NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, there are a total of six resolutions that help me in my case, most notably the ‘Definition of a ‘Fair Trial’’ resolution (looks as moderator’s role their eyes and sigh).
Now, the Six resolutions that help me in my case; first, the ‘Education For All’ resolution makes education free for anyone under the age of 16, passed on Wednesday, January 8, 2003, 4’515:1’081. The ‘Free education’ resolution makes education free for anyone under the age of 18, passed on Tuesday, August, 19, 2003, 11’276:3’264. The latter resolution overwrites, or nullifies, the original. Secondly, the 'Required Basic Healthcare' resolution' is by far one of the most intrusive powers given to the United Nations. This resolution originally gave the United Nations full authority to bring any capable nation up to-date, "within three (3) months, otherwise face UN ejection". You could plea your case to the United Nations and possibly get additional time, but not in excess of eighteen (18.) months, "to be granted only by and through the UN". This resolution was passed on Thursday, January 5, 2003, 10'137:7'154. However, this resolution was later altered by the '’RBH’ Replacement' resolution, which was passed 21 days later, 9'151:5'564. This altered and nullified many stipulations previously brought fourth in the 'Required Basic Healthcare' resolution, most notably the authority of the United Nations to enforce such actions. Also, perhaps even more remarkably, it redefines the 'Required Basic Healthcare' resolution as a "'reference-document resolution'" and is then used as a reference blue-print for Nations. Lastly, on Sunday, July 13, 2003, the 'Fair trial' resolution was passed 10'713:3'069: "We mai[n]tain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution"; again, giving the power back to the United Nations to strictly enforce this resolution or face "eviction". Now, on Saturday, February 14, 2004 (make note of the date), the 'Definition of "Fair Trial"' resolution passed 12'556:6'283. This resolution does not nullify the 'Fair trial' resolution; however, it clearly alters or redefines it. For those of you who have read my Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World, you may remember the edict issued to the United Nations on Friday, October 3, 2003.
Also, for those who have argued against using real-world politics and arguments for on-line politics and arguments; in the beautifully constructed, 'The Child Protection Act' resolution, the author bases the overall resolution within the real-world 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', which was adopted within the real-world United Nations on December 10, 1948 and the ‘International Covenants on Human Rights’ which was adopted I believe in 1966.
Even more remarkably, 'The Universal Bill of Rights' resolution specifically states that it "does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members". On the contrary, this legislature simply brings the United Nations members Nations' up to-date. "If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are her[e]by protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights". This resolution was so brilliantly worded as to not nullify, or alter, any previous resolutions passed by the United Nations or individual member Nations. Many laws alter or rephrase previous laws that are designed to answer the rights of children.
On Wednesday, February 18, 2004, Sophista, issues a post regarding writing resolutions. One of the most notable is the section on Amendments. Now, to be absolutely clear on this and it is to the best of my interpretation, Amendments must appear before a proposal is submitted, not after. This maintains the logic that repeals and Amendments may not be submitted. This of course is after the February 14 passing of the 'Definition of ‘Fair Trial’' resolution. It is my belief that this is just another attempt to end such alterations and nullifications of proposals. Again, however, putting more and more limits on what a proposal can and can't be. I for one agree that there should be set guidelines on what a proposal can and can't be which has been a long battle; I'm sure, for the moderators. Should there be guidelines, yes, should altering and nullifying a resolution be viewed as an illegal action? No. I come to this conclusion, even after Enodia generously explained the problem to me of why such action is a problem. This is how I explained it to myself: Nation A has a level of 5 Human Rights. Nation B has a level of 10 Human Rights. Nation C, the newbie, has 0 Human Rights. Nation A proposes a Human Rights Bill (which let's say raises their Human Rights level significantly 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 passes, then Nation A is at 0 Human Rights, Nation B, is at 5, and Nation C is at -5. Is this a problem, yes; is there a solution, yes. I'll admit that repealing resolutions is a source of this dilemma. How then can we, together as Nations, solve this?
Previous legislature I think was on to something. Their wording, most notably ‘The Universal Bill of Rights’ resolution, offers us some guideline to go off of when attempting to either redefine or bring other United Nations members up to-date. It’s not that a referendum can’t be done it’s that there are hurdles we must overcome before bringing about such a system. Instead of arguing against such actions, we should agree that such action can be taken (it has been going on for a long time), but there must be some limits to it; some guidelines. How do we solve this problem and continue to further the purpose, indeed the very fabric that binds us together as the Peoples and Nations of the world, of the United Nations.

Hmm. Interesting point - to what extend can newer resolutions amend older ones? I'd like to hear from Enodia on this as there clearly have been resolutions like that - such as the Fair Trial Amendment - which have been passed.

Some early thoughts - the Fair Trial Amendment didn't change the Right to a Fair Trial resolution, it added to it, since the earlier amendment lacked a decent definition.

I have no idea whether the mods would delete proposals that sought to make major changes to previous resolutions without actually repealing them. I'll leave that to them for answer.

But I would like the UN to be able to pass resolutions to plug holes in earlier laws - the Universal Copyright/Patent Law is another example, since this mandates a universal law without stating what that law is. A follow-up amendment to define the new law wouldn't be a repeal and so ought to be OK.

Over to Enodia, if he's out there...

I wrote an amendment to the Euthanasia resolution which closed certain loopholes etc., but when I asked in Moderation, they said no.

