NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently my proposal, UN Convention on Biodiversity, was deleted and I received a telegram saying "Do not cite real-life reports in UN proposals." For reference, the full text of the proposal can be found here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=353487).

I feel that this deletion is not in line with previous rulings on this subject. Other resolutions, such as Needle Sharing Prevention, cite real life research. I asked (here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343764)) if it would be ok before I first submitted this proposal, and was led to believe that real life research to build a case would be ok as long as I didn't suggest action in the real world.

I'd like an official response on this because I was given the green light to use the specific research in question within the specific proposal in question nearly two months ago, as is documented by my second link in the initial post. The proposal in question was also on its fourth trip through the queue, and after the first submission had never been edited from the text available through the first link.

I really feel like I got jerked around here.

The mods have a backlog of work, and real life to lead, please be patient.

Recently my proposal, UN Convention on Biodiversity, was deleted and I received a telegram saying "Do not cite real-life reports in UN proposals." For reference, the full text of the proposal can be found here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=353487).

I feel that this deletion is not in line with previous rulings on this subject. Other resolutions, such as Needle Sharing Prevention, cite real life research. I asked (here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343764)) if it would be ok before I first submitted this proposal, and was led to believe that real life research to build a case would be ok as long as I didn't suggest action in the real world.
I didn't delete this proposal; I'm looking into the matter.

If you have a copy of the proposal text, then please post it here.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Thanks, Cog.

UN Convention on Biodiversity
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Xtraordinary Gentlemen

Description:
The United Nations,

OBSERVING the continued rapid decline in worldwide biodiversity,

NOTING that "nearly 80% of terrestrial species of plants and animals are to be found in rainforsts" which are rapidly disappearing, [1] and that the number of species of all types of organisms (insect, plant, vertebrate, microorganism) are expected to be reduced by at least half by deforestation, [2]

CALLING ATTENTION to the fact that "about 40% of modern pharmaceuticals originated in nature including treatments for: cancer, glaucoma, malaria, Parkinson's disease, inflammatory disorders, high blood pressure, psychiatric disorders, and infections. Yet less than 5 percent of the world's plant and marine species have been screened for potential therapeutic benefits." [3]

NOTING ALSO the enormous effect on human knowledge an ecosystem as small as the Galapagos Islands can have,

REALIZING that some species are so endangered that they will become extinct even with human intervention,

ACTING in accordance with the United Nations Charter,

1. AFFIRMS that all types of ecosystems are worthy of preservation when possible,

2. CALLS FOR creditor nations to give debtor nations credits in exchange for undertaking conservation efforts, half of the credits to be used for conservation or regrowth efforts and the other half as the recipient nation sees fit,

3. REQUESTS a refocus of international assistance programs to developing nations that pertain to the building of infrastructure, with the goal of offsetting poor construction planning and minimizing environmental damage,

4. REALIZES that entertaining or visually appealing animals draw more private donations and attention than the less attractive organisms that may be of greater evolutionary or practical significance, and encourages the use of such animals to raise desire among the private sector to protect the ecosystems that are home to these animals and countless other less appealing but useful organisms,

5. URGES timber-exporting nations to control timber prices by controlling supply in order to increase profit and slow deforestation,

6. CREATES the Forestry Preservation Agency to monitor timber production internationally, and charges it with the mission of insuring that any area used to harvest lumber will be replaced by planting an equal number of trees in an area of equal size adjacent to the woodland being cleared, so that the indigenous animals don't have to migrate or be otherwise relocated,

7. STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to organize efforts to catalog DNA samples of endangered species of all types of organisms, particularly those species beyond reasonable human assistance, to provide the groundwork for future genome mapping or cloning projects in order to restore and/or study lost biodiversity,

8. FURTHER REQUESTS that member nations increase governmental efforts and funding to screen the untested 95% of our species for potential medicinal benefits.



Citations:
[1] John Vandermeer and Ivette Perfecto, Rethinking Rain Forests: Biodiversity and Social Justice, as reprinted by Theodore D. Goldfarb in Notable Selections in Environmental Studies Second Edition

[2] E.O. Wilson, The Current State of Biological Diversity, as reprinted by Theodore D. Goldfarb in Notable Selections in Environmental Studies Second Edition

[3] Biological Diversity; Report to the U.S. Senate from the National Institutes of Health http://www.easi.org/nape/senrep.html

And just for further reference here's the original thread where I asked permission for this: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343764

You were the one who tackled the question at the time, Cog, so that's mostly for anyone else who's interested in the background story and/or my reasonings.

I didn't handle this one, but it seems that your references are critical to the proposal. I tend to view references as okay as long as they're "flavor". In otherwords, that the proposal could survive without the references. This one looks like I would be terminally crippled by the exclusion of the references, especially the first one.

I didn't handle this one, but it seems that your references are critical to the proposal. I tend to view references as okay as long as they're "flavor". In otherwords, that the proposal could survive without the references. This one looks like I would be terminally crippled by the exclusion of the references, especially the first one.

If I may ... you'll notice that in my sig I've been promoting this proposal in addition to another. The XG is the founder of the International Democratic Union, so we've worked on this.

His three references are used in the preambulatory clauses, not the activating clauses. Basically they are used in order to establish that there may be a serious problem and act as a justification for international action. If the references were removed, would the resolution still essentially do the same thing?

That said, I've used references before (I was the author of the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution which is being used as an example here, and I even sneaked references into one of my other resolutions). If I had to guess why they are included in the preamble, I'd venture that it is because few of the 15,000 + votes cast in a typical resolution for the past 4 months or so, have showed up in the UN forums as a thread reader.

If we took out the numbers and said, "a vast majority of terrestrial species" it may still work, and might be appropriate for NS this actually is the type of thing is actually a big no-no in many forms of writing.

I've watched too many UN debates since Feb. 2004, and all too often if you don't include some justification and specifics, you get flamed. If you do include them, you run the risk of two things: having an argument like the current 20 km vs. 200 km Law of the Sea debate -or- you run the risk of getting zapped for making a "real life reference".

I don't have a suggestion (amazing isn't it), but did want to really highlight that I see some wiggle room here, in that the three references are in the justification.

I'm sure the moderation team must hate me now. With that in mind, I'd be happy to trade some pictures of my nation's leaders for use in dart boards for some utterly meaningless game text added to my nation, perhaps, "It is regular practice for UN diplomats to annoy the gods". ;)

...or some utterly meaningless game text added to my nation, perhaps, "It is regular practice for UN diplomats to annoy the gods". ;)
The Confederated City States of Mikitivity is a massive, economically powerful nation, notable for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 1.354 billion enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent, pro-business government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of the Environment, Social Welfare, and Education. The average income tax rate is 95%. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Gambling industry, followed by Information Technology and Beef-Based Agriculture.

Citizens are regularly found digging for treasure in their gardens, teenagers across the country are celebrating the defeat of a national curfew bill, the nation's gigantic air force is both respected and feared, and it is regular practice for UN diplomats to annoy the gods. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is crippling. Mikitivity's national animal is the burrowing owl, which is also the nation's favorite main course, and its currency is the Spice Melange.

Mikitivity is ranked 2nd in the region and 8,898th in the world for Nudest.
:D

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
"Laugh about it for a moment."
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

...

Okay, seriously, I'll have to discuss the matter with the Moderator who took action and get back to you.

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

:D

Okay, seriously, I'll have to discuss the matter with the Moderator who took action and get back to you.


For the above quote?

Only to find out who I owe those pictures to, because that is hilarious and they say no good deed should go unpunished ... er I mean unrecognized! ;)

Not to be a jerk or anything, but I'm still waiting for the official word on this.

Okay, this slipped through the cracks. I'll get back on it when I have time (probably later today, but I can't make guarantees).

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Okay, this slipped through the cracks. I'll get back on it when I have time (probably later today, but I can't make guarantees).

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

This is a polite re-bump. Not to sound like a "Modling" (i.e. player who lives in the moderation forum), but the last resolution did include an extensive annex, so length shouldn't IMHO be a detractor in the eyes of the UN voting public. (I've already offered my opinion on the rest of the proposal ... I like it!) :)

Okay, I've finally gotten around to talking about this with the Moderator in question.

The official policy is that real-life documents are not applicable in NationStates under any circumstances. Now, as it was my fault that I advised Xtraordinary Gentlemen badly, the Moderator in question has agreed to retract his warning.

I will be adding a clarification to the Proposal Rules topic shortly.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Okay, I've finally gotten around to talking about this with the Moderator in question.

The official policy is that real-life documents are not applicable in NationStates under any circumstances. Now, as it was my fault that I advised Xtraordinary Gentlemen badly, the Moderator in question has agreed to retract his warning.

I will be adding a clarification to the Proposal Rules topic shortly.


Thank you. I'll make a point to make a note of this ruling in the prior resolution(s) that made references to real-life documents. I think there is just one such resolution ... one of mine.



I do have some mirror suggestions about how to state the ruling, given that people make references to the real world in General, you might want to either limit that policy to references of real-life documents in resolutions or a broader approach would be to limit references in the forums other than General.

I also have another long-term suggestion:

Since the justification for adding references is two-fold:

The moderation team might want to consider what will happen when "fantasy" documents (not real-life) are referenced instead ...

-or-

It would be nice to find some way to streamline "voting" traffic to the forum debates where points in favour can be reviewed. The way many of the off-site forums hand NS UN resolution debates is to "pin the debate thread". In other words, if the resolution that was being debated was:

1) Stickied (Temporary)
2) Reposted for the first post
3) The Stickied thread linked to the resolution

Maybe there wouldn't be nearly a need for including these references in resolutions (which in this case is why they were present).