NationStates Jolt Archive

This seems like a sensible proposal. How about a percentage of UN nations' average GDP? I don't know much about economics, but this seems like it would allow you to put in a figure without using real-life references. Although it would have to be a very small number.

That is the thing ... while having a "world court" might sound like a good idea, I'm not sure it is a "Free Trade" issue. This is a hard one to figure out ...

Let's say you and I want to trade basketball cards. As Vastiva pointed out, let's say that we have different values of the cards, and when I send you your new cards, one is bent and you feel that I've cheated you. I instead claim that it was the Myopia mail service at fault.

We then agree to take this to a world court, with you arguing that this is a significant trade, though by my government's standards, this would be like calling a grand jury for a speeding ticket (i.e. trival).

The question I have: does the mere presence of a world court represent a law enacted to *increase* economic freedoms or does the court perhaps represent a *decrease* to economic freedoms.

I honestly believe that in some cases it increases and promotes trade and in some cases it decreases and hinders trade, based largely on the value two individual parties place on trades. I think Vastiva is right to point out that relative value is very important here in determining not only the standing (which is what I think he was talking about), but also the impact ... it isn't clear to me.

Basically if you like lots of BIG government and feel that government putting more hands on things improves *trade*, then the *text* of the proposal is probably a good thing. If you are in favour of less laws restricting businesses, "law of the jungle" is probably the more "capitalizt" approach to things. It goes without say that sometimes "Let the Buyer Beware" encourages sellers because their liability decreases to the point to where they aren't factoring that loss into their profit margin.

OOC: I don't know on this one, and if it were to come to a vote, I'd hunt around to see what other examples I can see, because to be honest, this sounds like this idea is to global trade and economics what the illegal logging resolution is to forestry. Granted, my own Bier Accord has the exact same fault! Everything we do is gonna be very imperfect ... but given that I felt the illegal logging was way too simple of a proposed solution to a real problem, I'm gonna be very picky when it comes to my vote on the establishment of a global trade court.

Here again, I think the best way to test things is to encourage people to attempt to break the rules and find loopholes now, ideal with a simple market transaction (like two people trading basketball cards ... or two nations trading basketball players if you like). ;)

To Mikitivity:
I have explicitly asked you not to post in my threads anymore. See this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356687)

I am very disappointed that you chose to ignore my reasonable request to stop posting in my thread. As you know, we have had countless arguments which have devolved every single time into personal attacks and flaming. I simply disagree with you and you disagree with me. Therefore, as was clear from the tread I just linked you to, I have decided to IGNORE you.

I am kindly asking you to remove your post and am repeating my plea never to post in my threads again.

To everyone else:
I politely ask everyone else not to respond now to Mikitivity because this will only make things more difficult. Since this post was made by Mik in one of my threads, I will in all likelihood disagree with its content. (I deduce this from the fact that he has gone on record saying that he has zero respect for me and that he does not intend to help me, ever.) I am willing to tell people why I disagree with that specific post, but ask people who want to know to TG me.)

To provide some visual stimulus to this otherwise boring standardised post post, a comic on the subject of debating technique featuring Aram Koopman. (The guy I made my UN ambassador.)
http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040430.gif


Additional information:
This is a standard format post from the file ‘Mikitivity go away’. I will use it every single time Mikitivity posts in a thread I started.

This is the first violation of ignoring what I have asked you to do in order to prevent flaming.

A moderator has given approval for the above cartoon to be posted and told me that it would not be deleted.

To Mikitivity:
I have explicitly asked you not to post in my threads anymore. See this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356687)

I am very disappointed that you chose to ignore my reasonable request to stop posting in my thread. As you know, we have had countless arguments which have devolved every single time into personal attacks and flaming. I simply disagree with you and you disagree with me. Therefore, as was clear from the tread I just linked you to, I have decided to IGNORE you.

I am kindly asking you to remove your post and am repeating my plea never to post in my threads again.

Knoot, Mikitivity just made some reasonable suggestions. Even if I was ignoring someone (which I barely ever do), if they made some reasonable points, without flaming, without saying anything ad hominem, just making some constructive points, I'd listen to them. To not really just reeks of pettiness.

Weegies: Tried that before. Failed. Every single discussion I had with him turned into flaming, misrepresenting arguments, personal attacks on me, and appeals to authority. I asked him not to post in my threads and I will not stand away from my principle that I IGNORE him. Its just the best thing to do. If I started a discussion with SeOCC on capitalism vs communism in HIS thread you would also think me a raving idiot even if the initial posts were polite. He has gone on record saying that he has "Zero respect" for me and that he never intends to help me so I'd say that is quite enough in that department.

