NationStates Jolt Archive

AN ACT concerning Future Proposals to the United Nations

FOR the purpose of creating more realistic and palatable UN Resolutions that don't appear to be hastily dashed off by a pizza-faced fourteen-year-old.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, that the Laws of the United Nations read as follows:

SECTION 1. All future UN resolutions up for debate must follow this format.

SECTION 2. Definition of format: This format shall begin with the statement of the title of the Act, preceded by the words AN ACT, an abstract of the functions of the Act, preceded by the word FOR, and the BE IT ENACTED statement above written verbatim, followed by separate sections for each provision of a bill, the last of which is a declaration of when the bill is to be in effect. Any resources required must also be spelled out in a section as well.

SECTION 3. This bill is to be implemented, and adhered to by all member nations hoping to have their resolutions debated, immediately upon passage.

This is a rule change, and so not an allowable proposal. Please see Enodia's sticky.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark

What are you proposing will happen to proposals that do not meet your specified format? There will be hundreds, you know, given the number of proposals that already violate rules specified in the FAQ or Enodia's post. You cannot set up an automated system for deletion (for example) by making a proposal; that's what I meant by a rule change.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark

I see.

EDIT: Actually, no, I don't see entirely. This wouldn't be a change to game architecture... it would help whoever it is that decides on the proposals to sift through the dreck with more ease. It wouldn't be hard for anyone writing a proposal to do, and you could make a sticky out of the format.

EDIT #2: It's more a matter of etiquette than anything, and I think that's something people ought to be allowed to decide upon.

This proposal would improve the game, make it more intelligible and debate more productive. It does not directly violate the sticky in reference.

Hmmm. Unfortunately, setting up a system by which certain resolutions would be deleted (if submitted in the improper format) does result in a lot of work that the mods would have to do.

Also, I think it DOES violate the standing limits on what a resolution CAN and CANNOT do. Asking a new level of 'editing' to be established, basically does change how the game operates.

In short, good idea...but basically unworkable.

This proposal involves changing the game, so yes, it will be deleted if it hasn't already.

The Belmore Family wrote an intriguing topic on the structure of proposals if you're interested: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55117

I agree with the sentiments - Lord only knows it'd make life easier to have all proposals set out clearly so I don't have to wade through piles of double negatives and Orwell-speak to work out what people are trying to do - but it is a game mechanics change. The best anyone can do is to recommend strongly to each other that they post like that.