NationStates Jolt Archive

Objectivity of History Act

Recognizing that History/Social Studies is a valued study of many nations, if not all nations. Believing that History is an intricate study of cultural interaction and growth, and therefore a detailed catalog of 'trial and error,' that modern Nations should indeed learn from. Considering the fact that, in matter of war especially, detailed accounts may unnecessarily be biased in favor of a supposed 'victor.' Endeavoring to give truth.

ESTABLISHING the International Historical Committee of Scholars, hereby sanctioned by the World Assembly, to provide objective accounts of History to be made use of in the schools of WA Nations.
1) All participating Nations shall be entitled to representation in the IHCS via their own team of Historical Scholars.
2) No Historical Representatives shall take part in the drafting of History regarding their own Nation.

ENCOURAGING Nations to make use of these accounts.

RECOGNIZING that places within Nations of significant Historical/Archealogical value deserve protecting.
1) Mandates the right of all Nations to accompany and supervise figures of the IHCS at such sites via government recognized Law Enforcement officers.
a) Proposes that sanctioned members of the IHCS be considered diplomats and as such granted all necessary immunities.
2) Mandates the financial responsibility of destroyed/marred historical evidence to participating scholars.
b) Allows for IHCS provisions, after an investigation, to supplement/replace the scholars' responsibility.

DECLARING that the IHCS shall run off donations in order to provide travel expenses to its scholars, as well as publishing expenses.

Tips? Applause? Critique? INSULTS?? -open arms-

So the delegate from Absolvablity's premise is that other people should write the history of WA nations? As opposed to the nation's people themselves?

Yes.

So if my nation is at war with your nation, representatives from your nation write the history of my nation... and vice versa. Assuming you and I have reps on the IHCS?

First of all, you are correct in assuming that all nations need not participate. I think that is an important thing to note, since I'm aware that objectivity doesn't always come before national pride. Though, obviously, I think it should. In order to establish a global pride. Moving on... your question makes it clear that I failed to mention something very important. In such a case as you mentioned, an unbiased third party would be called to duty on the matter.

Since I have yet to submit this proposal officially, may we assume that I've stipulated that fact already? So that you may go on with any other questions you have.

* Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

At the risk of entering into another "amendment-like" tifft..

Oh dear God no. Just no

At the risk of entering into another "amendment-like" tifft..

No comment! (careful you might get the thread iLocked >_<)

I wasn't intending to put national representatives into an administrative position on the committee. Simply that they might (mystically,) write history for other countries. In effort to spread appreciation of other cultures indirectly. That scholars may return to their own country and write their own novels or whatever. Which requires a certain level of participation.

I can see how this might be illegal, don't get me wrong. But let me, briefly, try to protect this minimal participation.

"Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

Doesn't this imply a certain level of participation? That, without further documentation, it may be ASSUMED that participating Nations may provide scholars to work UNDERNEATH of said committee?

"III) Establishes the World Health Authority (WHA), with the mission to:
-identify, assess, and communicate current and emerging threats to global health,
-actively research treatment, cures, and preventative measures concerning threats to global health,
-coordinate efforts between WA member states in preventing and controlling serious health concerns;"

Basically, for my own proposal, I wish to 'coordinate efforts between WA member states.' Does my current wording need fixing? I'll consider. And I'd appreciate any advice you might have for me.

Oh dear God no. Just no
If the esteemed Representative of Cobdenia could be more specific I believe it would satisfy all parties involved.

Oh dear God no. Just no
I couldn't say it better myself, old bean....at least not without getting a forum ban.:D

I wasn't intending to put national representatives into an administrative position on the committee. Simply that they might (mystically,) write history for other countries. In effort to spread appreciation of other cultures indirectly. That scholars may return to their own country and write their own novels or whatever. Which requires a certain level of participation. Pedantry doesn't get you around the rules. It's still illegal. Quit trying to "test" the rules to see how far you can bend them; eventually the mods will break your back.

OOC: ped⋅ant⋅ry   /ˈpɛdntri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ped-n-tree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries. 1. the character, qualities, practices, etc., of a pedant, esp. undue display of learning.
"2. slavish attention to rules, details, etc. "
I shouldn't do this? Heh. At any rate, it isn't my intention to test the rules or to test the mods. I'm afraid my troubles of the past has given me some sort of disruptive reputation. KINDLY consider each new issue as a new issue, please. Besides, I only said I'll consider re-wording because I do most of my writing in wordpad (cuz my internet sucks) and I wasn't presently looking at my own document. I looked at it, and plan to re-word it to make it legal. And when I said I was open to advice I meant advice regarding how I might re-word it to make it legal without totally gutting the whole thing. I didn't mean I need to be told how to behave.

With that said, can we please now stay on topic? Again, I have yet to submit the proposal. Nor have I, since realizing the process, submitted a proposal that was decidedly illegal. Lets move from this point until my next draft is done. Is there anybody who would like to voice a coherent concern regarding the heart of the matter??

Objectivity of History Act

Recognizing that History/Social Studies is a valued study of many nations, if not all nations. Believing that History is an intricate study of cultural interaction and growth, and therefore a detailed catalog of 'trial and error,' that modern Nations should indeed learn from. Considering the fact that, in matter of war especially, detailed accounts may unnecessarily be biased in favor of a supposed 'victor.' Endeavoring to give truth.

ESTABLISHING the International Historical Committee of Scholars, hereby sanctioned by the World Assembly, to provide objective accounts of History to be made use of in the schools of WA Nations.
1) All participating Nations shall be entitled to inclusion in the IHCS via their own team of Historical Scholars that will work beneath the administrations of the IHCS in order to provide no shortage of available unbiased Historians.
2) No Historical Representatives shall take part in the drafting of History regarding their own Nation.
3) No Historical Representatives shall take part in the drafting of History regarding a Nation in direct conflict with their own Nation of origin including but not limited to military and political conflicts.
4) The supervision and assessment of all above stipulations shall be handled by the IHCS, which does not include Representatives.

ENCOURAGING Nations to make use of these accounts.