Its not as if he is making suggestions that are somehow useful anyway, he is using demagoguery (not flaming, but demagoguery nevertheless) to paint my proposal as "anti-capitalizt"[!] and "BIG government!" to cut away my already small support base of those UN nations that actually like free trade resolutions. Reminds me of Bush campaign ads. I can easily refute his claims should you desire to. TG me or ask me outside this thread.

Please, I do not want to clog up this thread with this silly debate. I want to talk about International Contract Law. I am already violating my own principle by posting this explanation . If any other post is made in regard to this matter I will ask for this thread to be split off again by a mod, or that it be locked so I can start again to actually discuss the issue at hand. If you want to discuss this further, please talk to me on MSN.

Let's see... you're beginning to be a bit unreasonable about this, Knoot. As long as Mik makes sensible, polite, relevant, and on-topic posts regarding your proposals, can't you tolerate him? The concept of "your" thread simply applies to closed RPs, for example, not debates over UN policy.

As for that, if there was something impolite or insinuatingly rude about his posts, instead of yelling at him to go away and hijacking your own thread, then yes, feel free to ask a mod to intervene.

Edit: I'll split this stuff off again if you want.

Answer: no.

I do not want SeOCCgate again. That whole affair seriously hurt my reputation and completely spoiled my fun at this game for months. I feel free to ask him to go away in my own thread in a post that is not flaming. This whole affair now is again seriously hurting my reputation because mods choose again to intervene and publicly state their opinions against me and side with the anticapitalists.

I will think tomorrow about if it would not be best for me to leave the UN completely as it is clear that moderators and Mikitivity do not want me here and that thet will not stop until I am gone or pounded into submission. Already, pretty much everyone on IRC except for ONE person reccomended that I leave the UN but I thought I might have a place here too even if one/some of the regulars do not like me.

I do not want to debate with Mikitivity anymore. Period.
Contrary to what his quoting of _Myopia_ would imply, that post was directed against me since it had absolutely no relation to _Myopia_s technical remark.

And finally, yes, your post continuing on this topic means that I would like to to have this part of the thread split off again. (I think it would belong in moderation but I leave that up to you) Preferably, I would like you to split it off from the point where Weegies posted (#13) since I made an on-topic post just before that (#12) and I want my request to him (#11) to remain in place. It is my reply affirming that I do not want to debate with him, and also a message to others not to think that I am ignoring him because I am a coward or because I cannot refute his points.

To Mikitivity:
I have explicitly asked you not to post in my threads anymore. See this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356687)

I am very disappointed that you chose to ignore my reasonable request to stop posting in my thread. As you know, we have had countless arguments which have devolved every single time into personal attacks and flaming. I simply disagree with you and you disagree with me. Therefore, as was clear from the tread I just linked you to, I have decided to IGNORE you.

I am kindly asking you to remove your post and am repeating my plea never to post in my threads again.


OOC: I feel I've contributed valid points about your proposal and the subject of a world economic court. Points that instead of addressing, you've returned to your personal attacks on me. :(

BTW I've reported the following post of yours to Myrth:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7008582&postcount=9

You crossed a very hard line with that post, as your accusations are completely false. It is slander, pure and simple.

I'd rather we not focus on me so much and that we address the idea of classifying a world business court as "free trade".

Well, Knoot, if you're positive that the mods and every UN member is against you, then I guess it must be true. :rolleyes:

Knoot and Mik, just stay away from each other in any thread in any forum. Just stop it with the snide remarks and the threads calling each other's ideas stupid and the standard reply forms. Any more of this and action will be taken against both of you.

It's split.
I do not bother you, you do not bother me.First reasonable suggestion I've heard all day. ;)

Just to emphasize, this goes for both of you. Stay out of each other's way and things will be...spiffy.

My point exactly. That is precisely what I want. Stopping all this nonsense; the snide remarks, the threads calling each other's ideas stupid and also the standard reply forms. Just staying away from each other.

And no, I know that not every mod and every UN member is against me. Indeed, I feel I have gotten vocal support from both UN members including anonymous mods in this matter. I just pointed out that your post was hurting my reputation because it sided against me and with the ACA crowd. I do not particularly like this.

Now I am going to bed. Goodnight.

uh... yeah. You quoted the post I just deleted because of your suggestion. Anyway... that was basically the point of the post anyway.

Goodnight.

You know... I would really like to know right now if Mik actually agrees with the suggestion of Unfree People to not attack each other anymore or not.

