NationStates Jolt Archive

...deleted.

I'm curious why this proposal suddenly disappeared. Any mods care to comment?

You might check the "Before Submitting a Proposal" sticky for your answers.

Already read it. In short, it was a proposal to repeal the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution. That resolution passed by a vote of 2 to 1, a quorum hardly representative of the UN membership. Secondly, it's a vague and poorly-written resolution.

There hasn't been anything written about not being able to repeal a resolution. Any law-making body needs this power in order to function in a long-term setting.

This raises another question, why was this proposal deleted, while the proposal "Replanting Trees Amended" kept. Repeal and amendment are two sides of the same coing: revisiting old legislation to make it better.

It is important to notice, however, that proposals to repeal other resolutions are Game Mechanics Changes. This is because you are effectively asking for the statistics of your nation to be re-set to what they were before the proposal was passed - given that statistics are a part of the Game Mechanics, that's what you want changed.
Ergo, repealing the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution is a game mechanics change and this issue has already been addressed.

Secondly, the "Replanting Trees Amended" proposal has been kept in the queue because it serves as both the original proposal and the "amendment". In other words, the original proposal has disappeared through lack of support while the amendment hasn't. The amendment, in my own opinion, is not long for this world either - and for much the same reason as the original proposal.

Actually no, I'm not asking for stats to be reset.

Any legislative body should have the power to enact, amend and repeal laws (whatever laws they may be). That is what legislatures do.

Laws (and for our purposes, resolutions) may become dated over time, and when they do they should be changed. Look at the amendments made to the United States' Constitution for an example: The Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the sale of alcohol. Later on, the citizenry decided that booze is good (well, it's more complex than that, but I digress) and the Twenty-First Amendment was enacted to repeal the Eighteenth.

It's not just the US that does it. In essence, any parliamentary body needs to pass a law to reverse a previous law. Why should it be different here?

Now take a look at the resolution in question.


Description: As the world becomes a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace. This means, of course, building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security.

Votes For: 2
Votes Against: 1

Implemented: Tue Nov 12 2002


Firstly, the logic behind the resolution is flawed. It doesn't identify who's in the "Axis." Assuming that some members of this Axis are in the UN, then its effects benefit the "bad guys" as well as the "good guys".

Secondly, look at the datestamp. This resolution was passed BEFORE the site went live. This means that nearly all of the members states did not vote to ratify it. And now we can't get rid of it, eh? Doesn't the concept of the UN oppose from its core the power of three NONEXISTENT nations to dictate terms to a large portion of the rest of the world?

I'm going to resubmit my proposal, but I would ask that you let its merits -- along with the merits of allowing the UN to repeal its own resolutions -- be judged in the open and by the whole UN membership.

I'd bet that 'Maxtopia' was a test-nation (Possibly belonging to Mr. Barry himself) and that resolution was the test to see if the code for passing resolutions was working (since it is before the site was active). Granted all that doesn't give it a reason to be there, though.

A better place to propose this would be the tech forum, where these sorts of proposals will be considered instead of deleted, or at least before they are deleted.

Actually no, I'm not asking for stats to be reset.
Incorrect. If you join the UN, your stats are amended in accordance with the resolutions which have been passed. If a resolution is repealed, it is effectively "un-passed" and thus the stats in relation to it would need to be re-set.
This is the manner in which the game works.

Any legislative body should have the power to enact, amend and repeal laws (whatever laws they may be). That is what legislatures do.
Yep. I agree. However, the mechanics of this legislative body do not allow for repealing and only allow for amendments on an exceedingly limited scale (I have a worked example of an amendment that I must remember to post soon). No matter how realistic this game might have become for some players, it's ultimately a game and as a game it isn't bound to operate in the same manner the real world does. This happens to be one of those times.

Laws (and for our purposes, resolutions) may become dated over time, and when they do they should be changed. Look at the amendments made to the United States' Constitution for an example: The Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the sale of alcohol. Later on, the citizenry decided that booze is good (well, it's more complex than that, but I digress) and the Twenty-First Amendment was enacted to repeal the Eighteenth.
While I appreciate the history lesson, it's largely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The example you've provided is of a real-world legislature which has the powers you've previously enumerated (enaction, repealing and amendment of legislation). As I've said, this mock-legislature doesn't have those powers.
Furthermore, you might be interested to note that this is what makes it a game mechanics resolution (that is to say, it's a slightly more legalistic interpretation of the reason given earlier). If the game doesn't have particular powers and yet you want to exercise them, you are in effect calling for the game mechanics to be altered to allow said powers.

