NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Due to the recent passage of proposals forcing member states to accept prostitution and other moral rather than legal questions Armchairia proposes that such issues be left up to individual states to decide. The idea of the United Nations is to promote trade and cooperation between nations, and help ensure world peace. This proposal if passed will allow member states to decide issues like prostitution, drug use, abortion, gay marriage and any other moral questions for themselves. If passed it will immediately repeal such laws as legalized prostitution and euthanasia, leaving these matters for the individual nation to decide.

Much of this will be handled by the passage of the Rights and Duties of Member states proposal already pending. Being as it lacks a mere 23 approvals, lets all work to get this one to the floor of the United Nations.

I know that the nation of Shirresh has no intention of ever having a trial by jury save perhaps in small claims courts.

The nation of Sophista agrees with Shirresh on this issue. Rather than have ten proposals trying to accomplish the same thing, let's aim for having one proposal with ten times the support. Not only does this give the existing proposal a greater margin for success, but also gives the better proposal a greater margin of success.

The only qualifier you offer for what should be protected by national soveriegnty is what is "moral" or not, which leaves several significant holes in terms of enforcement and application. The definition of "moral" completely subjective depending on cultural and political standards that vary from nation to nation. Furthermore, several "moral" issues are of an international nature, among them refugees, human rights, just war theory, and oceanic environmentalism. All of these issues certainly require moral judgements, and yet each one also takes place within the international community.

Please, let us stick to whats been offered, especially when "what's offered" is as clean cut and well-written as the existing Frisbeetarian proposal.

This proposal would also fall under the category of game mechanics, as it seeks to prevent proposals about Recreational Drug Use (a valid category).

This proposal would also fall under the category of game mechanics, as it seeks to prevent proposals about Recreational Drug Use (a valid category).

What if it only repealed previous proposals but made no admininstrative mandate for future proposals?

The arguement in favour of this is, it may be that in the future we find ourselves wanting to pass another Recreational Drug Use MANDATE, but at the same time, perhaps in the here and now enough of us would like to see previous resolutions reworked.

If the assembly agrees, what difference should it make if it does not require the mods to change their normal operating proceedures?

The repealing of proposals is not possible under current UN regulations.

Lubria is absolutely right, you can't repeal previous resolutions. Neither can you repeal current resolutions nor can you institute policies to allow future ones to be repealed.

Lubria is absolutely right, you can't repeal previous resolutions. Neither can you repeal current resolutions nor can you institute policies to allow future ones to be repealed.

So does this mean if somebody proposed a resolution to make prostitution illegal, you'd disappear it?

Effectively that would repeal a previous resolution.

can we modify previous resolutions by form of ammendment?

Lubria is absolutely right, you can't repeal previous resolutions. Neither can you repeal current resolutions nor can you institute policies to allow future ones to be repealed.

So does this mean if somebody proposed a resolution to make prostitution illegal, you'd disappear it?

Effectively that would repeal a previous resolution.
Not only would I, I have disappeared close to 20 proposals saying variously "Prostitution should be illegal again", "The prostitution resolution should be repealed", "Prostitution should be a domestic issue rather than one for the UN" and so on.

can we modify previous resolutions by form of ammendment?
We're doing one now, MSL. You just have to step vewwy, vewwy cawefully.

I doubt this will pass....

Not only would I, I have disappeared close to 20 proposals saying variously "Prostitution should be illegal again", "The prostitution resolution should be repealed", "Prostitution should be a domestic issue rather than one for the UN" and so on.

So if we were to as a joke pass a resolution mandating the UN hire these now legal prostitutes, ten years from now the UN could not change its mind?
[OOC: Why are the game rules constructed that the UN can never change direction? I'm just curious here. I can obviously play the game with these rules, but they do seem rather arbitary and to generate a lot more work on the part of the mods.]

Not only would I, I have disappeared close to 20 proposals saying variously "Prostitution should be illegal again", "The prostitution resolution should be repealed", "Prostitution should be a domestic issue rather than one for the UN" and so on.

So if we were to as a joke pass a resolution mandating the UN hire these now legal prostitutes, ten years from now the UN could not change its mind?
[OOC: Why are the game rules constructed that the UN can never change direction? I'm just curious here. I can obviously play the game with these rules, but they do seem rather arbitary and to generate a lot more work on the part of the mods.]
In answer to the first question, yes that certainly seems to be the case.

In answer to the second: I'm honestly not sure. Max has said on various occasions that he had no idea about how massive the game would become when he created it. This generally seems to explain the dodgy server and lack of issues complaints, but I think it also goes some way to explaining how the UN behaves.
Because nobody anticipated NS becoming the active community that it has (with meetups and dating - both real and online - and so on), then nobody would have thought about the possibility that people would want to reverse the way the UN had previously decided.
At least, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

In answer to the second: I'm honestly not sure. Max has said on various occasions that he had no idea about how massive the game would become when he created it. This generally seems to explain the dodgy server and lack of issues complaints, but I think it also goes some way to explaining how the UN behaves.
Because nobody anticipated NS becoming the active community that it has (with meetups and dating - both real and online - and so on), then nobody would have thought about the possibility that people would want to reverse the way the UN had previously decided.
At least, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[OOC: Thanks for the quick and honest reply.

Second, as somebody who years ago was active in Model United Nations programs, I'm not at all surprised to see the level of interest your (I say that collectively) has with people. In fact, in many ways it is superior to the role-playing exercises that many high school and college students world-wide go through in that it is what I'd call "multidimensional". In a MUN program people are assigned a set of beliefs and policies to advocate for. Here we get to see via the game rules, how our decisions not only measure up to our neighbors, but how over time they evolve.

I'm not going to advocate that you make a MUN, but I will point out that when issues for our individual nations repeat, we as individual NationStates have a chance to change our minds. The UN *should* have this IMHO and in fact, this too would be a very interesting political dynamic.

The current system clearly is only getting a very small pool of the players in NationStates UN visiting the forum. Look at the thread views, and I see none approaching the 1,000s of nations voting on UN resolutions. While this in in their right, I think the very "flow of the UN" was created to make it easy for people to ignore the discussions. And this is a shame, because it is in interacting with other human players that a whole new level of play is introduced into the game.

Frisbeetria pointed out that many complaints about wanting a specific language resolution vs. a vague one constantly change. I think the UN should too.

With this in mind, I hope that in a future version of the game that you will decide to allow the UN to at the very least overturn its decisions. If you are worried about people being stuck in the same old debate, put a mechanism in the moderation that mandates a "trial period" when you can't change a resolution, but say after a year or two you can. I think this is a compromise between keeping our discussions moving into ever new topics and preventing stagnation.

So while I understand sticking to your theory, please consider in future versions to change this.

BTW: I also noticed you said that game is low on issues. Can I contribute some? Living in California and working for the government, I think I can generate a few ones where there are very real life trade-offs, but do not have EASY answers.

-Michael [/OOC]

The game isn't necessarily "low on issues" as such. It was more a complaint made several months ago when we only had 30-something issues. We've now got (last I heard) 80-odd and growing.
You're most welcome to come up with some ideas. When next you receive an issue, there should be a link on the screen saying something like "Want to contribute an issue to NationStates? Do it here". Click on the link and you'll be given some information about how to do so - as well as the form to actually type it into for submission. It'll take a while before anyone actually codes your issue into the game, but rest assured that it will be read over.

Regarding repeals and so on, we've taken this up with the powers that be before. The trick seems to actually be working out a viable code to do what we want when we say "Repeal Resolution". Also, it's looking more and more as if it would be an NS2 feature, rather than here. Rest assured, NS2 will anticipate its own popularity :wink:

Also, it's looking more and more as if it would be an NS2 feature, rather than here. Rest assured, NS2 will anticipate its own popularity :wink:

This is exciting news. I can't wait to see what it is like. Is there a thread of the forums section where people can offer up ideas? I'd like to offer a few minor modest suggestions.

There's an entire forum called "NationStates 2". Load up the index of the forums and it should be the last one on the list. Small and quiet are the operative words, but the people in there know what's what (thankfully).

ooc: I have read one explanation for the absence of repeals that makes sense to me: it is the game mechanics.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a UN member nation is only effected by Resolutions that pass after it has joined. The problem lies in that the game doesnt "remember" what nations were effected by what resolutions, it only calculates the effect that the resolutions had. If a resolution (and its effect) were to be repealed, the game would not "remember" which nations to repeal the effect from, and would compensate nations for resolutions that had never effected them.

I can't claim to be very experienced with NationStates, nor that I am an expert, but I believe Myopia offered this explanation in another thread.

Does this click with what other people know?

Sincerely,
Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore

can we modify previous resolutions by form of ammendment?
We're doing one now, MSL. You just have to step vewwy, vewwy cawefully.