Also considering the latest thread in technical. :rolleyes:

Also considering the latest thread in technical. :rolleyes:

You've already been told by two moderators that there's nothing wrong with that thread.

Now you can make that three moderators.

So I am to think of the above suggestion by a mod as "just a suggestion that anyone can feel free to ignore"?

I did not say "OMG Y00 MUST DELETE THIS THREAD" at any point. But anyone can see that his "example" referring also to unnamed "other resolutions" in the making (there is just his FT resolution, and my three FT resolutions that are currently under active discussion on the forum from what I can tell) is specifically directed to get precedent against my current resolutions so mods will have to delete it when I submit it as FT. (And I set out from the beginning only to make FT resolutions, he knows this.)

His questions follow the same argument he had in my thread. Said thread in technical was also posted precisely an hour after I posted my initial defence of "why I think my proposal is free trade" in my own thread and the "innocent question" is clearly tailored to get the mods to declare that defence declared illegal so that I will have to withdraw my resolution. The whole farfetched "telecommuting" example tries to mimic the structure of my proposal. Replace "telecommuting" with "part-time work" for a moment in his argument and you'll see my point.

But of course... this is all a coincidence and there is no relation whatsoever between that thread and my resolutions. If this is somehow the case, I would like to hear that of course.
:rolleyes:

I was not asking for mod action, but for clarity. If he is still allowed to attack my resolutions "the jucidal way" despite Unfree Peoples call not to bother each other anymore, then I will accept it. But in that case I should also be allowed to attack all of his resolutions "the jucidal way" without specifically mentioning them and by trying to get mods to speak precedent against them. I do not want this, and I would think that this is not exactly what she meant by "not bothering with each other". I do admit, he is going about it the smart way, just staying within the rules every time while getting you annoyed with me as I complain about it.

:headbang:

He is free to raise whatever queries to the moderators that he pleases.

Watching all this develop from the " start of hostilities " my line of thought has developed along th following line. Because, its a line of thought. Yeah, yeah, on with the comment :

1) Yes ! Two players I greatly respect are turning up and supporting the U.N. with their work, style, and intelligent debate.

2) Well, they don't seem to get on too well, but hey, a good thing is a good ...

3) ! ALL THE BUNNIES ARE STABBING EACH OTHER !

* Blame GTA VC's V.C.P.R. for that.

...

Judging from all the threads I've been reading involving both of you, and the entire history of this thing, as well as particular " 3rd party " and off-site groups, shall we say, I just want to make this clear to two people whom I've for the most part, greatly respected and liked both on N.S. Forums and off :

Knoot : Tone it down already, you have a right to feel pissed off I feel, but, don't go all-out over this quite yet, and remember not every decision regarding the differences between you and Mikitivity have are going to go your way no matter that you feel wronged or not. You might feel pissed at me saying that, I know, but I am here to make sure both of you get a message at last with-out reverting to finger pointing.

Mikitivity : Right, I although you may not even remember, have a bit of ( albeit minor ) personal history with you, so after that, I'm not completely surprised at how this has gone.

Still, I'm yet more then a little dissapointed at some one who is usualy a grand debate participant and figure-head of N.S.U.N. action turning to tactics so base and immature. Just because you feel to be known for pissing people off as part of your usual running aboutr here, does not mean you should be running about pissing people off, if it be objective or a side effect.

I certainly endorse that you stay away from Knoot, his proposals, his threads, what-ever.

...

Because like matter and anti-matter, when you both connect, we are not quite sure what will happen, but all we know is some kind of shit is going to get loose.

And it seems the only way to stop that eventuality is the people in power opening up a complete can of shut-it and dumping the contents on you both.

I feel its too far gone now to ask you both to be very civil to each other, let alone friendly, as I see it, nor to really diffuse the differances you both have. I just don't want to see one of you go right across the line and get some heavy but justified shit stacked on top of you.

So both of you, listen to the Moderation staff, please, respect what they say or decide, don't go near each other, and please don't be too pissed off at me for saying all this about two people I respect and liked to think of as friends here.

* Christ, I'm actualy afriad you'll both hate me now or something, dammit. Can't we all just get a-fucking-long ... yuck, a cliche, I'm going to be sick now to boot ...

* If, might I add, to cover all bases, Moderation staff for any reason would object to this post, please feel remove it.

There. I hope that actually gets taken on-board.

The call for you and Mikitivity to leave each other alone is intended to put a stop to the personal attacks, abuse, and insults that you two have been throwing at each other.

Ideally, I'd totally separate you two from one another, but unfortunately, all UN proposals have to be funneled through the same UN, the same community.

I'll think about this matter when I have more time.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation