ve done and I’m happy with whatever the outcome is. I did not however expect all this trouble I’d get about it. I’m sure this will happen with other proposals but I’m not a regular committed WA nation which is always writing or talking about proposals and frankly I’m finding it really hard to keep up with all the points people are making...


...The cost is such a major problem with you all you’d think you actually had to pay for this damn thing yourself out of your own real life pockets. I’m not a role-player but I can understand why those of you who are would get annoyed at this. I can’t answer everything individually, but who’s to say the UNABS has to be set up straight away and all the money has to be plonked down in one go? Could it not be spread out over a period of years and therefore spread out the cost of the organisation? And to the point about how it should be based on usage as opposed to GDP, how in the world do you measure that? Any nation which didn’t want to pay as much could easily fake usage reports or restrict a certain area of viewing so usage figures would be brought down...

...Just how detailed do you want me to be in this proposal? Some of the points you are making about privacy, language and even radio frequencies are decisions for the UNABS committee to make when it is set up. I’m allowed 3500 characters in a proposal, I can’t detail everything about the UNABS and how it will work. It’s not even something that the WA should concern itself with.
... It’s not up to you to be trying to work out how it’s going to be run or how privacy is going to be kept; it’s for the regulators to do. There could be so many solutions to all the problems you have proposed, but I am one man, I can’t answer everything. Hell, I don’t even understand some of the stuff you guys are on about. However the people regulating and co-ordinating the building of such organisation will, and will find solutions to such problems.


Broughdom

First, for a first time proposal it's good. Having said this however, Isn't it the right of a nation to decide how free of a press they have and doesn't this transgress that right? Second, cost is an issue because for some people a cost to their nation is a cost to their pockets (in their mind at least). Third, detail and nitpicking are the lifeblood of some delagates, not all but quite a few. Fourth, if the issue effects a naiton, then what nonlinear thought process brought you to the conclusion that said nation should be happy go lucky about the whole affair. Fifth, these debates are one way to work out the bugs such as the running, frequency, ect... And lastly, I would like to thank you for proposing this, I don't particularly like it but it's well written and a decent proposal.

I can't wait to see the mass debate when it get's voted on by the whole WA haha

In all honestly when this gets to the floor I'm not sure what I'm going to do about it. While there are things that I definitely don't like about this resolution I might just whole heartedly support this resolution with wild abandon.

You know, if you wanted to rework the proposal, you could always ask the mods to delete without penalty so you can submit again. Once it gets to vote, obviously, it cannot be changed or deleted. And from where I sit, that seems like the best option. This proposal really does need a lot of work.I say that's the best option, too.

And maybe it feels embarrassing, or against all you've worked for. But trust me it's better to work it out this way, than to let it get to the floor where no one can stop it. This coming from PC, which had to repeal its own resolution in order to replace it (National Systems of Tax; Repeal of "National Systems of Tax"; Representation in Taxation). That was a lot less fun and a lot more embarrassing than if I’d asked the mods to deet it or in some other way fixed the problems before it reached the floor. The floor is the point of no return…I think it’s better not to let it get there.

As much as I hate to say it, I think you're probably right. It's definitely difficult to do after working so hard to get it approved, however it is clear from the discussions that the proposal needs work and I'd rather submit a proposal which has been ironed out fully (and has less chance of being repealed).

Who should I contact? Should I file a getting help request or go the the mod forum?

I think it's the getting help page.

It will also be worth copying and pasting the delegates that approved UNABS into a word file, so you can easily TG them again, making the re-submission process a damned site easier, old bean

Broughdom, just so you know, Tarmsden did exactly this with their "Rights of the Disabled" proposal, which eventually became a successful UN resolution.

If you go ahead with this, I will try to sit down next week and offer as many helpful suggestions as I can come up with. :)

Indeed; there's definately precedent.

Approvals: 129 (Barrun Urt, Yuehan land, Mikeswill, Kadoshim, Gibraltenstein, Fit battion, Corrogarr, 1name2, Intelligenstan, Kyneff, Santa clauses8, The Fat Bakers, Jimmy Hart, Soteria-14, Ventei, Reinoya, Lives Relived, Moon god, The Brusselers frites, Tsruhkwah, Graalium, Patifes, New Old New New York, Quffuffull, Saptia, The Land of Nephi-Lehi, Benuhal, Geirk, Gimpnasia, Imperium De Mundi, Azerbajerkistan, Aithiopis, Travda, Hebridania, Kneetopia, Zensunnia, Ruebenland, Chazzistan, Them BOnes, TopGearia, Joobie, Hollowmenphobia, Artritis, Erir, Nurdia, Metty, Oodges, Txiniamagna, Ascendas, Atneas, Dendodgia, Global Rule, RedWalesCymru, Dragonia Star, Karistina, Saevitius, Aeron Land, Mibive, Kazzan, Distentia, Misplaced States, Palms and Coconuts, NezLands, The Cullen Coven, Keedan, Beta Epsilon 2, The Derrak Quadrant, Farrol, Huntarian Alliance, Cricket Fans, The Artic Republics, Worldia555, Ugaritic Mot, New Castrograd, Costalotadough, Vartican, Xspinx, Windows Vista Premium, Finnish Pride, Yugovenia, Howl To the Moon, New Hamilton, Royal British States, Nowurysmayt, Milks Empire, Im Not Okay, Osea 767, Marocanon, Cisco1, The Fires, Mstead, JshBet8, The Georgian State, East Hylia, New Chalcedon, Military Command, Cylestriana, Smotheria, Elushote, Conservative bigots, Emperial Poland, Agent Death and Blu, Nergs, Lollypops and Rainbows, Mandrivia, Wulfenlands, British Central Sudan, Morrenstien, Britnia, Nodistania, Lucky Number, Glenlogan, Algionary, Commie Bastard Demons, Brown Hornet, Loyale, The Cactus Flower, Nanisivik, Eiga-Baka, Jacobish, Sanctaria, Charlotte Ryberg, Alpha pavonis, Joe - Land, Ultimater, Velliano, The Crucifixion, Kapoa, Enjuekk)