NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been a number of repeals which have spawned numerous discussion threads. On the one extreme you have obsessive housecleaners determined to repeal every resolution which contains a minor spelling mistake. On the other extreme you have a crowd of whingers lamenting about the lack of any replacement resolutions. In the middle you have the majority of people rocking back and forth silently going mad.

The truth is that both sides do have merits. There are some terrible resolutions out there that really should be replaced. However quite a few resolutions that have been repealed seem to have replacements that are getting off the ground. More importantly, it seems plain wrong to vote to repeal a flawed resolution on say child labour if it creates a period of time where there is no ban on child labour whatsoever, even if there is a better resolution in the pipeline. A government doesn't toughen the law against murder by repealing the murder laws, creating a month-long period where there is no law on murder until it passes a new law.

Would it be possible to allow resolutions to supercede older ones without the need for a seperate repeal resolution. It would be saner, neater, more realistic and would shut up both sides of the argument.

Ta

Amendments would be a nice idea, but I think they'd be too difficult to implement properly. If all previous resolutions were neatly structured in clauses then it would be easy to strike out single clauses on old resolutions and link them to replacement clauses in the amendment, but as it is the amendments would have to be extremely detailed in making clear precisely which parts of the original resolution would be altered.

What you're suggesting (combining repeal and replacement) would be easier, but would still take a lot of effort to implement - issues include the fact that replacement resolutions may have a different category. Moderators would have to be vigilant to make certain that when the categories differed that the new resolution really could be considered a replacement. Even with this, many people would probably choose separate repeals and replacements, as then the repeals can benefit from the anti-UN delegates, and the replacements from the pro-UN delegates (in cases where a combined repeal-and-replacement might satisfy neither group).

This was all hashed out for months on end before repeals were coded into the game. All the ideas about amendments were considered, and turned down for coding reasons (yes, we could code it, but no, we couldn't code it to be fair).

The way to amend is to repeal and replace. End of story,