NationStates Jolt Archive

today I was kicked out of the UN for" having more than 1 UN nation".. but this is IMPOSSIBLE for I have only, EVER, had 1 UN nation... which I've had for months and months. There is no evidence against me, please do an IP scan if possible..

this nation is the ONLY one I've used ANY email adress for... please contact me ASAP for I am 100% innocent.

anyone? anything? pretty please?

only thing i can say is..
sit back, relax, and wait for the mods to wake up..

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/kao/otn/pmoonsleep.gif

ok... I was losing it for a bit.. but I've calmed down now.
I'll check back in 8hrs after work.. we'll see if anything happens.. or if I'm totally deleted from the game.

Crissia: Please ignore the telegram from the "United Nations Intelligence Committee"; that is an automated telegram that is sent out whenever any nation is ejected from the UN by a Game Moderator.

According to the notation on your record, you were ejected from the United Nations for submitting bad proposals. The notation on your record does not give details and I didn't handle your case personally. So, I don't know what was wrong with the proposals you submitted.

Enodia posted a sticky topic on the "United Nations" board that details the rules regarding UN proposals. This topic is also directly linked to from the Proposal Submission screen. I suggest that you read that topic.

Your nation will most likely not be allowed back into the UN; the punishment for repeatedly submitting bad prosposals is permanent ejection from the United Nations. Your only option is to create a new nation and apply it to the UN. Remember to abide by the rules regarding UN proposals in the future.

If you want details about what was wrong with your proposals, then you can post the text of your proposals here (if you still have the text, that is) and I'll try to make hypothetical judgements on them. If you don't have the text, anymore, then you'll have to wait for the Moderator who ejected you; only he/she would be able to explain what was wrong.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I previously submitted 2 National Sovereingty reso's.. and was told that they "change mechanics of the game"... then I submitted this current abortion reso.

This is the reso.. there are no previous abortion resolutions.. so I don't see how anything could be wrong.


Definition of Abortion rights.

WHEREAS an unborn child is dependant on its mother while in the womb and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS it is STILL dependant after born for the first few years (at least) and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS rape and the potential death of the mother through birth are special cases.

WHEREAS if one did not want to get pregnant, one should not have had unprotected or minimally protected sex.

BE IT RESOLVED that NO distinction is made between an unborn and born child aside from it as a human being.

BE IT RESOLVED that, in the case of battery of a pregnant women in which the unborn child dies as a result. The criminal is charged with Manslaughter.

BE IT RESOLVED that partial birth abortion be considered in humane and murder, any who practice it must be charged accordingly.

BE IT RESOLVED that nations can still decide on abortion in the case of rape or potential death to the mother.

BE IT RESOLVED that the abortion of a child after the first trimester be illegal in all nations, unless in the most extreme cases in which death may occur.

and if I was infact deleted for submitting such harmless resolutions.. I must petition that the ignoramuses who continually submit the "4:20 legalize weed" reso's be deleted as well

and if I was infact deleted for submitting such harmless resolutions.. I must petition that the ignoramuses who continually submit the "4:20 legalize weed" reso's be deleted as well

Just to clear up any confusion: You were ejected for submitting bad proposals. You weren't deleted. These are separate terms with different meanings.

If you see some bad proposals, then please file a "Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help)" request.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

sorry.
I asked questions as to why my proposals were deleted because I read and followed the rules..but got "ignorance to the rules is no justification"
I also used to file requests often, but got nothing and found it tiring either way.

I simply don't see how the proposal listed disobeys anything because no previous proposals were made on the subject and it didnt change any game mechanincs.. I must be missing something

I simply don't see how the proposal listed disobeys anything because no previous proposals were made on the subject and it didnt change any game mechanincs.. I must be missing something

I'm still not clear on which proposal we're tlaking about, here. I can't make a judgement if I can't see the text.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I simply don't see how the proposal listed disobeys anything because no previous proposals were made on the subject and it didnt change any game mechanincs.. I must be missing something
Crissa, I read through the proposals list almost daily, and I can assure you that there are multiple weekly attempts to regulate abortion and increase national sovereignty. Almost every one of the sovereignty attempts to violate game mechanics. The abortion ones just simply don't pass, because it's such a controversial topic that no single solution works well enough for everyone.