It's not just the US that does it. In essence, any parliamentary body needs to pass a law to reverse a previous law. Why should it be different here?
In answer primarily to the bold type question, it should be different here because it's a game. The FAQ explains that the NationStates UN operates quite differently from the real one and it also operates in a completely different manner from any legislature I can think of. Should "Monopoly" be an accurate reflection of property trading and development? Should "Cluedo" (or "Clue" for Americans) by an accurate representation of the investigation of a murder? No. Why should NationStates suddenly be beholden to a higher standard simply because it attempts to allow people to run a nation?

Firstly, the logic behind the resolution is flawed. It doesn't identify who's in the "Axis." Assuming that some members of this Axis are in the UN, then its effects benefit the "bad guys" as well as the "good guys".
So the logic is flawed. An argument could probably be mounted that the logic behind any resolution passed by the UN is flawed here. Certainly if you read the arguments for and against many of the "big ticket" proposals - "Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning" being the most recent one I can think of - people will claim that. The logic behind a proposal is never a major concern to the voting public, it seems.

Secondly, look at the datestamp. This resolution was passed BEFORE the site went live. This means that nearly all of the members states did not vote to ratify it. And now we can't get rid of it, eh? Doesn't the concept of the UN oppose from its core the power of three NONEXISTENT nations to dictate terms to a large portion of the rest of the world?
I have long wondered along lines similar to Naleth's suggestion above, that the resolution in question may actually have just been a code test. My assumption is that if that is the case, it may not have had any effects whatsoever.
However, if we leave that alone, we're left with the "three nonexistent nations" business. Well, I'm tempted to say that both the real world and NationStates UNs do have policy dictated by a smaller number of members than the full membership. In the real world we can see the Permanent Members of the Security Council (especially in the Cold War era) able to dictate policy on quite a grand scale. Here, we have the approvals of a proposal by the delegates - clearly there are fewer delegates than there are member nations. Even further to that, fewer nations vote on resolutions than are members of the UN.
The fact that they're non-existent doesn't really matter to me. Non-existent nations have voted on (and in fact have proposed) many of the resolutions passed so far. Nations who've voted on the most recent resolutions will also cease to exist at some point. Are you suggesting that these votes and proposals are also null and void?

I'm going to resubmit my proposal, but I would ask that you let its merits -- along with the merits of allowing the UN to repeal its own resolutions -- be judged in the open and by the whole UN membership.
And I'm going to tell you right now that that's not going to happen. If I see that proposal, I will delete it. If it appears a third time, you will be ejected from the UN. Just because you're capable of arguing points doesn't mean you get any preferential treatment.
As for the merits of the UN repealing resolutions, that is an issue which needs to be resolved before you re-submit the proposal, or else the proposal will simply be a game mechanics issue. I'm personally in favour of allowing repeal votes, it'd make my life a darn sight easier by cutting down on the number of things that need to be checked for in the proposal queue. Unfortunately, I'm not Max and I'm not [violet] so I can't make that change. All I can do is to tell people not to propose the repealing of resolutions and explain why it is that they've been warned for doing so.

Actually no, I'm not asking for stats to be reset.
Incorrect. If you join the UN, your stats are amended in accordance with the resolutions which have been passed. If a resolution is repealed, it is effectively "un-passed" and thus the stats in relation to it would need to be re-set.
This is the manner in which the game works.

Any legislative body should have the power to enact, amend and repeal laws (whatever laws they may be). That is what legislatures do.
Yep. I agree. However, the mechanics of this legislative body do not allow for repealing and only allow for amendments on an exceedingly limited scale (I have a worked example of an amendment that I must remember to post soon). No matter how realistic this game might have become for some players, it's ultimately a game and as a game it isn't bound to operate in the same manner the real world does. This happens to be one of those times.

Laws (and for our purposes, resolutions) may become dated over time, and when they do they should be changed. Look at the amendments made to the United States' Constitution for an example: The Eighteenth Amendment prohibited the sale of alcohol. Later on, the citizenry decided that booze is good (well, it's more complex than that, but I digress) and the Twenty-First Amendment was enacted to repeal the Eighteenth.
While I appreciate the history lesson, it's largely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The example you've provided is of a real-world legislature which has the powers you've previously enumerated (enaction, repealing and amendment of legislation). As I've said, this mock-legislature doesn't have those powers.
Furthermore, you might be interested to note that this is what makes it a game mechanics resolution (that is to say, it's a slightly more legalistic interpretation of the reason given earlier). If the game doesn't have particular powers and yet you want to exercise them, you are in effect calling for the game mechanics to be altered to allow said powers.

It's not just the US that does it. In essence, any parliamentary body needs to pass a law to reverse a previous law. Why should it be different here?
In answer primarily to the bold type question, it should be different here because it's a game. The FAQ explains that the NationStates UN operates quite differently from the real one and it also operates in a completely different manner from any legislature I can think of. Should "Monopoly" be an accurate reflection of property trading and development? Should "Cluedo" (or "Clue" for Americans) by an accurate representation of the investigation of a murder? No. Why should NationStates suddenly be beholden to a higher standard simply because it attempts to allow people to run a nation?

