The Executive Power of Veto
This proposal states:
1. That after any resolution is passed, there shall be a week long period in which a nation shall have the power to veto the passed Resolution.
2. And that if a total number of nations equal to 25 percent of the nations voting for the resolution veto the resolution, that resolution shall not be passed.
Equility
18-01-2004, 18:34
This proposal states:
1. That after any resolution is passed, there shall be a week long period in which a nation shall have the power to veto the passed Resolution.
2. And that if a total number of nations equal to 25 percent of the nations voting for the resolution veto the resolution, that resolution shall not be passed.
Don't think UN mechanics will allow it.
Emperor Matthuis
18-01-2004, 19:56
It changes game mechanics which isn't aloud support one that corrects the past euthiansia bill :P
Frisbeeteria
18-01-2004, 20:16
It changes game mechanics which isn't aloud support one that corrects the past euthiansia bill :P
from http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115949
You can't repeal passed resolutions. The proposal has been deleted and I will warn any one else who tries to repeal it, amend it ,whatever, not to. It goes against game mechanics.
Stephanie
Game Moderator
or http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116250
I'm not going to make a ruling on this, right now. I'll leave this to someone with more experience in the UN.
Seeing as how the UN Proposal Rules were my baby when they first appeared, I should probably make it clear that my intent was for all "repeal" resolutions to be classed as Game Mechanics until the interface to repeal was created.
It's obviously an intent which will catch some well-written and well-argued proposals as well as many poorly-written and poorly-argued ones, but it fits with the other Proposal Rules as well - just because I can argue in favour of a morally-repugnant position or something much more spectacular (in game mechanics terms) than the repeal of a given resolution doesn't mean that I should be allowed to, while someone who can do neither is prevented from demonstrating that fact.
It's over. We're stuck with it. Can we just move on now, please?
The rules and the moderators would veto this proposal even before it reached quorum.
As Frisbeeteria said, it's here, we're stuck with it, move on.