NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently submitted a proposal to prohibit member nations from sending Terminators back in time to undermine the history of other nations. An attempt to inject humour into the game, perhaps lighten the mood from issues like needle sharing and weapons. A bit of harmless fun?

No. It was removed, and a stern telegram sent, telling me not to submit unworthy proposals.

And yet I noticed a proposal only the other day, attempting to force all nations to worship Satan. Now why is curtailing religious freedoms unworthy, when preventing malicious time-travelling isn't?

Perhaps time-travel is far-fetched, but how do I know some shady covert organisation in a country in a far corner of the world hasn't developed this art? Or may do in the near future? And should this happen, do the laws not need to be in place to deal with the problem before it arises?

Besides, I received an issue recently about my national animal turning mutant. This, too, is far-fetched. But I liked it, because it was light-hearted. And I'm willing to bet a few other people might have liked my Terminators idea as a method of injecting some fun.

Perhaps this is evidence that the UN does, indeed, possess the ability to time-travel? And perhaps it plans to use it for its own covert purposes? Is there a conspiracy?

I would not be surprised if this post is removed, and my UN membership revoked - but fear not, if this happens I shall be back with another post, because you cannot curtail free speech!

Please take a moment to vote in my poll - and if I'm voted wrong I will gladly come back and admit it.

Thanks, all!

The rules for submitted proposals clearly state not to submit joke proposals. The stickies in this forum would also tell you the same thing.

*wishes people would actually post the text and category of the deleted proposals in question when they complained about the deletions*

Hmm, just for you, Goober. ;)
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342835

I don't mind the idea of a joke proposal, but the proposal that was posted on the UN forum was in poor execution.

It was too simple really. Bear in mind that for every proposal that goes in the queue, UN Delegates have to spend a few seconds to read it, and that should it become a resolution it spends 5 days in debate, which is time that serious issues that other players have researched and take fairly seriously aren't getting time for debate.

Ultimately I trust the moderators judgement, but in this particular case, if I were a mod I would have deleted the proposal for being "unworthy of the UN's consideration" on the basis that it was too vague and showed little thought. My justification for this is that Cog (one of the UN mods) is doing a great job at listing a sample of proposals that he / she has deleted and explaining why.

This proposal matches several serious proposals that were deleted.

With this in mind, before begining a debate on if joke resolutions should be allowed, at least make sure that a joke proposal isn't poorly written for other reasons, and spend the time reading the UN mod's stickied posts. They are there to help us, not police us.

There is also the matter of copyright infringement. Although yours was a joke, the Terminator, Skynet, and all that jazz belongs to someone else, not Max; including copyrighted material in the game itself could open him (and the site) to lawsuit.

(c)Katganistan, July 23, 2004

The proposal in question was deleted for being unworthy of the UN's consideration.

Well, beyond it being a "joke," you can't use RL events, people, copyrights within the game's UN proposals.

And yet, that hippo proposal went through several months ago...

And yet, that hippo proposal went through several months ago...

Answer: the decisions to remove proposals is not automated, but since Feb. 2004 I've not seen a hippo proposal or any other joke proposal become a resolution.

It is a lot of work (sometimes painful) to read through 15-18 pages of proposals. After a while, you certainly get a fell for how nations tend to think.

The rules for submitted proposals clearly state not to submit joke proposals.

It wasn't a joke - I believe time travel could be perfected, given the top minds and technological advances made in recent years. After all, 100 years ago who'd have dreamed of computers and nationstates.net ?

the Terminator, Skynet, and all that jazz belongs to someone else, not Max;

... Thanks for that, and yes I quite see your point about the copyright. That's the first suggestion of a good reason for deleting it that I've heard!

I agree completely with the initial post. It is absolutely ridiculous that the players/moderators of this game take something so seriously.
I sent a proposal awhile back detailing the removal of all material related to Barbara Streisand. The game moderators informed me that no material could be submitted relating to actual people. Excuse me? Every single proposal that I've ever read was put into somebody's mind by an actual occurence in real life, and for you fiction-worshipers who refuse to enter the real world, pull the stick out and learn to laugh a little bit!
In addition, Barbara Streisand is a weapon of mass destruction, her existence threatens the advancement of the human race. Just like nuclear armament or child-labor laws, these are real situations that exist in ordinary life. I curtailed every scenario in my proposal, outlining the method by which the material of Barbara Streisand would be outlawed and her execution performed.
Sorry U.N., but actual people do exist, just like the actual objects that every proposal is written about. And yes, proposals are frequently drawn up prior to the technology arising, SUCH AS TERMINATORS. Ever hear of the ban on human cloning? Not something that is capable now.....maybe never, but it has been banned (I'm a molecular geneticist...I know this stuff). I believe that proposal even went through the UN awhile ago.
You're so full of it U.N. You've taken a harmless fun internet game and turned it into a serious approach to poppycock. Does it really matter? Does any of this really matter? Are you going to change the world by passing a bogus UN resolution of little importance? No.....let the fun return, and stop being pompous egoites.