Firstly, the logic behind the resolution is flawed. It doesn't identify who's in the "Axis." Assuming that some members of this Axis are in the UN, then its effects benefit the "bad guys" as well as the "good guys".
So the logic is flawed. An argument could probably be mounted that the logic behind any resolution passed by the UN is flawed here. Certainly if you read the arguments for and against many of the "big ticket" proposals - "Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning" being the most recent one I can think of - people will claim that. The logic behind a proposal is never a major concern to the voting public, it seems.

Secondly, look at the datestamp. This resolution was passed BEFORE the site went live. This means that nearly all of the members states did not vote to ratify it. And now we can't get rid of it, eh? Doesn't the concept of the UN oppose from its core the power of three NONEXISTENT nations to dictate terms to a large portion of the rest of the world?
I have long wondered along lines similar to Naleth's suggestion above, that the resolution in question may actually have just been a code test. My assumption is that if that is the case, it may not have had any effects whatsoever.
However, if we leave that alone, we're left with the "three nonexistent nations" business. Well, I'm tempted to say that both the real world and NationStates UNs do have policy dictated by a smaller number of members than the full membership. In the real world we can see the Permanent Members of the Security Council (especially in the Cold War era) able to dictate policy on quite a grand scale. Here, we have the approvals of a proposal by the delegates - clearly there are fewer delegates than there are member nations. Even further to that, fewer nations vote on resolutions than are members of the UN.
The fact that they're non-existent doesn't really matter to me. Non-existent nations have voted on (and in fact have proposed) many of the resolutions passed so far. Nations who've voted on the most recent resolutions will also cease to exist at some point. Are you suggesting that these votes and proposals are also null and void?

I'm going to resubmit my proposal, but I would ask that you let its merits -- along with the merits of allowing the UN to repeal its own resolutions -- be judged in the open and by the whole UN membership.
And I'm going to tell you right now that that's not going to happen. If I see that proposal, I will delete it. If it appears a third time, you will be ejected from the UN. Just because you're capable of arguing points doesn't mean you get any preferential treatment.
As for the merits of the UN repealing resolutions, that is an issue which needs to be resolved before you re-submit the proposal, or else the proposal will simply be a game mechanics issue. I'm personally in favour of allowing repeal votes, it'd make my life a darn sight easier by cutting down on the number of things that need to be checked for in the proposal queue. Unfortunately, I'm not Max and I'm not [violet] so I can't make that change. All I can do is to tell people not to propose the repealing of resolutions and explain why it is that they've been warned for doing so.
The amendment that repealed Prohibition did not strike the amendment that started it, it merely stated that it was no longer valid. Both amendments still exist, only one is now valid. I believe that this is what the author was going for. It doesn't require that we wipe out resolutions, just place resolutions that repeal them that would exist in the lineage in the same manner that the Prohibition amendments do. This would require no game mechanics influence whatsoever. Especially since the resolutions are already chornologically ordered.

I would have used the amendment numbers, but I was educated in California, so I don't know them.....

(The Amendment numbers should be 18 and 21, although I reserve the right to be one out either way. The 21st Amendment is the Someone-Something Act.)

Cannot think of a name, you never cease to amaze me. On the one hand, you want a proposal/resolution to be removed because it violates a previously-passed resolution and on the other you support a proposal which removes the validity of a previously-passed resolution. Now, I don't pretend to live inside your head but I don't think those two positions are mutually tenable.
As for the claim that it wouldn't require a game mechanics change to implement this hybrid solution, you are mistaken. If a resolution is invalidated, its effects would need to be "reset". To take the example of Prohibition, which seems to be astoundingly popular here at the moment, as soon as the 21st Amendment was passed, the 18th was made invalid, correct? Therefore, anyone who claims that alcohol sales are still prohibited is incorrect, right? Apply that logic here - as soon as we pass the "Repeal Resolution X" proposal, Resolution X becomes invalid. It's still on the books, sure, but whatever it sought to do is not being done (or sought to be done) anymore. If Resolution X was an International Security concern, then the "Repeal Resolution X" resolution will invalidate whatever Security measures were taken by Resolution X. How that isn't a game mechanics change is beyond me.

As I say, no matter how realistic the game may be - it's a game. To seek to apply real-world legalities to a game in which nations of elves fly around in spaceships fighting against aliens (and yes this does happen) is ludicrous in the extreme.

The issue of repealing resolutions has been discussed ad nauseam (and ad nausea, I would suspect) at both a Player and Mod level. The arguments are well-rehearsed and little can be gained by re-hashing this again and again. If [violet] eventually gets around to allowing a "Repeal" option, then that will be great. Unless and until that occurs, can we accept that game mechanics proposals will be deleted?