Like Cogitation said, post the text and let the mods see your complaint.

I believe Crissia already did:

I previously submitted 2 National Sovereingty reso's.. and was told that they "change mechanics of the game"... then I submitted this current abortion reso.

This is the reso.. there are no previous abortion resolutions.. so I don't see how anything could be wrong.


Definition of Abortion rights.

WHEREAS an unborn child is dependant on its mother while in the womb and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS it is STILL dependant after born for the first few years (at least) and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS rape and the potential death of the mother through birth are special cases.

WHEREAS if one did not want to get pregnant, one should not have had unprotected or minimally protected sex.

BE IT RESOLVED that NO distinction is made between an unborn and born child aside from it as a human being.

BE IT RESOLVED that, in the case of battery of a pregnant women in which the unborn child dies as a result. The criminal is charged with Manslaughter.

BE IT RESOLVED that partial birth abortion be considered in humane and murder, any who practice it must be charged accordingly.

BE IT RESOLVED that nations can still decide on abortion in the case of rape or potential death to the mother.

BE IT RESOLVED that the abortion of a child after the first trimester be illegal in all nations, unless in the most extreme cases in which death may occur.

I believe Crissia already did:

I previously submitted 2 National Sovereingty reso's.. and was told that they "change mechanics of the game
I think Cogitation was looking for the ones she had received warnings about.

I apologize. :oops:

I believe Crissia already did:

I previously submitted 2 National Sovereingty reso's.. and was told that they "change mechanics of the game

/me mumbles to himself: "I need to learn to actually read a topic. Yeah, reading is good."

I think Cogitation was looking for the ones she had received warnings about.

It would help to see the proposals where warnings were issued, yes. However, I'll try to make a hypothetical judgement on this resolution, as well.

Definition of Abortion rights.

WHEREAS an unborn child is dependant on its mother while in the womb and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS it is STILL dependant after born for the first few years (at least) and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS rape and the potential death of the mother through birth are special cases.

WHEREAS if one did not want to get pregnant, one should not have had unprotected or minimally protected sex.

BE IT RESOLVED that NO distinction is made between an unborn and born child aside from it as a human being.

BE IT RESOLVED that, in the case of battery of a pregnant women in which the unborn child dies as a result. The criminal is charged with Manslaughter.

BE IT RESOLVED that partial birth abortion be considered in humane and murder, any who practice it must be charged accordingly.

BE IT RESOLVED that nations can still decide on abortion in the case of rape or potential death to the mother.

BE IT RESOLVED that the abortion of a child after the first trimester be illegal in all nations, unless in the most extreme cases in which death may occur.

I see nothing illegal about this proposal. If you're certain that you were warned for this proposal, then I'll double-check with Enodia.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I see nothing illegal about this proposal. If you're certain that you were warned for this proposal, then I'll double-check with Enodia.

Keep in mind there are other criteria as well, which cannot be verified with the text above. For instance, what Category was the above proposal in? It should be Moral Decency, but these type of resolutions might get misplaced in the Human Rights category.

Ballotonia

I see nothing illegal about this proposal. If you're certain that you were warned for this proposal, then I'll double-check with Enodia.

Keep in mind there are other criteria as well, which cannot be verified with the text above. For instance, what Category was the above proposal in? It should be Moral Decency, but these type of resolutions might get misplaced in the Human Rights category.

Correct.

Mea Culpa. Thanks for catching that, Ballotonia.

If this proposal had been submitted as... oooh, say... a Social Justice or Gun Control proposal, then you would have been warned for putting it in the wrong category. It also would not belong in "Human Rights" because that's tied to the level of Civil Rights in UN member nations; you're restricting the Civil Rights of the mother in favor of the rights of the child, so this should be "Moral Decency".