RECOGNIZING that places within Nations of significant Historical/Archealogical value deserve protecting.
1) Mandates the right of all Nations to accompany and supervise Historical Representatives of other Nations at such sites via government recognized Law Enforcement officers.
a) Proposes that sanctioned members of the IHCS be considered diplomats and as such granted all necessary immunities.
2) Mandates that an IHCS appointed official be present in every circumstance.
3) Mandates the financial responsibility of destroyed/marred historical evidence to participating scholars.
a) Allows for IHCS provisions, after an investigation, to supplement/replace the scholars' responsibility.

DECLARING that the IHCS shall run off donations in order to provide travel expenses to its scholars, as well as publishing expenses, in addition to previously established WA funding organizations.

Is this better? I believe it is legal.

Avoiding the debate of legality for the moment, I've got two questions:

1) Why is this even necessary?
2) How is this an international issue important enough to require the WA's intervention?

I also have one quibble:

a) Proposes that sanctioned members of the IHCS be considered diplomats and as such granted all necessary immunities.

So, we'd have to treat historians like diplomats, and give them diplomatic immunity....to write books, essentially?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Is there anybody who would like to voice a coherent concern regarding the heart of the matter??

Why bother, youl'd just ignore them and try to obfuciate again, junior.

There is no such thing as objectivity in history... History is not something that should be written in a controlled environment. It's a living, breathing thing that's written and revised and passed down by the people who experienced it. Otherwise what you get is a sterile listing of dates and locations, no motives, no reactions, no color. Just a black and white retelling of the incident.

Without the shades of gray that exist only in the minds of the people who were physically there there is nothing to learn from, nothing to discuss, no life to it at all. The objectivity is not in the report of the event it's in the study of the report.

That being said I echo the questions of Ambassador Krytellin.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

I agree with Philimbesi. History is not an objective matter. Of course there are some things that really can't be twisted by personal opinion: If something happened on April 9th, it happened on April 9th. That's undeniable. But in terms of conflict, people could have many different opinions on who started the conflict, what the cause of the conflict was, etc., etc. A great big body can declare whatever it wants in terms of history -- people are still going to have their opinions.

I believe this is a flawed draft. I don't see how it can be improved, to be honest.

OOC: Are you are a fan of Thomas Haskell?

There is no such thing as objectivity in history... History is not something that should be written in a controlled environment. It's a living, breathing thing that's written and revised and passed down by the people who experienced it. Otherwise what you get is a sterile listing of dates and locations, no motives, no reactions, no color. Just a black and white retelling of the incident.

Without the shades of gray that exist only in the minds of the people who were physically there there is nothing to learn from, nothing to discuss, no life to it at all. The objectivity is not in the report of the event it's in the study of the report.

That being said I echo the questions of Ambassador Krytellin.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

In some points I agree and dissagree. History must be objective when it comes to the basic facts, dates, people involved, ect. The subjectivity comes from the personal accounts of those who were there, or the documents they left, and our historian's interpretation of these sources.(OOC: to give a real life example from the American Civil War, Sam Watkins wrote about his experiences as a Private of the First Tennessee Regiment. Using just his memoir we could not write a complete history of the Confederacy. Yet his memoirs, along with others can be used to give a fuller picture of the lives of Confederate soldiers, and the cause they fought.)

1) Why is this even necessary?
2) How is this an international issue important enough to require the WA's intervention?

Though I rather detest arguing semantics, I must question to what extent the Ambassador implies necessity? It could be said that nothing is necessary until a resolution passes. In which case it shall speak for itself.

The context of my proposal supplies proof for this being an International matter. Whatever importance is implied is no doubt variable to each member nation. Since this Assembly suffers no shortage of proposals, and indeed has no resolution presently at vote, I can only assume that any International matter deserves attention.

Though, not to be dismissive, I shall try to express my own concerns. The instance of war is our best example, I think we can agree. In such an instance there will be an eventual winner. That winner will no doubt harbor biased feelings in some manner, which will be reflected in its historical texts to the extent that causes for war will be justified for that particular nation. Which is not alone cause for concern, except that the OTHER position is now marginalized. I believe, considering the great strides against descrimination this Assembly has made, this is due to lack of knowledge rather than any particular prejudice. Depending on the nature of the war, if the loser retains possession of their nation, the same can be said. It is 'necessary' to provide an objective report of both circumstances in order, not only to reaffirm the necessity of truth, but to tend to the 'human factor' when dealing with prejudices.

During the development of The Rogue Nation, freedom of speech was held dear. For a long time, regardless of law, vocal descrimination was a serious problem. Or at least we believed it to be a serious problem. This problem has been solved by special attention to education in the way of History and Cultural Appreciation.

Palentine You are correct, and we are not that far off points from each other. My saying that "no such thing" is debate flourish... actually when it comes down to it, History can be the combination of Objective data and subjective thought. One can't fully exist without the other in a substantive manner.

Subjective thought should exist only in the mind of the reader, after he/she was exposed to objective data. And when I say objective I simply mean that both subjections(is that a word? I like it) should be represented to equal capacity. And the only way to do that is to travel, talk, and ask.

OOC: Thomas Haskell? I'm afraid I don't know who that is. Care to explain? Or at least explain what he means to you... I'm about to look him up.

So the mindset of the people involved means nothing to the history of the action?

Subjective thought should exist only in the mind of the reader, after he/she was exposed to objective data. And when I say objective I simply mean that both subjections(is that a word? I like it) should be represented to equal capacity. And the only way to do that is to travel, talk, and ask.

OOC: Thomas Haskell? I'm afraid I don't know who that is. Care to explain? Or at least explain what he means to you... I'm about to look him up.

You must recognize, sir, that this organization would be making declarations about history based on their personal interpretation. As I said before, there are certain aspects of history that cannot be disputed: the date(s) of the event, the major players in the event, etc., etc. These cannot be disputed. Even a revisionist cannot dispute some of these facts. But when it comes to things like this: A attacks B. Why did A attack B? Did B do anything to deserve the attack? These are the matters that can't be decided objectively by some body. If it's your goal, sir, to simply establish dates and players in the events of history, then I see no purpose for the proposal.

Nations are going to twist history in their propaganda. This is inevitable. No matter how many proposals come up regarding the "objectivity of history," this is going to happen. I question how many nations would actually act on the measure.