Actually no, I'm not asking for stats to be reset.
Incorrect. If you join the UN, your stats are amended in accordance with the resolutions which have been passed. If a resolution is repealed, it is effectively "un-passed" and thus the stats in relation to it would need to be re-set.
This is the manner in which the game works.

:?

I'm sorry, but I get cunfused by this. So if I join the UN, my nation's stats will be amended according to all resolutions prior to my entry? I was under the impression that old resolutions didn't affect the stats? What happen if I resign, join, resign, and join? Will my stats then be amended three times in total?

I'm not exactly sure (SalusaSecondus would probably be the person to ask). All I know is that it was demonstrated several months ago that previously-passed UN resolutions will have an effect on newly joined nations. I don't know exactly how it works from there.

Without trying to provoke the anger of the Mods:

It seems to me that a repeal resolution would not necessarily be a matter of game mechanics. Most resolution catagories exist so that there are catagories that would in effect invalidate the stats. An example: International Security and Global Disarmament. One increases military budget, the other one cuts it. If you had a resolution to increase spending (International Security) and you wanted to repeal it, you'd simply specify Global Disarmament. Alternativly, some catagories have "Legalize/Outlaw" as options rather than "Strength", which would in effect cause the stats to be repealed as long as the text of the resolution repealing the old amendment. Granted, I do not know the exact stat ratio modifiers, but if I were the programmer mine would be opposites, and I'm guessing that these are too. Even if they are not, the point still holds that the general effect would be valid even if the math involved is not perfect.

Your thoughts?

There are a few situations where that happens, yes. However, how do you go about repealing a "Furtherment of Democracy" resolution, given that "Retardation of Democracy" isn't a valid category.

As I've said before, the mods and [violet] have been talking about the concept of a "repeal" option. If it comes in, it comes in. Unless and until it does, can we leave the issue of repealing alone?

Ah yes, good point. Yes, I'll leave it alone and encourage the rest of the UN to do so with me.

Cannot think of a name, you never cease to amaze me. On the one hand, you want a proposal/resolution to be removed because it violates a previously-passed resolution...

This key miss-interpretation of what I have been calling for underlines the whole issue. Not once have I called for Mod intervention in the issue, not once have I insisted that the game mechanics to enact or enforce an issue. Quite the opposite, I have asked that this be left to the to the agency of the Member states themselves.

Deletion and removal has been your crusade, not mine. It has been my deepest desire to have the member states interact with each other without calling for the hand of god.

Recently a nation decided to announce that they where rounding up homosexuals, despite UN decrees. Another announced that they had laws to ignore UN decrees. No one, least of all myself, has insisted on any hand of god. They simply RP'd the situation. That is all I have asked for, the agency to RP our votes in assembly.

If the text truly does not matter, than we should have agency. But you are bound and determined to insist that the text be mechanical, and furthermore insist that is my intent as well. I have never asked for that. In fact, I have asked, begged, pleaded that the issue of the text be left to the RP of the member states.

And if it's left to be RPd by the member states, why should it be passed by the UN?

And if it's left to be RPd by the member states, why should it be passed by the UN?
Why would anything be passed? Why have text at all?

I'm not exactly sure (SalusaSecondus would probably be the person to ask). All I know is that it was demonstrated several months ago that previously-passed UN resolutions will have an effect on newly joined nations. I don't know exactly how it works from there.

Ok, I'll take this to tech! Thanks!

Sorry about the off-topic interruption.

And if it's left to be RPd by the member states, why should it be passed by the UN?
Why would anything be passed? Why have text at all?
That's not what I said. If the UN exists (here) to inflict obedience to a particular set of ideals, what good is passing a voluntary resolution, which is what this would be?

Why should it be repealed in the first place?

And if it's left to be RPd by the member states, why should it be passed by the UN?
Why would anything be passed? Why have text at all?
That's not what I said. If the UN exists (here) to inflict obedience to a particular set of ideals, what good is passing a voluntary resolution, which is what this would be?
As I had pointed out, the text of all resolutions are voluntary to some degree or another. If we where allowed to play the game within the text we would be creating procedure and politics rather than the cookie jar that exists now. By the standard you are impossing no resolution should ever be defeated. It doesn't matter if the resoltution is "Puppies are our New Masters, all hail the puppies." Beyond the cookies, there is nothing to enforce any portion of the text, which is why it should be left to us and not the 'gods.' Any other piece of the text is left to us to enforce, why should these be any different? The mod's don't regularly cruise RP threads deleting UN states that 'say' the have nukes or round up gays, the member states themselves enforce it. Yet here we are not trusted to play the game ourselves, merely collect cookies and wave at the floats as they go by.

You are imposing pagentry, not parlimantry.

Well if that's the case, then enjoy the pageantry then.