This anti fun proposal attitude is one of my bugbears, so here is my quote from an earlier debate:

Some mystical 'rules' have been alluded to, which apparently ban humouress proposals, however the UN submission page does not mention these and says:

Inappropriate proposals will be removed. This includes proposals that:

suggest changing how the game works (use the Forum instead)
contain descriptions that do not match the category and effect
are not worthy of the UN's consideration.

The only specific 'rule' on joke proposals is that of the personal view of a moderator in the sticky on the UN forum page. I would argue that the spirit of this game is fun (see the intro page, read the book) and that well written fun is fine and actually in keeping. This isn't a real UN and some of it's members enjoy some funny proposals, it is wrong for proposals (unless they are abusive or very very badly written) to be arbitrarily destroyed or even frowned upon because they don't meet a few members ideals.

I'm making a point of this as I can only assume that otherwise this proposal destroying behaviour will continue and the UN will become a non-fun place to be, which would be a great shame.

p.s. Bahgum felt the the Barbara Streisand proposal was inspired genius and had a good laugh, it cheered up the glorious leader no end!

And yet, that hippo proposal went through several months ago...

The proposal that resolved that "Hippos are big" was deleted in short order.

After some discussion, it was decided that a proposal establishing a "Hippo Appreciation Day" would be acceptable as an Environmental proposal. That was the proposal that was allowed through.

I agree completely with the initial post. It is absolutely ridiculous that the players/moderators of this game take something so seriously.
I sent a proposal awhile back detailing the removal of all material related to Barbara Streisand. The game moderators informed me that no material could be submitted relating to actual people. Excuse me? Every single proposal that I've ever read was put into somebody's mind by an actual occurence in real life, and for you fiction-worshipers who refuse to enter the real world, pull the stick out and learn to laugh a little bit!

You may submit a UN proposal that is inspired by real life. You may submit a UN proposal that cite real-life exaplmes as illustrations to explain a concept. However, you may not submit a UN proposal that takes action on a specific real-life entity.

In your case, you can submit a proposal to make bad acting illegal (Barbara Streisand is an actress, as I recall; I don't know much more than that).

As other examples: You can submit a proposal requiring that all political commentators on television meet minimum standards for ability to debate; you cannot submit a proposal to make Rush Limbaugh shut up because he doesn't meet those standards.

You can submit a proposal to require that all historical documentaries be backed up with historical evidence and ban all documentaries that don't meet that criteria; you can't submit a proposal to ban documentaries that portray America as the winner of the Vietnam War.

You can submit a proposal to require that all countries that don't have regular, UN-monitored elections surrender their nuclear weapons stockpiles. You can't submit a proposal to make North Korea give up it's nuclear weapons program.

You can submit a proposal that condemns terrorism and requires all UN member nations to take action against terrorists. You can't submit a proposal that condemns Al Queda and requires all UN member nations to take action against Al Queda.

BBCode error corrected.

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

As other examples: You can[b] submit a proposal requiring that all political commentators on television meet minimum standards for ability to debate; you [b]cannot submit a proposal to make Rush Limbaugh shut up because he doesn't meet those standards.

You can submit a proposal to require that all historical documentaries be backed up with historical evidence and ban all documentaries that don't meet that criteria; you can't submit a proposal to ban documentaries that portray America as the winner of the Vietnam War.

You can submit a proposal to require that all countries that don't have regular, UN-monitored elections surrender their nuclear weapons stockpiles. You can't submit a proposal to make North Korea give up it's nuclear weapons program.

You can submit a proposal that condemns terrorism and requires all UN member nations to take action against terrorists. You can't submit a proposal that condemns Al Queda and requires all UN member nations to take action against Al Queda.