Frisbeeteria, are you saying that the Rights and Duties of Nations resolution is effectively repealing amendmants? If so, I'm afraid I dont see quite how. I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me on the subject.

I would like to find a way out of the prostitution legalization, so this might be another good reason to vote for your amendmant.

Sincerely,
Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore

Frisbeeteria, are you saying that the Rights and Duties of Nations resolution is effectively repealing amendmants?
Not mine, Ninjadom's. The Fair Trade Amendment.

Well thats a pity. (down with prostitution)

I still feel like i am missing something though. I will have to read the free trade proposal again. I also dont see the connections within the thread, but life isnt simple.

When understanding hits me I will be sure to say "wow i cant believe i didnt get that before", put on a party hat and find some drink.

Although I remember seeing a "Free Trade Amendment" proposal listed earlier today, I was unable to locate it this evening. It certianly looks like it has disappeared.

I will have to read the free trade proposal again.
Arrrrrgh. Server lag prevents timely edits.

Fair Trial Amendment

:D Server lag may drive people to legalize euthanasia, but i manage.

Your argument suddenly springs into clarity before my eyes. Thank you for that!

I have also found another instance of "almost repeal." The Resolution
titled "RBH Replacement" was enacted on Jun 26 2003.

To quote the purpose of the replacement:

"It is realized that the United Nations resolution “Require Basic Healthcare” promotes social justice through the statement “basic healthcare is not a luxury, but rather it is a moral imperative”, yet it inhibits the rights of national sovereignty by imposing fairly rigid guidelines. This resolution requires the following steps to be taken: 1) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be no longer enforced by the UN. 2) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be re-classified as a “reference- document resolution”. A reference-document resolution is defined as: a prior, passed resolution that is no longer enforced by the UN, but rather, can be used at a nation’s discretion as a suggestion, kept on record by the UN, that will help nations formulate or adopt different, similar, or identical laws to be passed by each individual nation through their own government process(es). "

I wonder if the rules have changed since then? or perhaps nobody has tried this approach. It is worthy of an attempt! espscially if this resolusion is cited as a precedent.

The RBH and Replacement took place before the current rules on repeal, I believe. NationStates was a much younger world then, and much has changed.

The battle for repeals has been often fought and always lost. While NSII will no doubt be more forgiving, there are no plans at present to enable repeals in NS. If you want to enhance existing law, then phrase your proposals most carefully and (I recommend) post them to the UN Forum for refinement and revision before dumping them into the proposal queue. If you want to repeal existing law, I strongly recommend you simply abandon the idea.

Curses! Foiled again! the Fokker Triplane of the Red Baron spirals downward toward the German countryside as Snoopy begins a victory lap through the skies.

haha i finally get to use this face :evil: He looks grumpy, doesnt he?

The membership of the UN is an issue of the Nationstates social contract. The terms are fairly specific: if you don't like issues of morality influencing your local legislation, then don't be a part of the UN. I will not support a non-binding intergovernmental agency that lacks just that, agency. IF we, as a democracy, think that a resolution is a good idea, it needs some mechanism of enforcement, or else it becomes empty rhetoric, like in the RL. I deplore such a piece of legislation. However, I rightly agree that this issue ought to be voted on, because I actually believe in a participatory, equal and binding entity, constituted by the people.

The membership of the UN is an issue of the Nationstates social contract. The terms are fairly specific: if you don't like issues of morality influencing your local legislation, then don't be a part of the UN. I will not support a non-binding intergovernmental agency that lacks just that, agency. IF we, as a democracy, think that a resolution is a good idea, it needs some mechanism of enforcement, or else it becomes empty rhetoric, like in the RL. I deplore such a piece of legislation. However, I rightly agree that this issue ought to be voted on, because I actually believe in a participatory, equal and binding entity, constituted by the people.

The Ayatollah of Nathaniistan

Regarding the "near-repeals" and "semi-amendments" that sometimes appear, there's a thread in the Moderation forum which I would post the URL for if the server would let me. Basically, it contains the logic I use to allow/disallow amendment proposals, so if you're planning on amending something then you'd do well to have a look at it.

This was my first proposal so I am still learning. Thanks for the advice.

You can't repeal laws but you can pass a law nullifying it.

You can't repeal laws but you can pass a law nullifying it.
To clarify - your nation can pass laws as to how it is interpreted in your country. With clever phrasing, the effect of the law can be minimized while your nation manages to adhere to the letter of the law.

Following UN law is NOT optional for UN members, but smart leaders can figure out ways to live with them.