NationStates Jolt Archive

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; among these inherent rights is the right to challenge any Authority or decree. It not only is our inherent right, but it is also our obligation as the Peoples and Nations of this world. For years the U.N. has gone unchecked, free to do what they will. Granted, they preach Democracy and the advancement of Civilization, but at what cost? Are we to continue to sit in these tranquil halls of the U.N., heedlessly neglecting that given right to challenge their Authority? We are given the right to debate these resolutions. We are granted the right to express our views; need not look further then this very post. Why are we then not granted the right to challenge or alter resolutions that passed years ago when times have indeed changed? Does this not seem commonsensical? Why does such a once pristine organization refuse to grant its Nations one of the very rights, indeed the very fabric that binds the Peoples of the world together: the right to challenge; to disagree; to change?
We need this right. We need this to continue the advancement of Democracy and Civilization, which is the very purpose of the U.N., indeed its very soul that I once thought I was a part of. There may be no easy solution to this problem; however, one such solution does exist, the use of Amendments. If a resolution was found to be unwarranted, then one or many nations may draft an Amendment, which would then proceed to the floor of the U.N. and be voted on. Once the Amendment is passed, it would alter or nullify the resolution. This system works very much in the same way as the system today. Then where does the problem lie? As already discussed, such actions may warrant “banning” of a Nation that attempts such actions; the very proposal thrown to the streets and never reaching the once sacred halls of the U.N.
The ‘United Nations Referendum’ would ensure such powers be granted to the Peoples and Nations of the world. The proposal itself does not have any immediate effect on the mechanics of NationStates. Consequently, the proposal does allow for such steps to be taken to challenge the Authoritarian. That is its sole purpose. Therefore, let it be said that the ‘United Nations Referendum’:

The Declaration of the ‘United Nations Referendum’

When in the course of Civilization such events do arise that warrant the inherent right to challenge any Authority or decree that the People and Nations of the world deem unwarranted. Given this right, and to fulfill our obligations as the Peoples and Nations of the world, We shall attempt to further the advancement of Democracy and Civilization. In doing so, We continue to further establish the United Nations back in to its former glory and indeed its very purpose in the world today.

Primary Articles of the Referendum

Article I. When such events do arise, the members of the U.N. are hereby granted full right to challenge any Authority or decree that they deem unwarranted.
Article II. Once such action is taken, the participating Nations, must draft an Amendment (the title of such proposals are as follows: the challenged resolution’s title, followed only by the word ‘Amendment’) and specifically state which resolution or parts of a resolution that they are attempting to nullify; their reasons for taking such action; and their solution or revisal of the challenged resolution or its parts.
Article III. ‘Popular support’ is shown through receiving 5%of Delegate approval. Once enough ‘popular support’ has been shown, the Amendment then proceeds to the floor of the U.N. were it may be debated and put to vote.
Article IV. Once a vote has been taken, and passed by a majority, the affects of the Amendment will be taken immediately, as described within the Amendment itself.
Article V. If the Amendment fails to receive a majority, it shall be granted that a second draft of the Amendment may be presented to the Delegates; the guidelines set in Articles III and IV shall again be followed a second time through.
Article VI. If an Amendment fails a second time, it shall be deemed null and void.
Article VII. A resolution may not be challenged a third time until 90 days have passed. Once the 90-day limit has passed, a resolution may be challenged again, following the guidelines of Articles III and IV.

Secondary Articles of the Referendum

Article I. Let it be said, that at no such time will any resolutions; past, present, or future, be removed. Only through an Amendment may resolutions be altered or nullified.
Article II. Let it be known, that the title of the proposal must follow the guidelines mentioned in Article II of the Primary Articles of the Referendum. This is important in showing that the proposal is attempting to change another resolution.
Article III. While Amendments are subtly different from regular resolutions, they may still be challenged in the same fashion as all other resolutions.

Final Articles of the Referendum

Article I. The power to uphold this document is hereby invested to the Peoples and Nations of the world pertaining to the U.N.
Article II. The power to alter or nullify any and all resolutions and Amendments; past, present, and future, are hereby granted to the Peoples and Nations of the world pertaining to the U.N.
Article III. All Articles and Declarations are hereby in effect until such alterations or nullifications are enacted upon them.

We are a People who pride themselves on being of an independent—self-reliant nature. Only a fool would fail to realize that We would not be where we are today, we would not be who we are today if it wasn’t for the dependency on the People and Nations that we surround ourselves by. So it is with a humble heart that the People of the Independent States of Bytek and the Nations of Yenartek show our utmost gratitude.

All questions, comments, criticisms, critiques, review’s, or whatnot are very welcomed. Please, feel free to post on this thread.

Please also read, A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World (found at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136948), it is long, but provides many arguments and answers for the need for such a resolution as this.

As a progressive I am all in favor of initiative, referendum and recall.
Have you run this by the mods? It has the look of somehting that might get booted for violating game mechanics. If you could get them to look at it and comment, it would be helpful.

I'd like to see a way opened for this proposal.

Thank you very much. The biggest argument is that this does change game mechanics, however, I do argue that it doesn't change it, not immediatly. It's one slipery-slope of an arguement. Please check out A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World. As I mentioned, it shows some very valid points and argues my case rather well. The people of Bytek and my good friend from Chernigov helped draft and edit the Declaration and was my insperation (and human US Constitution) for using the US Constitution as a grounds for an argument.

It seeks to change game mechanics by creating an avenue through which game mechanics can be changed. Ergo, illegal proposal.

It seeks to change game mechanics by creating an avenue through which game mechanics can be changed. Ergo, illegal proposal.

If you haven't read A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World, go here: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136948, it argues my case.

If you have read it then how can you still say that?

Detailed point-by-point rebuttal will appear at the thread specified within the next 15 minutes.