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

WMD are actual things. Why hide behind a mystic curtain of inspiration when you can just come out and describe precisely what you're out against. The real UN does it all the time! Proposals are taken against specific countries and specific people. All I'm saying is the Nationstates UN is a biased organization. If you're proposing against terrorist organizations, and Al Queda is a terrorist organization, then by all means you're proposing against Al Queda, plain and simple. Inspiration my rear, the game is a fictional concept and actual real-life people/places have no affect on the game. If you're making proposals inspired by real-life situations, then it is the same as proposing against the object itself. Are Hippos not real? Just because you single out a person, as long as that person is inclusive in your proposal, then it makes no difference. Therefore, citing political commentators and singling out Rush Limbaugh is technically still within the guidelines of your rules. Same as Barbara Streisand as a weapon of mass destruction.

These specific persons and organizations do not exist in the NationStates world - therefore they can't be outlawed.

WMD are actual things. Why hide behind a mystic curtain of inspiration when you can just come out and describe precisely what you're out against. The real UN does it all the time! Proposals are taken against specific countries and specific people.
...in the real life United Nations, yes. The real life United Nations isn't limited by the program code of a website. We are.

All I'm saying is the Nationstates UN is a biased organization. If you're proposing against terrorist organizations, and Al Queda is a terrorist organization, then by all means you're proposing against Al Queda, plain and simple.
Decisions in NationStates have no bearing on real life, so you can't submit a proposal that affects real-life entities.

Additionally, the game code alters the numerical statistics of all UN member nations. There is no option whatsoever in NationStates (the way the game is currently programmed) to limit the scope of a proposal to specific nations or regions. Thus, the rule is that proposals may only address general situations, not specific situations. Thus, even if someone was roleplaying a NationStates nation called "Al Queda" in a NationStates roleplay, you still couldn't submit a proposal against them because you can't limit the scope of a proposal to a specific nation.

This is a limitation that comes from the game code.

Inspiration my rear, the game is a fictional concept and actual real-life people/places have no affect on the game. If you're making proposals inspired by real-life situations, then it is the same as proposing against the object itself. Are Hippos not real?
General kinds of things may be presumed to exist in NationStates.

You can presume the existence of hippos, but you can't presume the existence of some real-life hippo living at the San Diego Zoo.

You can presume the existence of cities, but you can't presume the existence of Hong Kong, Dublin, Madrid, Paris, Bombay, or San Diego.

You can presume the existence of human beings, but you cannot presume the existence of President Bush, Barbara Streisand, Albert Einstein, or Rush Limbaugh.

You can presume the existence of corporations, but you cannot presume the existence of Pepsi, ExxonMobil, Dow, or Johnson & Johnson.

You can presume the existence of terrorists, but you can't presume the existence of Al Queda, the IRA, Hamas, Timothy McVeigh, or the "Shoe Bomber".

Just because you single out a person, as long as that person is inclusive in your proposal, then it makes no difference. Therefore, citing political commentators and singling out Rush Limbaugh is technically still within the guidelines of your rules. Same as Barbara Streisand as a weapon of mass destruction.

The person can't be inclusive in a proposal because the person doesn't exist in NationStates.

Bottom line: You cannot make proposals that act on specific real-life entities. You cannot make proposals that act on specific entities.

The "no real-life" rule is not going to be changed and is not subject to negotiation.

The "no specific nation/region" rule is not going to be changed unless you want to talk Max, [violet], and/or SalusaSecondus into rewriting the game code to make it possible. In which case, you should present an argument for why you think it's a good idea on the "Technical" board. Otherwise, it is not subject to negotiation.

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

This bring up an interesting side question (perhaps best for another thread) ...

Are we allowed to make references to consenting players about fictional places? An example of which would be establishing a UN watch dog group for schools say in Hersfold. <-- I'm only using this as an example, because Hersfold has established himself as a player who really cares about global educational conditions.

Thank you cogitation for the very long list of do's and don'ts. However I have a question. Is this your list? A minority moderator list? A democratically elected list? Max Barry's list? Is it in the spirit of the glorious authors book?

My bottom line, i'll repeat it again, is if it's abusive or very, very badly written, fine...bin it. Otherwise leave it be, let us all decide and perhaps the realisation that not All of us wish to mirror a perfect real-life UN, but just want some fun and the odd laugh along the way may become apparent......maybe?

This bring up an interesting side question (perhaps best for another thread) ...

Are we allowed to make references to consenting players about fictional places? An example of which would be establishing a UN watch dog group for schools say in Hersfold. <-- I'm only using this as an example, because Hersfold has established himself as a player who really cares about global educational conditions.
This would constitute a proposal to act on a specific situation and would be illegal. You can't limit the scope of a proposal to only the nation of Hersfold (or to any other nation).

Thank you cogitation for the very long list of do's and don'ts. However I have a question. Is this your list? A minority moderator list? A democratically elected list? Max Barry's list? Is it in the spirit of the glorious authors book?
This set of rules was originally encoded by Enodia who, for a long time, was the only Moderator patrolling the UN proposal list. I don't remember the rules prior to that.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

This would constitute a proposal to act on a specific situation and would be illegal. You can't limit the scope of a proposal to only the nation of Hersfold (or to any other nation).



I think I either don't understand or wasn't clear.

What if a *new* UN sponsored / funded conference was to be held, but that the resolution set the location to be a fictional city that exists in established role-playing?

I certainly agree that resolutions themselves should never target individual nations, due to the fact that you can't limit the game mechanics to individual nations.

These specific persons and organizations do not exist in the NationStates world - therefore they can't be outlawed.

Minor nit pick: a lot of specific people do exist in the NationStates world ... as a RANDOMNAME. There are a lot of George Bush's in my nation, including one who apparently is my brother. :p

This set of rules was originally encoded by Enodia who, for a long time, was the only Moderator patrolling the UN proposal list. I don't remember the rules prior to that.

:( I miss Enodia. He built the Strangers Bar, and cut much crap from the U.N. :(

I think I either don't understand or wasn't clear.

What if a *new* UN sponsored / funded conference was to be held, but that the resolution set the location to be a fictional city that exists in established role-playing?

I certainly agree that resolutions themselves should never target individual nations, due to the fact that you can't limit the game mechanics to individual nations.
Hmmm.... I see....

I'll need to discuss this with the other Mods and get back to you. In the meantime, though, don't name specific places in UN proposals (unless you're citing examples for illustration, which should be fine).

If I forget to get back to you in a week or two (preferably two; we're kinda busy), then bump this topic.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

The person can't be inclusive in a proposal because the person doesn't exist in NationStates.

I agree with what the previous nation wrote....
They do exist, because every day I get proposals for my nation that come from George Bush, or other entities.

In addition, I agree with Bahgum, why don't you let the players of the game decide what is acceptable and not.

In addition, I think the 2 bad proposals and you're out is a crappy rule for the UN. My first proposal attacked another region for their possession of Barbara Streisand, for which I got reprimanded saying that "you can not single out a region."

So I resubmitted and left out the other region bit, then I got booted because now it contained Barbara Streisand, and reiterated what you have described in detail.

Yes, I know I can appeal, but do I really want to? After all, this is a game. A game should be fun. And being limited to one global organization who refuses to accept proposals with humor isn't really fun now is it?

ah, so the only moderator wrote it. So we have the word of one person cast upon others with no choice? Dictatorship anyone?

No one forces you to be in the UN, just leave if you don't want to be a part. The things from George Bush, I think you mean issues there as opposed to UN proposals. I think.

ah, so the only moderator wrote it. So we have the word of one person cast upon others with no choice? Dictatorship anyone?

If we ran this game based on the will of the majority, I think you'd find players voting to do away with the anti-Multi-UN rule, that nudity in flags would be allowed, and that anybody under the age of 16 should be paid to play ...

My point, sometimes the moderators make unpopular decisions, not to be "fair" or "cool", but rather to keep the game focused on something that is sustainable.

My opinion: jokes are sometimes OK, but the recent proposal to kill people for poor grammar? No way. It was actually well written, but it would promote future proposals for killing people that aren't so well written.

If you really want people to debate silly ideas, bring it to the UN floor and treat it like a real UN resolution. You can even run a poll.

I'll support you there. And to make it official sounding, call it a "Convention" or "Declaration" instead of a resolution. As long as the posts remain fun and clean, I'm guessing the mods will be too busy to care (actually I think some of them actually appreciate a good joke as much as we do).

ah, so the only moderator wrote it. So we have the word of one person cast upon others with no choice? Dictatorship anyone?

Yeah. Pretty much. Now, I'm sure you read the FAQ, because everybody reads the FAQs for games before they play, so as to avoid saying silly things. Since you've certainly read it, you simply need to be reminded that this is a dictatorship.

What on earth made you think it was otherwise? Do you pay for this site? Did you code the game? Do you give up your free time to make it run better?

No. You don't, and you didn't.

This game has always been a "dictatorship". Hell, Max himself says "I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state."

Raem's my hero