"Human Rights" increases Civil Rights, "Moral Decency" decreases Civil Rights.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

None of the warnings involved in your deletion were issued by me. I merely removed you from the UN on stumbling upon your case (which involved a notation that 3 illegal proposals had been made, which as we all know is ejection time).
Just out of curiosity, I believe I sent a telegram to you at about the time your ejection was made (it would have come up as being from the Moderators). Did it get through?

nope.. sorry.. I only got the "intelligence" TG about having 2 UN nations and a couple spam TG's for joining regions.. but no more.

and I know about the national sovereignty... I was clearly warned that they change mechanics... so I changed my proposal to state that "no game mechanics shall be changed with the passage of this resolution.. the specific governmental effects of this reso on indiv. nations will reflect".. or something like that.. but I guess it is understandable to say that was a stretch.
so mark that down as 2 violations.

As far as the abortion bill.. I simply dont understand why someone would delete it because it is "too controversial".. a little something legalizing prostitution just went through.. was that not controversial? legalize euthinasia? gay rights?

what I did was study the past resolutions, and saw that there was an extremely liberal trend on some EXTREMELY touchy subjects.. I thought that something of the "other" wing would be needed..


EDIT: I actually do remember getting a TG earlier.. but I was still in the UN at the time.. I had asked a question about why my reso's were being deleted because they didnt go against any of the rules set in the FAQ section and I believe it was an answer saying "ignorance to the rules is not a justification" or something of that sort

Chances are that "ignorance of the rules" telegram was mine. I didn't intend it as an answer per se, as I hadn't heard your question. So I apologise for any confusion that might have caused.

Regarding the abortion proposal, in what way was it classified? The text itself seems unobjectionable enough (in terms of "well, at least it's well-thought-out" at least), but the classification could have been your undoing.

As far as the abortion bill.. I simply dont understand why someone would delete it because it is "too controversial"
I think you got that impression from what I wrote. I didn't mean to imply that it was deleted for being controversial, only that all of them so far have expired for not reaching quorum.

The sense in the UN forum is that abortion rights are a national, not international issue. The same rules don't apply for a Theocracy as an Libertarian Anarchy, etc.

I'm confident that I had it under moral decency, what are the other possible classifications? I dont remember them very well... is there a "personal rights" one.. or something of that sort? It's possible that I may have put it under that one.

Moral decency sounds like the right category to me.

There was an abortion proposal I noticed yesterday, but I didn't take note of the author. That said, the three warnings you'd received were issued before yesterday, so I'm thinking that if the proposal was yours, then it won't have been one of the three.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure the abortion issue was long gone yesterday.. I proposed it early on Feb 8th.. And I proposed 2 National Sovereignty reso's the week before.. that's all I know

Big Problem with this.

Crissa was our duly elected UN delegate and was doing the will of the region of The United Peoples of Abraham when he submitted the last proposal.

When I see stuff like legalized weed and legalized prostitution pass and our delegate get ejected for his proposal; I have to wonder what is really going on here.

To my knowledge; the powers that be in NS have had no trouble from the TUPOA and I have to wonder why someone would start with us in this way.

A misunderstanding or a knee jerk reaction on the part of someone in the power structure of the game I can relate to, but I would like this fixed if at all possible.

I understand that moderators have to take a certain hard line in the public eye so I encourage the responsible moderator or party handling this with an eye to decision making to join us in our offsite forum where either myself or Crissa or Quinntonia(our only prevous delegate in our history going back to July) will admit them into a protected area of the forum and we can discuss this reasonably without worrying about who is looking over who's shoulder.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/TUPOA/index.php?

The Peoples of Abraham
Founder
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/tupoa.gif

Big Problem with this.

Crissa was our duly elected UN delegate and was doing the will of the region of The United Peoples of Abraham when he submitted the last proposal.
Yes, and the will of the United Peoples of Abraham involved posting a proposal which was against the rules of NationStates. Moderator authority trumps Founder/Delegate authority. There's a precedent for this and I'll dig it up if I must. Carry on.

