NationStates Jolt Archive

Earlier this week I proposed a UN resolution forbidding the assembly from voting on any Abortion resolution for a period of 20 years, and to take no sanctions on a country for their polices on abortion for that time, and it was removed from the petition area and I was told "not to limit the scope of the UN's power". What I don't understand is why this is not allowed, it is a legitimate use of the UN, and I am just trying to allow countries to make their own decision on this topic.

It may be that the moderators feel that any resolution banning the voting of a major topic reduces some of the power of the UN. Instead of narrowing your proposal down to just abortion, maybe you should have proposed a sovereignty of nations proposal.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

The "moral decency" category allows, as far as I'm concerned, the proposal of and debate regarding abortion. To say that the UN can't debate abortion for a period of time is to curtail the ability of that category to work.

I think that's fair. Why don't you submit a proposal detailing your stance on abortion instead of just shutting down a debate?

Or even better, there are a series of pro- and anti-abortion proposals sitting in the queue now. Wouldn't mind seeing one on the floor, myself.

Sigh, I just got a second warning for the same thing, again sighting rule mechanics violations for attempting to call a referendum on the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution. But anyway, the point of that resolution was to prevent the United Nations for deciding what should be a nations choice, not that of a governmental agency. Yes, it limits the power of the UN, but most resolutions do that, and making a resolution to block votes on an issue is a legitimate tactic used to defuse tensions.

I was warned for something that is a legitimate tactic meant to preserve the sovereignty of all nations, and I find this completely unfair. Is there a way that I can ask for a clarification or removal of this black mark against my record?

Well you've come to the right place to ask for clarification.

Problem is that you're claiming sovereignty - which doesn't exist here. As has been made abundantly clear in the FAQ, in the way the game works and by me, the NationStates UN exists to inflict decisions upon member states. The real-world UN is obviously different, but that's neither here nor there. What you effectively want to do is to try to repeal a previously-passed resolution and that's a game mechanics alteration.

We should at least be able to debate it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "1 day since the
last starship accident."

Why? The resolution he wants to have a referendum on was passed long ago. You can't "un-pass" a resolution.

Well you've come to the right place to ask for clarification.

Problem is that you're claiming sovereignty - which doesn't exist here. As has been made abundantly clear in the FAQ, in the way the game works and by me, the NationStates UN exists to inflict decisions upon member states. The real-world UN is obviously different, but that's neither here nor there. What you effectively want to do is to try to repeal a previously-passed resolution and that's a game mechanics alteration.

Why can't you repeal a already passed resolution? The prohibition on that does no sense.

Can you please do me the favour of reading the sticky "Before you make a proposal" before you ask me that question? The answer is contained in there and typing it here is hardly going to further the cause of humanity.

Why? The resolution he wants to have a referendum on was passed long ago. You can't "un-pass" a resolution.

I'm not asking to "un-pass" a proposal, I want to pass a new proposal, which happens to be entitled "repeal X". This new proposal has the equal but opposite effect of proposal X.

If, for example, a proposal is passed to increase human rights, a repeal would decrease human rights. If a proposal passes to legalise drugs, then it's repeal would criminalize them.

I'm not asking hat the previous resolution be deleted, the "repeal" option is simply a convenient title.

OK, I'm with you so far, but under what category do you want to make that proposal?

There is no category for (to take some examples) "Retardation of Democracy" or "Abrogation of Human Rights".

This issue has been debated to within an inch of its life already, why can't people accept it?

OK, I'm with you so far, but under what category do you want to make that proposal?

There is no category for (to take some examples) "Retardation of Democracy" or "Abrogation of Human Rights".

This issue has been debated to within an inch of its life already, why can't people accept it?

Whatever happened to developing a "repeal" interface?

This has been an OOC post.

There is nothing in that thread about both of my issues.


Why can't we repeal laws? That is utterly silly, as some of the early resolutions recieved less then 4 votes, and should be able to be repealed if the majority consents

I guess I should ask, then, does my proposal about an Emergency Response Team qualify as a game mechanics change, since it specifically calls for a limitation on the rights of the UN?

I think this is definitely an issue that needs some rehashing.
Part of the point of international government is to decide what said government can and cannot do. I understand that the UN is sovereign within game to all nationstates which are members, but to say that the international government can't change its mind with time seems a little ludicrous (sp?).
Laws need to change with time or they become obsolete, just like industry and business and sociology for that matter.
If the international government cannot change it is doomed to fail (at least theoretically).

Bombadada - yes, the issue might well need "re-hashing". That said, it's been "hashed" enough in my opinion by players and by mods. We've passed the recommendation that a "repeal" interface be added up to [violet] and unfortunately that's the best we can do. The sensible thing for everyone to do now is just to sit back and wait - jumping around and provoking debate on something which is a fait accompli isn't going to help anyone's case.

Sassafroon - I haven't had a good look at your proposal yet, although I will head there in the near future and read it with your statement in mind.

Urbanicans - The thread clearly states the reasons why (under the current system) repealing a UN resolution is a game mechanics change. I have also explained them at length elsewhere. If you don't choose to read them, that's not grounds for an appeal. Further, there is only one resolution which received less than 4 votes - not that that changes the argument in the slightest. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many votes were cast on a particular motion, under the current system you can't repeal them. What part of that do you not understand?

Goobergunchia - the plans for making a "repeal" interface are (as far as I know) on the "to do" list for the site. Whether or not they actually get done is a different matter.

Thanks. Well, the repeal interface will probably get done eventually...right when NS2 come out. ;)

[violet] here. All of your puppets have been deleted for saying that.

That was me (Goobergunchia), not [violet], for anybody out there that is humor-impaired.

This has been an OOC post.

I wouldn't say that, Goobergunchia, [violet] has a history of instituting fancy things for us here.

I wouldn't say that, Goobergunchia, [violet] has a history of instituting fancy things for us here.

Like I said, it'll probably get done. It's just that [violet] also has a history of taking months to do major things (custom pretitles, mod user interface)...though I would like to thank her for adding the link to "Before you submit a proposal...." to the proposal submission page.

This has been an OOC post.