Detailed point-by-point rebuttal will appear at the thread specified within the next 15 minutes.

Outstanding! :)

Please, explain to me, like the "child" that I am, how does the games' mechanics work? How do the UN resolutions actually work with UN members? I'm in complete ignorance as to this fact. I've heard that there really isn't any effect by the UN resolutions, just that it's all glitz and galmour. Is this true? (By the way, I may have quit the UN, but that does not mean I am not going to continue my fight. Yes, "YOU WIN!", I will not submit such a proposal as I have been proposing. I quit the UN, as I have said, because it is a hypocritical Organization that preaches Democracy and the advancement of Civilization, yet it refuses to grant such simple rights. We are given the right to vote, yet it is only an illusion granted to us to feed our appetites for Democracy, all the while the UN continues its usurption of a once sacred hall.)

Please, explain to me, like the "child" that I am, how does the games' mechanics work? How do the UN resolutions actually work with UN members? I'm in complete ignorance as to this fact. I've heard that there really isn't any effect by the UN resolutions, just that it's all glitz and galmour. Is this true? (By the way, I may have quit the UN, but that does not mean I am not going to continue my fight. Yes, "YOU WIN!", I will not submit such a proposal as I have been proposing. I quit the UN, as I have said, because it is a hypocritical Organization that preaches Democracy and the advancement of Civilization, yet it refuses to grant such simple rights. We are given the right to vote, yet it is only an illusion granted to us to feed our appetites for Democracy, all the while the UN continues its usurption of a once sacred hall.)
You've asked a mouthful here. What follows is a very quick rundown which will probably produce more questions than it answers. All questions will be - or should be - answered when I finally have the time to put up the "Repeal FAQ: Why You Can't Do It".

Say I propose something classed as "Human Rights: Significant" and it gets passed. Immediately, all UN members' Human Rights improve by the maximum allowed - regardless of the text. If I said in the proposal, "Prisoners of Conscience should be freed", the result would be the same as if I'd said "I like birds".
Repeals, by their very nature, need to "unwire" this Human Rights increase - if they're repealing my proposal. The problem is that newer nations don't get grandfathered in and will therefore repeal something they never passed in the first place. Confused? Try this example.

Enodia joins the UN at the same time as Stephistan. Enodia proposes, and passes, a Human Rights proposal like the one listed above. Immediately, Enodia's Human Rights and Stephistan's Human Rights go up.
Two months later, Bytek joins the UN and does not receive the automatic Human Rights boost from the resolution passed by Enodia - as nations are not grandfathered in.
Stephistan proposes the repeal of Enodia's resolution and this passes. Enodia's Human Rights return to their original levels. Stephistan's do likewise. Bytek's, however, have a problem. As the proposal relates to all members, there should be a drop-off in Human Rights for Bytek, but as he wasn't in the UN at first, there's a strong argument that there shouldn't be a drop-off at all.

I think that makes sense, and thank you. Just to make sure I get it straight, and it might sound like I am repeating what you said, but, I'm typing it as though I'm trying to make sense of it. OK? Nation A, has a level of 5 Human Rights. Nation B, has a level of 10 Human Rights. Nation C, the newbee, has 0 Human Rights. Nation A proposes a Human Rights Bill (which let's say raises their Human Rights level by 5) and it passes long before the arrival of Nation C, which bring Nation A and B to the levels they are at today. Now, troublesome Nation C, wants to repeal the Human Rights bill. Let's say it happens, then Nation A is at 0 Human Rights, Nation B, is at 5, and Nation C is at -5. Solve for X. Is that what the problem is?

Spot on, at least as far as this (non-moderator) nation understands it.

Define drop-off?

I quit the UN, as I have said, because it is a hypocritical Organization that preaches Democracy and the advancement of Civilization, yet it refuses to grant such simple rights. We are given the right to vote, yet it is only an illusion granted to us to feed our appetites for Democracy, all the while the UN continues its usurption of a once sacred hall.)

In this context of the NS world, the UN is part of a bloody game!

Define drop-off?
If I repeal a resolution, the object of the exercise is to "undo" the effects it previously had. Pass a resolution banning the sale of alcohol and the repeal would, by default, aim to re-allow the sale of alcohol. Pass a resolution freeing Prisoners of Conscience and the repeal would relate in some way to locking them back up again.
Therefore, whatever Human Rights increase is applied when the original "Free Prisoners of Conscience" proposal is passed is reversed when it is repealed. That would make perfect sense where all nations were effected by both resolutions (and had their Human Rights go up by, say 25% and then down by 25%), but if a nation wasn't in the UN at the time the first proposal was passed, their Human Rights wouldn't receive the boost, but would receive the cut - which is a situation which doesn't really work logically, since the UN's repealed something which didn't originally apply to the nation in question.

Greetings,

When one says 'Human Rights of a nation increases,' does this translate into a nation's civil rights? Meaning, would you see a positive increase in the nation's 'Civil Rights' bracket? Or, is this mechanism how the U.N. calculates its daily rankings?

Any clarification would be great.

Thank you,

C Edward Adams
Commonwealth of Tarqys

Question for the MODS... How does this change game mechanics. Are you checking on nations to see if they are following UN Resolutions? Of course not. After all, so many National Issues violate the RIGHT TO CHOOSE Resolution that I think everyone who selects something is in violation. Everything to my knowledge is Role-Playing. A repeal change would be simple... if a resolution goes through the repeal process (a simple resolution to repeal another resolution already in place) all that is needed to be done is delete the resolution repealed. No changes needed. Just remove it from whatever section all the UN Resolutions are stored with a note (edited) saying Resolution repealed on (give date.)

OK adding another union of nations (League of Nations) will take time and server space. but repealing should be simple as deleting a file.