NationStates Jolt Archive

hey, just would like to remind u that befor you make a proposal, check the "UN Resolutions Through History" because people are flooding the proposal list with things that have already been passed as a resolution, and some people submit things that contridict passed resolutions, so dont waste our time. Like i see resolutions to ban gay marrage, and there is a resolution that has been passed to give gays the right to marry the same sex, so suggesting we ban that is stupid. We already voted on it, so let it be.

First off, it is ok to pass a resolution which contridicts an old one. Even in RR in the USA, the USA made an amendment that overuled an older one, that was the one about prohibition. Plus there are many more UN nations and different nations in this game that did not vote on those resolutions before. Plus if a resolution was close, then maybe there should be a voting on the same resolution again. Thats just my thoughts about it though.

Repeal at your own risk, people.

:agrees with Enodia:

I'd go with what he says, given his position as UN mod.

Is there something wrong with making a resolution which repeals an old one? I am not totally sure, could a mod please tell me?

Is there something wrong with making a resolution which repeals an old one? I am not totally sure, could a mod please tell me?

Oh no... Its just when some one tries to they often find frying-pans, billiard cues and lines of moderator induced code falling from the sky to pummel the ground all around them... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

It is real simple...

Do not post a proposal that contradicts and/or enfringes upon a passed resolution.

Do not post a proposal that repeals or invalidates a passed resolution.

Whether or not a proposal meets these standards... is up the the player making the proposal.

Proceed at your own risks.

Is there something wrong with making a resolution which repeals an old one? I am not totally sure, could a mod please tell me?
Despite popular support for appeals and repeals, they will not happen (within NS at least. We'll have to see for NS2). Why? Because it stuffs up the game mechanics too much.

Is there something wrong with making a resolution which repeals an old one? I am not totally sure, could a mod please tell me?
Despite popular support for appeals and repeals, they will not happen (within NS at least. We'll have to see for NS2). Why? Because it stuffs up the game mechanics too much.
Zigacktly.

And might I add that this is contained in the Sticky entitled "Before You Make A Proposal..." at the top of the forum. What might also make salutary reading is the description of what will happen to any nation caught trying to repeal resolutions.

Enodia, I am think you'll be saving time simply by telling them straight up, the truth.

They'll be set on fire by demonic house appliances.

Ahem, did I say that out loud? (Darn'd, no angel with halo emoticon!)

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Is there something wrong with making a resolution which repeals an old one? I am not totally sure, could a mod please tell me?
Despite popular support for appeals and repeals, they will not happen (within NS at least. We'll have to see for NS2). Why? Because it stuffs up the game mechanics too much.

I've read that many times before. I don't see what is so difficult about it. I would seriously like to know why it's not possible if I might ask. I do no a little bit about programming.

I can't remember who wrote this, but thank you for doing so:

Imagine there are three nations, A, B and C. A and B are in the UN. A makes a human rights proposal which becomes resolution, thus raising civil rights. C joins the UN. B then repeals the resolution, thereby lowering civil rights. A and B therefore have the same civil rights as before the original resolution. C, however, has been unfairly penalised, because their civil rights have been lowered overall.

Does that make sense then? I seem to remember Enodia agreeing with this story.

I can't remember who wrote this, but thank you for doing so:

Imagine there are three nations, A, B and C. A and B are in the UN. A makes a human rights proposal which becomes resolution, thus raising civil rights. C joins the UN. B then repeals the resolution, thereby lowering civil rights. A and B therefore have the same civil rights as before the original resolution. C, however, has been unfairly penalised, because their civil rights have been lowered overall.

Does that make sense then? I seem to remember Enodia agreeing with this story.

No that still makes no sense to me. I guess I don't understand the mechanics of the game itself.

Okay, I'll have a go:

Step 1) Nation "A" and "B" join the U.N.

Step 2) Nation "A" is a member makes a proposal, which passes and increases civil rights a peg for all member nations.

Step 3) A third nation, Nation "C" join the U.N. but because of gamemechanics, does not get the civil rights raise that "A" and "B" got because they entered after the raise.

Step 4) Nation "B" gets a repeal of the passed proposal. Civil rights go down a peg in all member nations.

Step 5) However, Nation "C", having joined after the original proposal was passed has not gotten the original raise in civil rights like the other two nations did, has their civil rights go down a peg then what they originally were.

Because Nation "A" and "B" are not really affected negatively by all this activity its not so bad for them, but Nation "C" has joined and just had their civil right penalised simply for being involved.

As such, the general conclusion has been, "What price repeals?"

That help?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Thank you Komokom, for making a far clearer explanation than I made.

Komokom's explanation (and Enn's, for that matter) is bang on the money. We're currently hamstrung by the fact that every single resolution changes the statistics of every single member.
The good news is that - last I heard - people with important administrative titles were nutting out how repeals could work.