NationStates Jolt Archive

When in the course of Civilization such events do arise that warrant the inherent right; amongst the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, to challenge any Authoritarian or decree that the Peoples and Nations of the world deem unwarranted. Given this right, and to fulfill Our obligations as the Peoples and Nations of the world, We will continue to further the advancement of Democracy and Civilization for all of humanity. In doing so, We continue to further establish such political Organizations back in to Their former glory and indeed Their very purpose in the world today.

For years, such political Organizations have gone unchecked, free to do what They will. Granted, they preach such things as Democracy and the advancement of Civilization, but at what cost? Are We to believe that They truly have Our best interests in mind? Are We to continue to sit by, heedlessly neglecting that given right to challenge Their authority? Why does such a once pristine Organization refuse to grant to its Nations one of the very rights, indeed the very fabric that binds the Peoples and Nations of the world together: the right to challenge Their authority?

How then do We, together, come to a reasonable prescribed solution? A few answers do pose themselves as such a solution. For instance, being allowed to use Amendments would allow Us to clarify or alter previously passed resolutions in order to further their effectiveness. Amendments do not interfere with gaming mechanics. Their only purpose is to increase the effectiveness brought fourth by the original resolution. That is all. One of the more controversial solutions is the use of a referendum or repeal. Many view this as a direct violation of previously declared guidelines; however, it is not.

A repeal strictly nullifies the potency behind the purposed against resolution. For example, let’s say a resolution was passed that made the production and sales of alcohol illegal throughout the Organizations abiding members. If one were to repeal this resolution it would in effect nullify such a resolution. Some argue that this clearly changes gaming mechanics; on the contrary, no such changes are taking place. How? All the laws passed throughout Civilization are prescribed, agreed upon decrees that all abiding members willingly follow. To further support this argument it is necessary to address an issue previously brought fourth in ‘A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World’. A law legalizing euthanasia exists within such a political Organization. Being prescribed, it is agreed upon by a majority to be followed. A similar issue is presented to all the Nations of the world with different options to position ones government on. You may choose to follow the law passed by the political Organization, and if one pertains to the Organization it is their responsibility and obligation to maintain the law even when ones own views differ, or you may choose to ignore it and venture off on your own agenda, one of the tag-lines of this simulation. Though many agree this to be a simulated experience, nothing comes closer to portraying real-world politics than such an example. Therefore, if repeals were agreed upon by a majority to be enacted against resolutions, it would be the responsibility and obligation of all members to follow such actions. No gaming mechanics are being altered.

To further the argument, let us say that I feel that the euthanasia resolution should be repealed. I draft up a repeal and propose it to the Organization, it passes and takes effect immediately. The original euthanasia resolution is not removed, but its original potency is nullified. This does not mean that We must go back and remove its existence from the records. In fact it should remain their as a symbol of how the times have changed. When the repeal is proposed, it should be proposed as a resolution to continue the furtherment of democracy with strong implications behind it just like many resolutions before it. How can that apply to repeals? Repeals by their very nature increase the furtherment of democracy; the very purpose of our quest is to continue the ‘‘furtherment of democracy’’. The impact is strong on an abiding Nation; again by the very nature of repeals, the same could be said for Amendments. Again, none of the gaming mechanics are being changed. We are continuing to follow the guidelines already in place within the Organization.

Does this not seem commonsensical? We are not changing the gaming mechanics. All that we are asking is that the Organization, who up until now has continued to usurp the power from its Peoples and Nations, is to alter their way of thinking and slightly modify the guidelines that are in place, guidelines that exist only in a prescribed fashion; guidelines that exist only in Forums posted on the wall; guidelines that have the same potency and exist only through an agreement between abiding parties as the already existing laws. Again, We plea Our case to the Organization and await Their response before We take any further actions.

Sincerely,
The Independent States of Bytek

Any and all questions, coments, criticisms, ideas, and overall opinons are greatly welcome from all Nations of the world. Please, also read the forementioned 'A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World', which futher supports our argument and provides a foundation for our cause.

Give a man a podium and he shall speak for an hour. Tell a man that repeals will be forever off limits, and he'll compose a rant the likes of which will reduce you to tears. To that end, we present the same old "repeals don't work because of the fundamental mechanics involved in the UN" film that we've always shown.

Roll tape.


J: But Suzie, why can't we have repeals?

S: Well, Jimmy, it works a little like this. The UN computers don't keep track of who was a member when each resolution was passed. They just add a few pluses or minuses to every member's statistics when resolutions go through. If you had repeals, you'd be messing up the system.

J: Why though? Aren't they smart enough?

S: Not really. Let me put it to you this way. Lets say that Nations A and B are members of the UN, and they pass a resolution increasing human rights. The computer gives Nations A and B two points in human rights, and calls it a day. Three weeks later, Nation C joins. All of the sudden, the UN gets mad and repeals the resolution. Now, if repeals were allowed, the computers would just take two points away from human rights on everyone's statistics. But wait! Nation C wasn't around to get his two points, now he has negative two points and didn't even do anything.

J: Golly, Suzie. Thats hardly fair. Nation C shouldn't be affected by things he didn't do.

S: Thats right, Jimmy. And thats why repeals aren't allowed.


Questions?

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Thank you for the rather whimsical reply; however, I have already gone over this issue with Enodia in previous posts, specifically: 'Look At This Thread' and 'We Should Have Repeals, but I Understand The Problem', which uses your exact same video phrasing. I personally am fully aware of this issue, and have agreed with you moderators that it is indeed a problem. Maybe I am not speaking clearly.

If we had repeals. Nation A and C pass a resolution. Nation B joins two weeks later and repeals this law. Granted, this law actually does not have any effect on his nation, because he wasn't around when it happened. Since, as people have argued in the past, this is a role-playing game, since nations aren't "grandfathered" in, which still hasn't been answered why this is, wouldn't it be part of the role-playing to pretend that these laws do effect every nation, especially since we aren't "grandfathered" in, which again no one has explained why to me. Anyway, Nation B repeals the law.

What you moderators are calling for is that the computer goes back and "erases" or takes it down a notch for all exsiting countries at the time of the repeal, which in this case would be A, B, C. I strongly disagree, as was my argument in the above essay. This would be like passing a repeal on a law in real-life, going back in time when the law was previously passed and deleating all of its impacts. I'm not saying we should do this, that's not practical. I'm saying, again as I have argued, again, that repeals would be passed as a resolution for the 'furtherment of democracy' because, again and again as I have argued, that is exactly the nature of a repeal. This would only have a positive effect on all the nations. It's like saying, "Yeah, let's repeal this, its not right, we shouldn't have to do that anymore" and giving the People their right to do this, as argued before, is their inherent right, and is a very part of democracy itself.

My entire arguments over the past two weeks to you have been slowly attempting appeasements and compromises, yet, again, making it self-evident to everyone, you continue to not back down from your position and compromise or at least listen to what I am actually calling for. Again, while I argue nation B wanting to repeal the law passed by A and C when it doesn't have an effect on them, this is true, but what if nation C wanted to repeal the law when discovering its flaws back home or just that it doesn't work? Should they not have the right to repeal this?

Again, to reinterate, Nation A passes a law that mandates every nation build temples, it passes. Two weeks later, Nation B joins and wants this repealed, it works. Now, in this example, everyone built temples, let's say. Nation B, being new, doesn't have this, nor does he have to do this by law because he wasn't a part of the Organization before hand. This law was repealed let's say, you are saying that A would have to go back, destroy the building, and wipe out all the impact it had prior to the repeal. B you are saying, would gain negative points because...uh...he's practing democracy? Is that right? Want to make sure of this. Again, in my thinking, A passes law. B don't like law, law bad, but since joined later doesn't effect B. B repeals A's law. A keeps building, the law prior to this said he had to build temples, but now he doesn't have to do that anymore, the law has been repealed, now it would be the choice of the nation, as a role-playing game, to destroy the temples if they wanted to or just let them be. That, in theory, is their democratic right to choose, which is a law granted by the Organization in question.

So, am I not making my position clear? Is what I'm saying not making sense? If it's not, tell me what you are confused about and I'll try to explain. I understand perfectly well what the problem is with repeals, I've agreed with you that it is a true problem. See, I'm compromising and trying to understand what it was you were telling me. You moderators, at least the ones talking (which I do appreciate you taking time to answer and give your replies, not being cynical, I truely mean it), but at least give me the same respect as I have given you. In fact, all you are doing is supporting my very arguements, that I am receiving no compromise. So thank you for that. Now, I REALLY appreciate that.

Oh, yeah, attention all UN nations that have just joined. Any law passed before hand you don't have to follow. So do what you want. Uh, this is another problem with the UN, one that truely does require fixing gaming mechanics. Again, I argued this point for you moderators. Since all laws passed in Civilization are prescribed, again as mentioned in essay, that means everyone agrees to follow them. That's it. Speed-limit is 25, you say, OK, I agree to follow that because there are consequences, but when there are no cops around, I'll go 30, shhhhhh. Prescribed. You agree to follow it, don't have to, how much more realistic can it be, by the way, this is, again, something the web-site FAQ mentions breifly. So, it is deceided and agreed upon by a majority that this law be implemented, a repeal let's say. They would all agree that the previous resolution is nullified, because of the repeal resolution just passed. They agree on this. Prescribed. This has nothing, but positive effects for democracy.

To all of you who have made it this far, and understood what I wrote, sorry you had to re-read the forementioned essay, though it is more dramatic down here I'd like to think. To those who are still confused, or still think there is need for arguing, LET ME KNOW!

Look at: 'A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World'; 'We Should Have Repeals, but I Understand the Problem'; 'First Draft: 'United Nations Referendum''; and 'Second Draft: 'United Nations Referendum''. Once I get past this arguement, if ever possible, I will move on to writing a 'Third Draft: 'Improved Rights of Nations'' (working title, like?). Before I do this, however, going through all the doors of politics and diplomacy, I will present certain stipulations to the moderators in an attempt to get their support. It must be known, clearly, what a repeal is, how you should do it, what the effect is, PLUS, every UN member should know that they are not "grandfathered" in. This is a second much needed debate, mainly with the moderators, again, that once I get passed here, if ever, I will be pursuing with just as much tenacity as this forementioned quest.

Sincerely,

The Independent States of Bytek

Anyone have any questions?

Yah, if they actually listen to you, and agree with your sumnation, then would I still be ejected from the UN, for proposing something that would fundementally change the game mechanics....or would all be forgiven and they'd allow me back in.

These questions will be answered next week...same UN time, same UN channel dudhdudhdudhdudh BATMAN! :p THpppt =^o.o^=

Again, I'm not asking for Version 1.8. I'm not asking to change game mechanics. I'm asking for the moderators to change their way of thinking about repeals and amendments. What did you do in the first place, what did you propose?

You can find the exact proposal I had set forth over in the Technical Forums. I'm not reposting it here, because I got to much flack from to many people to discuss it again.

"Suggestion to a proposal: Right to Appeal"

It was an automatic ejection from the UN. And I got some people telling me it's a permanant ejection, and I got some people telling me I might be allowed back in for good behaviour.

Havn't gotten a straight answer from nobody yet. So far, they've been evading. Got one person that told me if I delete my current nation and create a new one, then I'd be allowed back into the UN.

But you don't see every nation on this green earth being ejected from the UN, having to break there nation apart, reform it, rename it, and then go apply to rejoin the UN do you?...Actually in this game, I bet a few people have already done so.

But I'm not going to do that.

From what I've gathered, you would eventually be allowed back in to the UN. If you made this proposal and proposed it to the UN, not in the forum, as of right now, you would have been ejected by the moderators. It's a rule that they posted in the sticky. I have been making this arguement only in the forum, because of this fact. This is something I am trying to make them change their minds about, but have been getting nothing but resistance, no compromise, whatsoever. I feel your pain, but as of right now, what they did, is perfectly legal. It would be nice if they put a link in the UN make a proposal area to where the stickies are so that people who have nothing but good intentions get kicked out not having any idea about what just happened. That help?

Your telling someone to save the horses, when the barn has already burned down with the horses still in it.

At this current juncture, it's a little bit late for me.

That and I was specifically told to take my proposal to Technical for review by one of the mods.

I had another mod, basically say it's not going to happen (not anytime to soon, but he never used those exact words either), and maybe I should have put it into the NS2 forum for review.

But I've already been told by several people that NS2 may be a pay to play sort of game. Someone mind telling me why I should pay my nations credits in order to exact a proposal in an updated version of a game, which I was slapped down for proposing a resolution in the first place.

Let me think about that one for a second. Pay money (yearly? Monthly? Signup?) in order to pass a resolution that was highly justified in it's innocent intent. Not that I was looking to cause such a ruckus and be a rebel the first time out.

I'd like to share a bit with you. It has nothing to do with Game Mechanics or coding. It's game politics between the players, the mods...and the administrator (owner of the game). Nothing new, and something I'm catching up on.

Take a look at, if you haven't, 'A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World', 'We Should Have Repeals, but I Understand the Problem', and 'Improved Rights of Nations', which if you haven't read these, let me know what you think. They are long, but wraps our case up in a nice package I like to think. Let's keep fighting. Eventually (ha!) they might understand what it is we are asking. I agree with you wholeheartedly, believe me, I do. Ichi Ni and Collaboration are also two Nations you may be interested in chatting with, they have been my biggest supportors thus far.

*reading examples of why repeals don't work*
Actually it makes sense... after all. If Nations A and B vote for human rights and Nation C does not, and the resolution passes... does nation C still get the plus for human Rights? If so (taking arguments that computers are not smart enough) then using a vote for repeal idea (the same as voting in resolutions) while everyone will take a minus, Nation C would get a tick removed for something he did not vote for. If Nation D entered the UN and the resolution was repealed, sure he'll take a hit in Human Rights, but then Nation C got the Plus for Human Rights even tho C voted against it. After all, majority rules so everyone gets a tick weather they voted for or against... fairs fair.

Unfortunatly, being that the "Computers are not smart" I could write up a convincing argument to turn all power over to me, and make it sound like a sob story for human rights. If it passes, everyone gets a tick in Human Rights but all power will be MINE. and should it be repealed, everone takes a hit in Human Rights. I can live with taking hits for something I believe in. After all, with this latest education resolution. A simple Typo give Hersford all sorts of power.

Good thing the MODS cannot enforce the results of the UN voting.

You moderators still haven't answered the forementioned questions.

The bottom line from my perspective is that Game Mechanics = Natural Law. Just because the population of the world used to believe that the world was flat didn't magically make it so. Neither will people believing that a better simulation will need repeals make the system suddenly allow repeals.
I have said before that I am in favour of repeals but will not allow them under the current mechanics and, no matter how many times people try the same arguments against me, my beliefs will not change.

Terran Assemblage, you are hereby told once and for all that if you want to appeal your ejection from the UN, you are to make a Request via the Getting Help Page. Frankly, if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath, since the rules are abundantly clear and the appeals process is only intended to be valid where the rules were wrongly applied. However, if it will humour you, make an appeal that way. I could've sworn I'd said this earlier, but clearly wilful refusal to read responses by Moderation Staff is a valid means of claiming that we don't answer your queries. I'll have to remember that.

Both Terran Assemblage and Bytek are hereby put on notice that a continuation of their campaigns (in TA's case, posting everywhere that he wants to be re-admitted and failing to point out that people have already told him how he can lodge an appeal; in Bytek's case, posting long-winded threads which amount to the flogging of an exceedingly dead and buried horse) will be viewed as Spam and dealt with accordingly. I do not wish to seem Draconian, but when people simply can't take a hint, I have to clamp down a bit harder than I have been.