When I see stuff like legalized weed and legalized prostitution pass and our delegate get ejected for his proposal; I have to wonder what is really going on here.
What is really going on here is that a proposal dealing with "national sovereignty" seeks to change game mechanics to the extent that UN members are suddenly to be granted some magic 'right' or another which does not exist under the current circumstances. The prostitution resolution was correctly classified, didn't seek to change game mechanics, wasn't on about the real world - sounds like something to put up for a vote. The marijuana resolution was...wait a second, there hasn't been one of those even voted down, let alone made into law.

To my knowledge; the powers that be in NS have had no trouble from the TUPOA and I have to wonder why someone would start with us in this way.
Yes, and the powers that be in the American justice system have had (to my knowledge) no problems with Martha Stewart, but she's on trial. Just because the nations in your region are good, honest, law-abiding people doesn't mean that you can expect to make illegal UN proposals and not face the same consequences as everyone else who does.

A misunderstanding or a knee jerk reaction on the part of someone in the power structure of the game I can relate to, but I would like this fixed if at all possible.
I can see your problem, but the rules were broken and the punishment for breaking that particular rule three times is UN ejection. Says so in black and a sort of pastel blue on the UN forum. It wasn't a misunderstanding or a knee-jerk reaction in the slightest bit.

I understand that moderators have to take a certain hard line in the public eye so I encourage the responsible moderator or party handling this with an eye to decision making to join us in our offsite forum where either myself or Crissa or Quinntonia(our only prevous delegate in our history going back to July) will admit them into a protected area of the forum and we can discuss this reasonably without worrying about who is looking over who's shoulder.
As the moderator who did the ejecting (but not, I stress, the warning), I respectfully decline this offer. I have explained the reasoning behind the ejection here and am willing to do so - within reason - via telegram if any members of the region wish to do that. No other players or mods will be reading my telegrams at any point.

I can tell by the tone of your response that you really aren't ready for reasonable dialogue at this point. I will t-gram you per your post but going back and forth with your present state of mind, as evidenced in your post, will do no good at this time.


Oh, and I do take a great deal of offense to being characterized in the same catagory as Martha Stewart and do not appreciate the overall sarcasm behind your post. I approached you with respect and I would think that I should receive same in kind. I am, after all, not the one you ejected.

Peoples of Abraham, I've been followig this whole exchange and I think you've totally misread Enodia's response. I see a patient, point-by-point rebuttal to your argument, with examples given. You're seeing a sarcastic putdown.

I recommend you reread the post, subtracting emotional overtones and intentionally snubbing if you can. I *can't* tell by the tone of his response that he isn't ready for a reasonable dialogue. In fact, interpreting the tone of the response is more often the tone of the reader than the writer. I think you're the one over-reacting here.

The problem is.. I only proposed 2 national sovereignty bills... seeing those deleted and recieving warnings for both kept me quiet for a week.. and then I proposed this one.
That's only 2 true rule violations. Seems as though someone considered this current bill a violation when it wasnt, either that or I'm missing something because there is no way I placed it under the wrong category.

I was in the process of sending in a prostitution ammendment, but seeing as though there were 10 or so of those and they were all getting deleted.. and I was just warned twice for sovereignty bills... I did not follow through on that and made the Abortion bill instead.

My apologies for any perceived sarcasm. That wasn't my intention and it demonstrates one of the problems of text-only communication, namely that what one speaker intends to be a rebuttal seems to another to be laced with sarcasm.
The Martha Stewart line was intended to convey the point that it doesn't matter if you've all been law-abiding members of the community. What matters is that illegal proposals were submitted. Perhaps a better example would have been a hypothetical senior citizen who has never broken the law in his life being pulled over for speeding. Just because he's lived 60 years or so without a single black mark against his name doesn't give him some kind of magical "credit" to prevent the law from having any effect. The law is the law.