Sometimes amendments go through, maybe it depends on who is on watch at the time.

Some helpful amendments have been made; it may help if the originator of the original proposal gives the ok.

hmmmm,,, this is a thread that points out some very good points. Bytek certainly did his home work to research these points. I can't wait to see the upcoming arguments for this one..

Sometimes amendments go through, maybe it depends on who is on watch at the time.

Some helpful amendments have been made; it may help if the originator of the original proposal gives the ok.

That would be a point worth considering. The 'Required Health Care' and 'RHC Replacement' resolutions I think came from the same author. This is a very valid point. For starters, I think we should allow Amendments. The worst they can do is alter a resolution, but still have a positive effect. Repeals, however, is where the real problem is.

Sometimes amendments go through, maybe it depends on who is on watch at the time.

Some helpful amendments have been made; it may help if the originator of the original proposal gives the ok.

That would be a point worth considering. The 'Required Health Care' and 'RHC Replacement' resolutions I think came from the same author. This is a very valid point. For starters, I think we should allow Amendments. The worst they can do is alter a resolution, but still have a positive effect. Repeals, however, is where the real problem is.

Many of those resolutions were passed in the absence of adequate Mod scrutiny. To whit:

Wednesday, January 8, 2003
I was not a Game Mod at the time and any Mods we had with UN-zapping powers were dealing with the wave of griefers which had originally mandated their appointment (although I don't think we had any for starters). I was also out of the country.

August, 19, 2003
At the time I had assignments coming out of my ears and was also having major internet access problems.

January 5, 2003
As for JAN 8

21 days later
I still was not a Mod at this time.

July 13, 2003
I was there and approved this one.

February 14, 2004
I assume that the parenthetical "make note of the date" refers to the fact that it was made after my Sticky Post appeared. This is true, however at the time I was on a Leave of Absence for personal reasons from Moderating.

'The Child Protection Act'
When was this one passed? I remember it passing, but not the date. Before anyone says to look it up on the "History" page, that page and my browser have long had disagreements.

February 18, 2004, Sophista
This document was published following consultation between the player and myself (an egregious grammatical error I can't be bothered fixing). The intent was - as I recall - to make my life simpler by making it even clearer what the rules were about proposals.
It codified and sanctioned the now common practice of posting a draft of your proposal on this forum before posting it to the queue.

It’s not that a referendum can’t be done it’s that there are hurdles we must overcome before bringing about such a system. Instead of arguing against such actions, we should agree that such action can be taken (it has been going on for a long time), but there must be some limits to it; some guidelines. How do we solve this problem and continue to further the purpose, indeed the very fabric that binds us together as the Peoples and Nations of the world, of the United Nations.
The major hurdle, as I have previously made abundantly clear, is that the game won't allow it at the moment.
Yes, I know it's all about real-world political simulation and everything, but stop for a second and think about this. This isn't the real world. It is a game. Games have rules which players need to obey, no matter how stupid and unrealistic they might be. If you still want to view this as the real world, then, to paraphrase the Islamic Shahada, "There is no God but Max and [violet] is his prophet". That's basically what you're trying to ask for here - a major change in the functioning of this universe.

Your game hands out serious consequances to players for first time 'abusers'.

Oh, and I did get four different answers to my one question, with the most help coming from a non-moderator personage in the mIRC channels.

The the reason the game won't allow it now is because of the reasons you have mentioned already, such as: 1) if we were to allow repeals, it effectively removes the repealed resolution, thus, for new countries to the UN, it would be removing something that they themselves never even had to begin with. 2) This causes a drop-off in the newer countries "score" which logically doesn't make sense. Are these the only reasons? Or do I understand the problem through a moderators eyes now?

How do issues that float about in the game deal with this? As I have mentioned before, and I know what you've said, does this effectively do the same thing? In regard to the Euthinasia bill, it is a UN law; however, you have an option when you get the 'Cancer Sufferers Call for Euthinasia Bill', of the which is completly illogical and irrelevant for UN members, you can choose to not allow Euthinasia, which as a UN member breaks the law, plus, does it not have a negative effect on your "score"? We've talked about this before, but you have never answered it in this context. So, hypothetically, if Nation A and B are UN members, not new, they fall under the Euthinasia bill passed in the UN. When they get the 'Cancer Sufferers Call for Euthinasia Bill', due to their personal beliefs and perhaps in disagreement with the UN law, Nation A votes to not allow Euthinasia, while Nation B grants it. Nation A, from what you have informed me on how the game works with repeals and such, would have a negative deduction on their "score", perhaps not a drop-off if they have been in the UN a while, but is this loosely a repeal on a national level? Nation B, on the other hand, is not effected at all. Nation B would get a positive addition to their "score" in regards to social rights. Also, why aren't new UN member nations, not "grandfathered" in? This would solve a lot of the problems right there. If Nation A joins the UN in March and Nation B joined the UN in January, if they were "grandfathered" in, they both would be up-to-date with all UN regulations. This seems more practical, and yes more in line with the real-world, but I'm sure you have a good reason for this (seriously, I'm not being cynical).

Read this and 'Improved Rights of Nations'. Again, this futhurs my argument for repeals. For the love of all that is holy, if you have questions, comments, or are confused about anything, LET ME KNOW!!!

You moderators still aren't answering the forementioned questions.