NationStates Jolt Archive

Mods,

"NationStates Moderators
Received: 92 minutes ago

Please refrain from making silly UN proposals in the future. This is the second one from you on the exact same subject I've had to delete. Thank You. "

I posted a resolution setting a goal of the UN of "not stinking" - a thinly veiled attack at the UN's continual invasion of state sovereignty, which was obvious if one read the body of the resolution. I assumed that my original post was deleted because of poor-language, as I used the word "suck" instead of "stink".

But apparently, that wasn't the reason. Apparently, my proposal was "silly".

I would appreciate it if I could have the "silly UN proposals" defined, especially in light of the fact that the following are resolutions are currently up for delegate endorsements:

"The 'Hug A Tree Act'" - An act requiring any individual who pollutes to physically hug a tree each year;

"Promotion of storytellin" - An act that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you actually read it;

"Stop prejudice against pirates" - An act that asks states to "give the benefit of the doubt" to pirates, because they've not attacked you yet;

"VICTORIA BECKHAM BILL" - An act that prohibits Posh Spice from releasing any singles (which actually doesn't sound so silly, on second thought);

12,412,094,712 different "making marijuana legal" resolutions;

12,412,094,712 different "take away guns" or "give everyone guns" resolutions;

And, of course, the infamous "I like Hippo" resolution that actually reached the floor of the United Nations.

Again - if the moderators are going to make subjective decisions about the viability of UN resolutions, there needs to be some criteria, so that in the future I am aware and able to determine without their intervention whether or not my resolution could be viewed as "silly" and arbitrarily deleted.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

President Brian,
United States of Brian's Room
Regional Delegate for North America

Thanks. I'll get right on deleting those.

--Scolo

ah, no, someone post "promotion of storytellin'" before it goes, please :D

Note that I have not seen the text of the proposal in question and did not delete it myself.

"I posted a resolution setting a goal of the UN of "not stinking" - a thinly veiled attack at the UN's continual invasion of state sovereignty, which was obvious if one read the body of the resolution. I assumed that my original post was deleted because of poor-language, as I used the word "suck" instead of "stink".

But apparently, that wasn't the reason. Apparently, my proposal was "silly".

The UN does not invade state sovereignty; "invasion" implies that it wasn't invited. By joining the in-game United Nations, you have ceded some of that sovereignty to the United Nations and granted it authority to meddle in your internal affairs. That is the nature of the NationStates United Nations; it's built into the game mechanics.

Posting any resolution that seeks to change that is therefore a resolution to change game mechanics. Again, I haven't read the proposal in quesiton, but from your post, above, that what it sounds like to me.

Again - if the moderators are going to make subjective decisions about the viability of UN resolutions, there needs to be some criteria, so that in the future I am aware and able to determine without their intervention whether or not my resolution could be viewed as "silly" and arbitrarily deleted.

It's sometime difficult to define such criteria. If you are in doubt, then you are advised to post a topic about any potential UN proposal in the "United Nations" forum and ask for opinions prior to submitting the proposal. "Here's the text of my next proposal. Is it okay for me to submit this?"

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Rats!

I had hoped BR's protest would establish a beachhead for salutory silliness.

Instead, it appears to have had the opposite effect. :(

Bring back the Hippos!

what happened to freedom of humour?

*runs*