Additionally, I have given a series of reasonable responses on this thread. That is to say, if "reasonable response" is defined as me explaining what happened, then I've done that. Crissia originally believed he/she was ejected for multi-ing and the unreasonable response would have been not to explain that that was not the case. However, clarification was given on the grounds for the ejection and I have investigated - as far as I can - exactly what the three proposals were that resulted in the ejection.
If a "reasonable response" is defined as overturning the decision and allowing Crissia back into the UN, then I'm afraid that is highly unlikely to happen.

all I'm sayin is.. my homeboy got his ish on lockdown.
but if he broke the rules 3 times... he should be out. What were the 3 violations though? that abortion ish cant be one of em right?

all I'm sayin is.. my homeboy got his ish on lockdown.
but if he broke the rules 3 times... he should be out. What were the 3 violations though? that abortion ish cant be one of em right?
If I knew, I'd tell you, trust me. I'm trying to hunt down the record of what the third one was, but the problem is that the mod who issued the warnings didn't record reasons along with them.
As soon as I find it out, everyone will know who needs to know.

superb. thanks

My apologies for any perceived sarcasm. That wasn't my intention and it demonstrates one of the problems of text-only communication, namely that what one speaker intends to be a rebuttal seems to another to be laced with sarcasm.
The Martha Stewart line was intended to convey the point that it doesn't matter if you've all been law-abiding members of the community. What matters is that illegal proposals were submitted. Perhaps a better example would have been a hypothetical senior citizen who has never broken the law in his life being pulled over for speeding. Just because he's lived 60 years or so without a single black mark against his name doesn't give him some kind of magical "credit" to prevent the law from having any effect. The law is the law.

Additionally, I have given a series of reasonable responses on this thread. That is to say, if "reasonable response" is defined as me explaining what happened, then I've done that. Crissia originally believed he/she was ejected for multi-ing and the unreasonable response would have been not to explain that that was not the case. However, clarification was given on the grounds for the ejection and I have investigated - as far as I can - exactly what the three proposals were that resulted in the ejection.
If a "reasonable response" is defined as overturning the decision and allowing Crissia back into the UN, then I'm afraid that is highly unlikely to happen.


Fair enough and thank you.

Using your example; the senior citizen, in all probability, gets a walk if it actually goes before a judge(I think most officers let it go too. I say that because I have several as customers and we do talk)

Anyway, you've already said that you were trying to dig up the proposal behind the 3rd warning and I'm patient. I appreciate your efforts.

well.....
my good friend who re-proposed my SAME EXACT abortion proposal a day after mine was deleted.. got it deleted a few days ago and was just told that he can't change the mechanics of the game or he'll be ejected.

HOW DOES THIS CHANGE THE MECHANICS OF THE GAME!?!?!?
This proposal is legal!

It's ridiculous that it gets deleted, and more so that I was kicked out for it

well.....
my good friend who re-proposed my SAME EXACT abortion proposal a day after mine was deleted.. got it deleted a few days ago and was just told that he can't change the mechanics of the game or he'll be ejected.

HOW DOES THIS CHANGE THE MECHANICS OF THE GAME!?!?!?
This proposal is legal!

It's ridiculous that it gets deleted, and more so that I was kicked out for it
Not quite, you're confusing two different events.

Bethnal Green (I assume this is the friend you're talking about, and if not then please let me know so I can get to the bottom of this) proposed your "Declaration of Abortion Rights". Yes. It was proposed, however, in the wrong category. I deleted it at the time and sent him/her a telegram informing them of this action. Bethnal Green made a post on the UN forum saying something like "And now the proposal's been deleted WHY?" and I answered the question there as well.
The game mechanics warning was delivered in relation to a proposal that Bethnal Green made saying that (inter alia and paraphrased) a class of "UN Morality Observer" nations would be appointed to police morality among UN members and they would have the power to recommend the ejection of members found to be immoral. This is obviously a game mechanics issue as it seeks to both create another "wrinkle" in the way the UN works as well as to add another reason for which nations can be removed from the UN. The proposal was deleted, a telegram sent and the warning recorded. Bethnal Green has since filed a Moderator Request claiming not to have received the first warning and I have explained in telegram form what I have written above.

That, I think, should answer your question. If you're referring to a different nation or a different proposal, please let me know and I'll investigate that.

no, that's on point.
thanks

sooooooooo I take it....