OOC: Thomas Haskell? I'm afraid I don't know who that is. Care to explain? Or at least explain what he means to you... I'm about to look him up.Sorry, I should have expanded. He's a historian and philosopher of history who wrote a famous article called "Objectivity Is Not Neutrality" in response to Peter Novick's book, The Objectivity Question. Novick's book is a history of the American historical profession in which he interprets the fall of the Consensus School as being a break from objectivity - 'Objectivity in Crisis' on account of 1) New Left criticism and the new social history of Gutman et al., 2) the influence of postmodernism and literary theory, such as Hayden White, Derrida and Foucault, and certain anthropologists, and 3) political rifts within the academy itself (such as over the OAH's anti-Reagan platform, Nixon revisionism, and the controversy over the National History Standards that led to the formation of the Historical Society).

Haskell's argument is that for all that Novick criticises objectivity, he is, inadvertently, an eloquent exponent of it because his book itself embodies many of the tenets of historical objectivity. This is because they define what it means to be objective on different terms, and I was just interested in which of the present schools you were deriving your definition of 'objectivity' from.

But this isn't really the forum for extended OOC discussion, so I'll leave it...sorry.

History is, by definition, subjective - it is about intrepeting the facts, information, disinformation, accounts, reports, diaries, and even to a certain amount experimentation - and all of these are subjective. Even basic facts. To use an (OoC) example, the date WWII started would normally be considered an objective fact. But it isn't; it can be 7th July, 1937; 1st September, 1939; 3rd September, 1939; 4th September, 1939; 6th September, 1939, 10th September, 1941; 2nd October, 1939; 9th April 1939; 10th May, 1940; 28th October, 1940; 6th April, 1941; 22nd June, 1941; 7th December, 1941; 8th of December, 1941; 9th December 1941; 22 May 1942; 22 August 1942; 14 December 1942; 17 January 1943; 7 April 1943; 26 July 1943; 9 September 1943; 1 December 1943; 27 January 1944; 12 February 1944; 23 August 1944; 8 September 1944; 21 September 1944; 26 October 1944; 2 February 1945; 7 February 1945; 15 February 1945; 23 February 1945; 27 February 1945; 27 February 1945; 27 February 1945; 1 March 1945; 27 March 1945; 11 April 1945.

Which one is the correct answer? All of them. But, subjectively, only one is - depending on what country you're from

Although this premise seems to have merit on its face, the idea of "government approved" history texts promises difficulties that, I believe, have not been adequately foreseen. This type of action could easily be seen as governmental intrusion into how each nation's children are educated. Although the WA can suggest some standards of educational achievement, dictating what texts must be used in the schools of individual nations borders on dictatorial practices and leads to a slippery slope.

My suggestion would be to redraft the proposal to create the IHCS and set it upon its mission. Then it would be an option for schools to use. If the WA funds any educational institution, the WA can make the resulting written histories mandatory learning in those specific institutions.

On a side note, with the right bit of propaganda, the IHCS's history can eventually be viewed as the most complete authority on its subject which would lead the work to be the preferred source of the subject by all respected institutions of learning. Eventually, the end goal would be achieved without the use of any sort of mandate.

HRH Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane

OOC: I'll take December 7th it's my anniversary... makes it easy to remember.

IC: Waiting on an answer to my question on mindset. Does that figure into the version of history you'd have the gnomes scribe?

1) All participating Nations shall be entitled to inclusion in the IHCS via their own team of Historical Scholars that will work beneath the administrations of the IHCS in order to provide no shortage of available unbiased Historians.
We think the honoured ambassador is splitting hairs here, not to mention undermining his own principle of objective behaviour. We strongly advise leaving well alone the staffing of the IHCS's work, at least in this way.

2) No Historical Representatives shall take part in the drafting of History regarding their own Nation.
This is not unreasonable at its base. We have two vigorous objections to the wording, however. First, the term "Historical Representatives" smacks of exactly the sort of partisanship that the honoured ambassador is attempting to prevent, and thus should not be used, particularly when the perfectly good and self-explanatory "Historical Scholar" has already been used. Second, the capitalisation of "History" lends it an all-consuming portentiousness that implies no other work on history is permissible. We urge the respected ambassador to be less portentious and more explicit on this point.

3) No Historical Representatives shall take part in the drafting of History regarding a Nation in direct conflict with their own Nation of origin including but not limited to military and political conflicts.
See our comments above concerning "Historical Representatives". While this is all well and good, what of relationships between nations that are not directly confrontational in nature? Do not friendships, alliances, and alliances with enemies also bring a subjective element to the table?

4) The supervision and assessment of all above stipulations shall be handled by the IHCS, which does not include Representatives.
This is implicit in the formation of the IHCS. That you feel the need to include it suggests that the formation itself is not a clear as it should be.

RECOGNIZING that places within Nations of significant Historical/Archealogical value deserve protecting.
We are somewhat of the opinion that this is really a separate subject, and as such should be dealt with in a separate resolution. Attempts at dealing internationally with Site of Historical or Cultural Significance have always been rather fraught with peril, as we recall.

2) Mandates that an IHCS appointed official be present in every circumstance.
Every circumstance? We confess we do not look forward to the presence of an IHCS chronicler each morning as we step out of bed.

3) Mandates the financial responsibility of destroyed/marred historical evidence to participating scholars.
Does the honoured ambassador seriously mean that IHCS scholars become financially responsible for every ruin that they come across, or is this merely excessively lax wording?

a) Allows for IHCS provisions, after an investigation, to supplement/replace the scholars' responsibility.
Ah, no, we apologise. The ploy for transferring all financial obligations for historical sites to the WA is a wonderfully devious one, and we cannot praise the honoured ambassador enough for trying it on.

DECLARING that the IHCS shall run off donations in order to provide travel expenses to its scholars, as well as publishing expenses, in addition to previously established WA funding organizations.
Promptly reintroducing bias. Opposed.

Exactly what is the point in this statute ? History is written by individuals, unless we force some collaborative history writing theory on it in which case it is written by a group of individuals, and therefore can never be absolutely objective. Individuals bring personal and individual preconceptions and biases to everything they do, groups of individuals do the same.

Trying to force a mythical objectivity on the writing of history smacks of squaring the wheel, and more it seems like some kind of doctrinaire revisionism. The dogma of objectivity ( what ever this is intended to mean ) would become predominant, the writing of history would then become secondary. Why should the cultural phenomenon of historical study and writing be micromanaged by an international committee ?

How this this statute is intended to improve anything is quite beyond us.

The fact that this statute does not deal with an issue which could even pretend to be of international significance seems to have been evaded by its authors who seem more interested in mindless disputes over meaningless details of what is in fact not a needful law.


Yours,

IC: Waiting on an answer to my question on mindset. Does that figure into the version of history you'd have the gnomes scribe?
(OOC: Now now, just because we played 'tag' all yesterday doesn't mean I'm online at every given moment. I'm extremely pleased that I've drummed up a proposal close enough to being legal that it warrants a lot of response, as well as woefully behind in my own responses. Be patient >_<)

So the mindset of the people involved means nothing to the history of the action?
Well, I wouldn't say that. As with any historical text, lots of research will go into this. Certainly including testimony from survivors as well as historical dialogue that can be proven accurate. The only thing I am saying, for at least the second time now, is that BOTH sides shall be considered. With no special attention to either. PRECISELY so we can understand the mindset of others.

Which one is the correct answer? All of them. But, subjectively, only one is - depending on what country you're from
Subjectively, only one is correct. Which is entirely why we should include the dates in our own nations' classrooms of when other nations joined the war. Afterall, the very phrase 'World War,' is subjective in that the entire world was not at war.

With respect to the King of Tessaglia, I appreciate your borderline approval as much as your cautionary sentiments. I can assure you that this draft is ever-changing, taking into consideration all sorts of advice so as to make it legal and concise. An example of not being properly concise is the phrase "government approved," which I appreciate you pointing out, because all I really meant is that any activity along these lines is presumably government approved. I didn't intend to carry as much weigh as I may've.

With respect to the Representative of Gobbannium, your sentiments are precisely what I asked for and in my next draft I'm sure you will notice MANY of the needed and well justified changes that you've brought to light. FOREMOST, the epiphany that running off donations inspires bias of an altogether new variety. Therefore the IHCS shall make due only with what the WA already provides.

(OOC: Considering this, I must say I am a fan of Thomas Haskell. I don't presume to know a lot about economics or law, aside from a decent vocabulary, personal experience, and some common sense. My interests, and self guided studies, are foremost in philosophy, literature, and psychology. So, since I enjoy being troublesome sometimes, I'm going to say that my definition of the term 'objectivity' comes from Ayn Rand.)

Let it be known, assembled representatives, that my use of the word objectivity should not pre-suppose the right of every nation to describe events in its own way. It is simply to say that every nation should have readily available descriptions of other ways. To so speak. Furthermore, nothing in this legislation prohibits the continuation of present history texts. It is hoped that, should this pass, all will work cooperatively and lead to greater mutual understanding.

If the Representative (of?) Urgench is only concerned with matters of life or death, that is his perogative and he is entitled to it. It seems to me, however, that other matters may also be considered 'important.' It seems to me that the representative is content with ruling over an ignorant people and looks with disapproval upon a future where he is, in fact, not needed.

Though I rather detest arguing semantics, I must question to what extent the Ambassador implies necessity?

There is no mystery as to what I mean here; does the "problem" you're claiming exists affect member states enough to warrant international legislation on the matter? I would submit that it does not.

It could be said that nothing is necessary until a resolution passes. In which case it shall speak for itself.

Yes, that could be said. But it would be incorrect. There have been resolutions that have passed for reasons that were not necessary (*cough*Max Barry Day*cough*). The subsequent effort to repeal them is nothing short of annoying, especially when it can be prevented by not submitting unneeded legislation in the first place.

Since this Assembly suffers no shortage of proposals, and indeed has no resolution presently at vote, I can only assume that any International matter deserves attention.

Again, that is a misguided assumption. Just as a theoretical example, the President of my fine nation could address our Congress tomorrow, and say that (insert nation here) smells like rotten eggs. Technically, that's an international issue since it involves more than one nation. But why would the WA need to get involved in that, and why would it matter to anyone other than the Federation and the rotten-egg-smelling nation in question?

Though, not to be dismissive, I shall try to express my own concerns. The instance of war is our best example, I think we can agree. In such an instance there will be an eventual winner. That winner will no doubt harbor biased feelings in some manner, which will be reflected in its historical texts to the extent that causes for war will be justified for that particular nation. Which is not alone cause for concern, except that the OTHER position is now marginalized. I believe, considering the great strides against descrimination this Assembly has made, this is due to lack of knowledge rather than any particular prejudice. Depending on the nature of the war, if the loser retains possession of their nation, the same can be said. It is 'necessary' to provide an objective report of both circumstances in order, not only to reaffirm the necessity of truth, but to tend to the 'human factor' when dealing with prejudices.

As the old saying goes, history is written by the victors. That's unfortunate, admittedly, but for the WA to create an entire bureaucracy to attempt to prevent the natural tendency of sapient beings, in the manner that bureaucracies typically work (that is to say, inefficiently and badly) is like swatting a fly with an orbital kinetic bombardment weapon.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

If the Representative (of?) Urgench is only concerned with matters of life or death, that is his perogative and he is entitled to it. It seems to me, however, that other matters may also be considered 'important.' It seems to me that the representative is content with ruling over an ignorant people and looks with disapproval upon a future where he is, in fact, not needed.


Honoured Ambassador, was there any call to insult the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench ? Was there any need to insult our Ambassador, the Khan of Kashgar ?

Or is this statute so indefensible that the only defense of it consists in insulting other nations and their Ambassadors ?

Make a reasonable argument for this law, and perhaps your delegation will find support for it. So far all that has been offered in argument is the ridiculous notion that "the human factor" may be removed from history, and outrages against the dignity of our nation.


Yours,

The Cobdenian delegation is of the opinion that the Absolvability represententative takes some perverse pleasure in defending frankly terrible proposals.

