NationStates Jolt Archive

I propose that on the page you write proposals, you have the following text on the page, or have it so that it shows the rules in a pop-up box (alert box) with a yes or no asking if you want to continue with those rules on it.

1. The UN Can't have an Army.
2. You can't repeal a repeal.
3. Proposals about giving guns to everybody or taking them away from everyone is strongly discouraged, and will probably fail.
4. The NationStates UN is not like the Real Life UN.

Maybe that'll stop the flow of 'stupid' or 'illegal' proposals?

I propose that on the page you write proposals, you have the following text on the page, or have it so that it shows the rules in a pop-up box (alert box) with a yes or no asking if you want to continue with those rules on it.
What's wrong with the description as it is now?
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 UN takes proposals seriously and nations that repeatedly submit inappropriate proposals will be ejected.
For more detail on what constitutes an inappropriate proposal, see here.
Given it links to the full rules, I can't see how adding any more detail is going to encourage people to read it any more.
1. The UN Can't have an Army.
I suppose, but it's pretty obviously changing the way the game is run anyway.
2. You can't repeal a repeal.
Compared to other rules violations, this one is comparatively rare.
3. Proposals about giving guns to everybody or taking them away from everyone is strongly discouraged, and will probably fail.
Uh, no. The proposal page should be about rules, not havvy's opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just because proposals of this type rarely reach quorum doesn't mean they would fail at vote if they did so, that they are illegal, or that they're in special need of discouragement over, say, gambling ones.
4. The NationStates UN is not like the Real Life UN.
Reasonable I suppose, but that's already made clear in the FAQ?
Maybe that'll stop the flow of 'stupid' or 'illegal' proposals?
I really doubt it. I don't think these changes would necessarily be bad, but I don't see any great point in them, given they hardly add anything to what is already there.

1. The UN Can't have an Army.

I suppose, but it's pretty obviously changing the way the game is run anyway.

If you don't think that's necessary, accept the vote on the current UN resolution as proof that you are wrong. Most UN members must think that the UN can have an army: otherwise the current resolution would not be passing. Making a UN army and changing game mechanics are pretty distinct, I would say.

Most UN members must think that the UN can have an armyAnd if this was a democracy, their opinion would matter. Even if the current Proposal fails, the UN still won't be allowed to have an army.