In which case, I should warn you. To paraphrase a certain thankfully departed member of this organisation in it's previous guise:

We got a friggin' death zeppellin!


http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/1a/images/death_raid.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/berrik/Smileys/gf-cripes.gif

I note that this train wreck of a proposal is missing two key components: category and strength. It is my semi-expert opinion that the closest match would be the Educational category but even that would require half a dozen strong men and 5 gallons of lard to shoehorn it in.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Education... and mild. I understand that matters of varying importance come to the Assembly, but I certainly think we have time to tend to them all. And while this founded organization may take up some of the WA funding, I think it's for good cause. And an interesting notion. That we might deal with problems on the long term, and consider the human factor to be inherent and worth consideration.

Honoured Ambassador, was there any call to insult the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench ? Was there any need to insult our Ambassador, the Khan of Kashgar ?

Or is this statute so indefensible that the only defense of it consists in insulting other nations and their Ambassadors ?

Make a reasonable argument for this law, and perhaps your delegation will find support for it. So far all that has been is the ridiculous notion that "the human factor" may be removed from history, and outrages against the dignity of our nation.

If everything worked for the sole purpose of necessity, we wouldn't progress. The inherent insult in your own words merited my reply, and I am perfectly satisfied with the way I put it. I don't think the wrapping of insults should be compared.

I didn't NEED to reply at all, in any way. I didn't NEED to draft this proposal; the thought that someone would oppose an issue out of contempt for its questionable degree of necessity is preposterous. Don't we have a certain obligation here? Aren't most of us getting paid??

Education... and mild. I understand that matters of varying importance come to the Assembly, but I certainly think we have time to tend to them all. And while this founded organization may take up some of the WA funding, I think it's for good cause. And an interesting notion. That we might deal with problems on the long term, and consider the human factor to be inherent and worth consideration.

You believe the "human factor" to be inherent ? Do you mean you believe subjectivity to be inherent ? If so how on earth do you propose to remove it ?

Put simply if the history you are talking about is written by humans, then it cannot fail to be subject to a human view of, and ability to understand it. It cannot but be subjective. History is not a science, perhaps what your Excellency is really referring to is statistics or some branch of anthropology.

In any case what you propose would destroy the teaching of critical analysis, that skill which is taught to pupils of history as an essential tool for understanding the vast array of textual resources available to them.

If this committee is created why should such a critical eye ever need be brought to history ? Pupils will be taught that the W.A. has already redacted the facts and figures and given a presumed unbiased account of events, and proper analysis will become the preserve of the pedant and the eccentric.





If everything worked for the sole purpose of necessity, we wouldn't progress. The inherent insult in your own words merited my reply, and I am perfectly satisfied with the way I put it. I don't think the wrapping of insults should be compared.

I didn't NEED to reply at all, in any way. I didn't NEED to draft this proposal; the thought that someone would oppose an issue out of contempt for its questionable degree of necessity is preposterous. Don't we have a certain obligation here? Aren't most of us getting paid??


There was no inherent, implicit, or otherwise form of insult in any of our words, perhaps the honoured Ambassador should reread them with a less defensive eye.

Necessity and efficacy of a practical kind is in fact the only criteria by which a law may be judged, in this case the suggested statute might ( just might mind you ) be efficacious if it were passed as a national law, especially where that nation may have been subject to the politicisation of history or where great and terrible historic events have been often made in to mythologies and put to the uses of bias or prejudice. However it seems remarkably like legislating that bananas be straight when an organisation like this one becomes involved in this area of law.


Yours,

Education... and mild. Bzzt! Wrong, Education doesn't have strength it has Area of Effect.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Bzzt! Wrong, Education doesn't have strength it has Area of Effect.

Haha, come now. Lets not be so harsh. I drafted this in the confines of my own home, and have not yet made effort to submit it. Therefore I have not examined the options, and was making an effort to appease you. Though I think, if you put fourth a little effort, you can comprehend a 'mild' area of effect. Mild in that these new texts will not REPLACE anything already existing, and that participation is voluntary. The only irrevocable (barring repeal, of course,) changes made are the institution of the IHCS and what it does. Which may not seem important to some people, but is still a good idea, and deserves more enlightened consideration than it is being given. But... well, everybody certainly is entitled to their own opinion. What I need to do at this point is develop that new draft I've been talking about.

-back to the drawing board-

Though I think, if you put fourth a little effort, you can comprehend a 'mild' area of effect.
OOC: it doesn't matter what Bob comprehends, the game engine doesn't give you the option. The rules sticky also gives an overview and explanation of the categories and their varying subdivisions.

Objectivity of History Act

Recognizing that History/Social Studies is a valued study of many nations, if not all nations. Believing that History is an intricate study of cultural interaction and growth, and therefore a detailed catalog of 'trial and error,' that modern Nations should indeed learn from. Considering the fact that, in matter of war especially, detailed accounts may unnecessarily be biased in favor of a supposed 'victor.' Endeavoring to give truth.

ESTABLISHING the International Historical Committee of Scholars, hereby sanctioned by the World Assembly, to provide objective accounts of History to be made use of in the schools of WA Nations.
1) While no Nation shall be involved in the administrations of the IHCS, there will be a voluntary participation enabled whereupon, after IHCS investigation, Nations may be assigned to eachother by the IHCS to exchange historical scholars.
2) No historical scholars shall take part in the drafting of History regarding their own Nation.
3) No historical scholars shall take part in the drafting of History regarding a Nation in direct conflict with their own Nation of origin including but not limited to military and political conflicts.
4) "Conflict," is hereby defined for the purposes of this proposal as describing any subjective conflict of interest, good or bad in nature.
5) The supervision, assessment, and investigation of all above stipulations shall be handled solely by the IHCS.

ENCOURAGING Nations to make use of these accounts.

RECOGNIZING that places within Nations of significant Historical/Archealogical/Cultural value deserve protecting.
1) Mandates the right of all Nations to accompany and supervise historical scholars of other Nations at such sites via government recognized Law Enforcement officers.
a) Proposes that sanctioned members of the IHCS be considered diplomats and as such granted all necessary immunities.
2) Mandates that an IHCS appointed official be present in every relavent circumstance.
3) Mandates the financial responsibility of destroyed/marred historical evidence to participating scholars.
a) Allows for IHCS provisions, after an investigation, to supplement/replace the scholars' responsibility if the incidence occurred by no means of malpractice.

DECLARING that the IHCS shall run off previously established WA funding organizations and not accept donations.

OOC: What I mean to say is that one can probably draw a parallel between whatever is appropriate and a 'mild' AoE. Much like I know when I'm holding a "small" drink even if it is called a medium. But that was my character talking, not me. I know what you're saying.

OOC: Or maybe I've put my foot in my mouth again -chuckles,- at any rate, I've submitted the proposal now and you'll find the category and AoE to be appropriate.

DECLARING that the IHCS shall run off previously established WA funding organizations and not accept donations.So if the resolution that established the "previously established WA funding organizations" ever gets repealed the IHCS would become permanently un-funded? Hr'rmm, I rather think that this detail of the proposal, even if it doesn't count as a violation of the 'House of Cards' rule, is a decidely foolish one...

So if the resolution that established the "previously established WA funding organizations" ever gets repealed the IHCS would become permanently un-funded? Hr'rmm, I rather think that this detail of the proposal, even if it doesn't count as a violation of the 'House of Cards' rule, is a decidely foolish one...

I share your concern. However, thanks to the Representative from Gobbannium, I came to realize that accepting donations could very well be a means for re-establishing bias.

I don't think this is a 'House of Cards' violation, considering that all WA sanctioned organizations recieve funding of this kind and would be injured should that initial resolution be repealed. Perhaps it was unnecessary for me to imply the IHCS recieved such funding, since it is already decidedly so, but my effort was only to deny donations.

NO, NO, NO, NO and finally NNNOOO!!!

We will not support this resolution. We will not support any resolution similar to this. We ask that the subject be dropped altogether. What is to say that this collection of scholars don't write the wrong history? This has got to be one of the most absurd proposals we've ever seen.

OOC

Look, you've been warned several times that you're treading the ragged edge of the committee rules and that your category needs thought, and you've gone and posted the damn thing anyway. At this point I have no compunction whatsoever in waving the big red "HEY MODS, THIS ONE'S ILLEGAL" flag. While the IHCS structure is only iffy, all the pratting around with sites of significance definitely pushes this out of the "Education" subcategory to my mind.

OOC- First of all, I NOW see that the other thread is back up and locked. I hope I don't get in trouble for making a new thread, because at the time the other one wasn't showing on the list. It seemed to have been 'pruned' due to inactivity.

Or, rather, my NEW thread was locked, I guess, and this is the original one again. So I'm a little confused.

At any rate, the proposal was deleted by the mods for reasons that I can understand. Not necessarily the reasons that were discussed here. But I guess some big red letters is all it takes.

Curiously enough, the resolution at vote is also illegal. It seems to me that popular names are given extra leeway. But that doesn't have a lot to do with me or my deleted proposal, so I'll try not to take it personally.

OOC- First of all, I NOW see that the other thread is back up and locked. I hope I don't get in trouble for making a new thread, because at the time the other one wasn't showing on the list. It seemed to have been 'pruned' due to inactivity.

Or, rather, my NEW thread was locked, I guess, and this is the original one again. So I'm a little confused.In the other thread I directed you to this sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=583483). If you can't see your old threads, change the settings at the bottom of the forum to display older threads: the default is to show only those active in the last 24 hours:
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/708/internetr.jpgCuriously enough, the resolution at vote is also illegal. It seems to me that popular names are given extra leeway. But that doesn't have a lot to do with me or my deleted proposal, so I'll try not to take it personally.Charlotte Ryberg isn't a popular name. And no one reported the proposal illegal before it went to vote.

So once it reaches quorom it can't be deleted anymore, no matter what? Not only is it illegal, but the author is already making plans for a repeal. If this isn't cause enough to delete it I don't know what is.

Oh, I know, maybe somebody should use big red letters. -snickers- I'm being playful, not arguementative. I guess I need to pay more attention to the rules. It just... seems like... they are interpretted differently from person to person.

One of the reasons I was given for my proposal being deleted was that the WA can't tax a citizen (in this case, historical scholar.) So apparently me trying to make them financially responsible for any malpractice that resulted in destroyed historical evidence is illegal. I can understand that, but it just seems silly.

The WA seems to run off the idea that 'once something is law, everybody abides by it, therefore penalties are not needed.' Yet my country, which has an excellent police force, has bullcrap going on in it all day long. So I dunno. Again, I need to study on it more, obviously. I just wish somebody would at least (if for only my own piece of mind,) admit that certain things are screwed up. Then I wouldn't be so frustrated by it all. I can deal with crap. Hey, this is politics, right? If we weren't here to try and make sense out of a convoluted mess then we shouldn't be here. I just don't like crap wrapped in Christmas paper.

So once it reaches quorom it can't be deleted anymore, no matter what?Sorry, my bad. Quorate proposals can be deleted: once a proposal goes to vote it cannot be deleted.Oh, I know, maybe somebody should use big red letters. -snickers- I'm being playful, not arguementative.Funny. But there's a serious point: posting in big red letters is not guaranteed to attract mod attention. Gobbles did it in this instance because he knew a mod was watching this thread, but it won't normally happen. If you spot a proposal you think is illegal and need to make sure your complaint is heard (i.e. the proposal is about to be submitted) you should:
1. Post it in the Silly Proposals thread if there isn't a forum thread on it already.
2. Sending a Getting Help Request via the NS Help page.
Or
3. Post a thread in the Moderation forum asking for a moderator review.

In my experience, moderation is a little slower now, especially with regards to the WA forum, so it is best to give them a couple of days' headstart if possible. Declaring a proposal illegal half an hour before it goes to vote is risky.I guess I need to pay more attention to the rules. It just... seems like... they are interpretted differently from person to person.They're not. Again, I assure you, it's not. Or put it another way: I've had several resolutions passed, but I've also had my share of proposals deleted or preemptively declared illegal. There is simply no reason the mods would "favour" Charlotte Ryberg: the reason their proposal was not deleted is either a) no one submitted a GHR before it went to vote or b) the mods disagree with your assessment of the proposal as illegal.

As a rule of thumb, and I say this from observation not authority, and the mods are free to disagree, they are generally stricter about Games Mechanics or MetaGaming violations than they are about Contradiction or Duplication, partly because not every mod is necessary familiar with every WA passed resolution. If your argument rests on the latter, they greatly appreciate it if you specifically cite which item of past law it contradicts or duplicates.The WA seems to run off the idea that 'once something is law, everybody abides by it, therefore penalties are not needed.'Not sure this is quite accurate. I would say: a proposal will never be penalised for assuming this. And proposals that deal exclusively with compliance are generally looked down upon, even if not absolutely illegal. But I think it is possible to include some mechanism for dealing with non-compliance while staying within the rules: for example, my slavery ban declared an embargo on all goods made using slave labour, which would act as a de facto means of preventing non-compliance.I just wish somebody would at least (if for only my own piece of mind,) admit that certain things are screwed up.This is the WA (and before that, the NSUN). The most common joke invokes stealing office supplies, the most common form of exercise - especially beloved of our resident Zombie Bolshevik - is to defenestrate someone into the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool. One ambassador's typo caused a time-travelling resolution killing machine to spring into existence; another's caused all proceeds of the Educational Committee to be exclusively diverted to his own nation's schools. We've had equality legislation repealed by - literally - a caveman, and anti-whaling legislation repealed by a whaling company. And Moltan Bausch weed himself during the debate on Repeal "Save the forests of the World".

I think we'd noticed things were screwed up.

So once it reaches quorom it can't be deleted anymore, no matter what? Not only is it illegal, but the author is already making plans for a repeal. If this isn't cause enough to delete it I don't know what is.[quote]

Yes, once it goes to vote it either passes or fails. There was a proposal that made it to vote a while back that was very much illegal, but the mods had no way to remove it. The only way to get rid of it was to vote it down which took a considerable effort.

[quote]Oh, I know, maybe somebody should use big red letters. -snickers- I'm being playful, not arguementative. I guess I need to pay more attention to the rules. It just... seems like... they are interpretted differently from person to person.

The mods have a very impartial track record in this game. I would advise that you not start calling them biased or you might feel their wrath. I assume your proposal was deleted without any consequences. Consider yourself lucky.

The WA seems to run off the idea that 'once something is law, everybody abides by it, therefore penalties are not needed.' Yet my country, which has an excellent police force, has bullcrap going on in it all day long. So I dunno. Again, I need to study on it more, obviously. I just wish somebody would at least (if for only my own piece of mind,) admit that certain things are screwed up. Then I wouldn't be so frustrated by it all. I can deal with crap. Hey, this is politics, right? If we weren't here to try and make sense out of a convoluted mess then we shouldn't be here. I just don't like crap wrapped in Christmas paper.

Once a reolution is passed, all member nations are automatically brought into compliance whether they like it or not. I would quote the actual excerp from the rules, but I'm doing a hundred things at the moment, I do remember it saying compliance is not optional.

Curiously enough, the resolution at vote is also illegal. It seems to me that popular names are given extra leeway. But that doesn't have a lot to do with me or my deleted proposal, so I'll try not to take it personally.

OOC: Mods forgive me for this, but it must be said. You just posted on the At Vote thread and said the proposal was almost perfect. Now you come over here and say it is illegal. You need to start reading the rules regarding proposals before you get yourself a ban. I'm telling you, the MODs will not put up with this forever.

OOC: Mods forgive me for this, but it must be said. You just posted on the At Vote thread and said the proposal was almost perfect. Now you come over here and say it is illegal. You need to start reading the rules regarding proposals before you get yourself a ban. I'm telling you, the MODs will not put up with this forever.

Yes I did just post that. Did you read anything else I posted on that thread? I'm assuming not. Maybe you should stop doing 100 things at once.

I'm about tired of people telling me 'the mods will not put up with this forever.' I'm not doing anything wrong. I submitted an illegal proposal... oops.

The mods have a very impartial track record in this game. I would advise that you not start calling them biased or you might feel their wrath.

So basically YOU are saying that they might become biased. All I'm doing is enjoying my right to say whatever the hell I want. And I'm not blaming the mods, because the mods are busy people. I'm blaming other people for not pointing out illegal proposals even though everybody swarms to mine.

I'm not AFRAID of the mods because I respect them, and I have every intention of following the rules. Unfortunately intentions don't always translate into fact so I've made a few mistakes. I'm about tired of being pre-judged (hmm) for things in the past though.

Once a reolution is passed, all member nations are automatically brought into compliance whether they like it or not. I would quote the actual excerp from the rules, but I'm doing a hundred things at the moment, I do remember it saying compliance is not optional.

Does that mean that accidents don't happen? That a scholar might not somehow damage historical evidence? Who is going to be responsible for that?

Bah, screw it. Tired of dealing with tunnel-visioned people. Can't even grant me the mildest concession in any circumstance. I'm done with this thread. Somebody implement some big red letters for me.

Does that mean that accidents don't happen? That a scholar might not somehow damage historical evidence? Who is going to be responsible for that?How you RP compliance is up to you. There have been more or less creative (http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Creative_Solutions_Agency) approaches. The thing is, compliance is roleplay, which is not really policed by the moderators. Saying "I ignore all WA resolutions" will probably lead to other players ignoring you in turn; coming up with an inventive approach can lead to fun RP opportunities. If you're concerned with players not complying with your resolutions, there's not an enormous amount you do: in terms of stopping outright non-compliance, there's essentially nothing you can do. Closing off legislative loopholes is best addressed through extensive drafting.Bah, screw it. Tired of dealing with tunnel-visioned people. Can't even grant me the mildest concession in any circumstance. I'm done with this thread.With respect, I'm not clear what "concession" you want, given you were just complaining about other players being given special treatment. I've made an effort to explain my interpretation of things: that I don't agree with you does not make me "tunnel visioned".

If compliance is RP, and this world is IC, then law should be able to establish penalties for non-compliance. Even if it never happens. As role players we mustn't act like we're aware that these things are impossible. 'nuff said.

Game-coding. I recall an in-depth discussion on game-coding and how THAT is why you can not amend or duplicate material. This is obviously false. The fact is that moderators endeavor to not let this happen, but game-coding has nothing to do with it. If game-coding had anything to do with it, resolutions could be deleted. Furthermore, if game-coding is so all-pervasive, how come the issues my country recieves are totally ignorant to my past decisions?

Special treatment. If nobody cares to point out that a proposal is illegal then, apparently, it is perfectly fine. And if you can get it to quorom under these false pretenses then it can't be touched. Since I am under serious scrutiny and they are not, I call this special treatment.

These are the concessions I want. This is where people are tunnel-visioned. This is a fine game with logical rules and good moderation. That doesn't mean it's perfect. And just because something can't be changed doesn't mean it's correct.

If compliance is RP, and this world is IC, then law should be able to establish penalties for non-compliance. Even if it never happens. As role players we mustn't act like we're aware that these things are impossible. 'nuff said.

Not everyone is an RPer, thus mandatory compliance.

Game-coding. I recall an in-depth discussion on game-coding and how THAT is why you can not amend or duplicate material. This is obviously false. The fact is that moderators endeavor to not let this happen, but game-coding has nothing to do with it. If game-coding had anything to do with it, resolutions could be deleted. Furthermore, if game-coding is so all-pervasive, how come the issues my country recieves are totally ignorant to my past decisions?

Yeah, but someone has to go in and code all that stuff. People have been asking for years about it. It's not likely to happen, but hey, it could. In two to ten years if even that. :p

Special treatment. If nobody cares to point out that a proposal is illegal then, apparently, it is perfectly fine. And if you can get it to quorom under these false pretenses then it can't be touched. Since I am under serious scrutiny and they are not, I call this special treatment.

I'm sure there's a few that recall this one and there's someone who can provide a link, I'm sure since I'm too lazy to look it up.

It was reported as illegal. It got missed.

Max Barry Day

These are the concessions I want. This is where people are tunnel-visioned. This is a fine game with logical rules and good moderation. That doesn't mean it's perfect. And just because something can't be changed doesn't mean it's correct.

I agree. But someone has to make that change occur. These people are volunteers. They don't get paid for this. Were I one of the game coders, I'd likely be pretty slow because I have a lot of other RL obligations to tend to.

If compliance is RP, and this world is IC, then law should be able to establish penalties for non-compliance. Even if it never happens. As role players we mustn't act like we're aware that these things are impossible. 'nuff said.


??

Game-coding. I recall an in-depth discussion on game-coding and how THAT is why you can not amend or duplicate material. This is obviously false. The fact is that moderators endeavor to not let this happen, but game-coding has nothing to do with it. If game-coding had anything to do with it, resolutions could be deleted. Furthermore, if game-coding is so all-pervasive, how come the issues my country recieves are totally ignorant to my past decisions?

Your pension for comparing apples and oranges and saying their both mangoes is just mind-boggling. The game code is exactly why you can't amend or duplicate material, and unless I miss my guess it's exactly why you can't delete a resolution after it goes to vote. Are you aware that when we talk about the code we are talking about how the game is programmed? That programming dictates what we can and can't do.

There are a limited number of issues your country sees and you get them at random, there are hundreds of thousands of players out there trust me when I tell you the architecture to make sure you only get an issue once would be immense... further a nation might want to change their view on an issue, this allows them that ability.

Special treatment. If nobody cares to point out that a proposal is illegal then, apparently, it is perfectly fine. And if you can get it to quorom under these false pretenses then it can't be touched. Since I am under serious scrutiny and they are not, I call this special treatment.


An item can be deleted up until it goes to VOTE. Quorum isn't important. Further there are systems in place to help mods see things. IMHO the measure at vote is debatable as to legality or illegality. A wrong category is a wrong category... it's black and white. It's also why you were deleted... dry up the tears and the spilled milk and move on already.

Unless you know something I don't I don't believe you are under scrutiny. IF you are under that scrutiny because of your own actions. You were told twice to cool it and stop flaming by a mod, IF you are really under scrutiny, not because of this sham of a proposal.

As for the rest of us, time and time you have been told by experienced players, myself and several more experienced than I, on why things are what they are. You ignore them or better yet you debate that we are wrong every time. Your answer is almost always a "yea-but" which doesn't fly.

These are the concessions I want. This is where people are tunnel-visioned. This is a fine game with logical rules and good moderation. That doesn't mean it's perfect. And just because something can't be changed doesn't mean it's correct.


Agreed there are things that can be made better, however none of us can do those things... and none of us have control over the people who can. It's the reality in this fantasy world. Get used to it. Deal with it as we all have... and for God sakes stop trying to debate it... you're only making it more difficult for the rest of us to enjoy it.

Game-coding. I recall an in-depth discussion on game-coding and how THAT is why you can not amend or duplicate material. This is obviously false. The fact is that moderators endeavor to not let this happen, but game-coding has nothing to do with it. If game-coding had anything to do with it, resolutions could be deleted. Furthermore, if game-coding is so all-pervasive, how come the issues my country recieves are totally ignorant to my past decisions?

This discussion has been had at great length in the past. It's just not feesible all things considered.

Special treatment. If nobody cares to point out that a proposal is illegal then, apparently, it is perfectly fine. And if you can get it to quorom under these false pretenses then it can't be touched. Since I am under serious scrutiny and they are not, I call this special treatment.

OK, here's how a proposal gets deemed illegal. One of the resident gnomes looks over the proposals list and finds one that is silly and/or illegal for whatever reason. They can either post it in the thread in this forum, or file a GHR form and leave it to mod consideration. Sometimes the mods catch it while it is on the list even though nobody had said anything about it. Sometimes the system fails, which has happened before. Mainly because a proposal makes qurorum so quickly due to a TG campaign or what have you. The main focus on illegals is over those that are either game mechanics of some serious infraction. Most of the silly ones don't get taken down cause nobody is going to approve them so the mods don't have to waste time taking them down. They have enough on them as it is and considering they don't get paid, I think they've been doing a fine job.

These are the concessions I want. This is where people are tunnel-visioned. This is a fine game with logical rules and good moderation. That doesn't mean it's perfect. And just because something can't be changed doesn't mean it's correct.

If I come off as tunnel-visioned it's because many of us have had this argument over and over again. Then, someone comes up and starts talking about special treatment, and how amendments need to be legal and how coding is no excuse for why we shouldn't have them. It's no offense to you.

I don't claim myself to be popular. I am just me with a player having Asperger's syndrome, leading a stable nation in a simple region and we just want to improve the world, that's all.

It's not all that bad to repeal my own resolution and then improve it to make it function better, just as long as you abide by the WA proposal rules. Simple.

Yours,