NationStates Jolt Archive

First and foremost, let us fully acknowledge what the problem with repeals is as it exists in the minds of the moderators: 1) if we had repeals, it would be altering the mechanics of the game by interfering with the coding, 2) if we had repeals, nations that joined after the proposed against resolution would take a negative "drop-off" for something they originally didn't have. Now, to the best of my knowledge, and since the moderators haven't challenged that these aren't the only problems, these are indeed the only problems with repeals.

Now, this is an attempt to sum up my solution without having to have people read three different umpteen long threads. If you want to know why we are fighting, read the three forementioned threads on my other posts. If you just want to hear the solution, this is the post.

OK, Nation A comes along and proposes a resolution that says every nation must build three temples, just go with it. It passes and, since this is indeed a role-playing game, let us all acknowledge this fact as well, all nations build three temples. Nation B comes along weeks later and joins, but they want this law repealed. As of right now, this will get you booted out of the UN rather quickly. Hypothetically, let's say this happens. Now before hand, when the UN passes the bill, every nations, let's say their civil rights "score", goes up 5 points. Now when B comes along, he has 0 civil rights points. When the repeal goes through, A goes back to their original score, while B goes to -5. Do we all agree that this is what the moderators feel will happen? Good, I hope so.

What they are proposing is that when the law passed each nation built three temples. When B comes along, since they are not grandfathered in, neither have nor need to build any temples. If the repeal goes through, they are suggesting that the temples be destroyed and any impact the law had be erased from everyones memory, doesn't sound too practical does it? What's more impractical and illogical is that B would be destroying temples that they don't even have and the effects that the law had, which is none for B, must be erased. Right here is where the problem exists, to the best of my knowledge. The problem doesn't exist within the game itself, but rather within the players and their way of thinking.

The solution. When B repeals the law it nullifies the power the original law had. The 'Must Build Three Temples' law, once repealed does not mean it doesn't exist anymore, it means it isn't effective anymore. It isn't a law anymore. Does this mean the building must be destroyed? No, it means all nations don't have to build three temples anymore, any nation that has followed this law up to this point, has the right to choose what they want to do with the temples. How much more democratic can you get? Now, how do you propose such a repeal. You would propose it as a bill for the 'furtherment of democracy', because repeals by their very nature support this very cause. Look at the Progressive movement in the early 1920s. That's where this idea comes from. Now, how can a law that passes under the 'furtherment of democracy' have any negative effects on, let's say, the political freedoms of a nation?

Does this not seem commonsensical? Are we connecting the dots? Let's bring in an on-line example. I don't like the euthenasia bill. I want to repeal it. Now, I propose this bill as 'Euthenasia Repeal', a resolution for the furtherment of democracy. It passes; however, wouldn't nations joining after the fact be wrongfully effected? No, by a nation supporting the right to have a repeal is like saying, "Yes, let's give more power to the people." All nations would be positively effected. What are the implications? It would be up to all abiding nations to decide if euthenasia is legal or illegal or what-have-you. The original, 'Legalize Euthenasia' bill is not effective anymore because of the repeal.

Some of you might be asking, but on the national level, I get an issue called 'Cancer Victims Demand Euthinasia Bill' and I belong to the UN, don't I already have this? Since this is a role-playing game, yes you do, but in all practicality, the UN really can't enforce such laws that it passes unlike in the real-world. So, it is up to the people, to maintain these laws, all the laws are prescribed. This means that there is a consent between the majority that these laws are in effect, you can either take them seriously or do what ever you want, one of the tag-lines of this very game. How much more realistic can you get? So in regards to the issue on the national level, you could maintain your obligation to uphold the UN law, or do what you want, in all practicality, no one will probably know what you choose, but your citizens of course, but again, this is a role-playing game.

Now, have I made my point clear. If not, ask me questions. As always, I look to the moderators to make sure they understand what it is I am asking. I wait for them, before I move on (maybe).

The next step? We need to draft a proposal. We need, with the help of the moderators, to design specific stipulations to purposing a repeal. There is still a lot of fighting left to do. I personally will be tackling these issues with as much tenacity as possible.

Sincerely,

The Independent States of Bytek

The Republic of Lancamore would like to voice its support for the solution presented here. It makes sence, and we would be happy if it passed. IT shouldn't change game mechanics at all, only the guidelines by which the Mods give life and death to proposals.

By enacting such a repeal, you are essentially taking the issue out of the power of the UN and back into the power of the individual National governments. Later on, the issue could be re-introduced and made back into international law... then repealed again.. and so on, however the current Assembly deems fit.

Existing examples of repeals (outdated though they be) basicly change the status of a RESOLUTION to something more of a suggestion. (Something out of pirates of the caribbean.... "...more like guidelines really..." hahahah) This would be the sensible way to proceed. Ex. The UN RECOMMENDS that every nation build three temples, but no longer REQUIRES it.

A well thought-out solution to an ever-present problem. We wish you luck in its success.

Sincerely,
Luke Beland
Patriarch of Lancamore

If repeals are allowed, they should have an impact on all members. The peoples of Dejicharat are happy (or not) to join a United Nations that has the resolutions currently in place. They will become disatisfied (or not) by attempts to repeal those laws. In Bytek's first example, if a nation joins the UN when it has a "build three temples" resolution in force, its citizens join a body that supports religious institutions (three temples worth, whatever that means). If the UN were to repeal that resolution, it would effectively be telling the citizens of member nations that it no longer gave that support and this would have political repurcussions even in states that hadn't built three temples.

Furthermore, I dislike the doublespeak inherent in saying all repeals are resolutions for the "furtherment of democracy". Repealing euthenasia, for example, should be a civil rights act if the original euthenasia bill were a civil rights act.

Finally, I dislike easy repeals because it chepeans the initial decision. Most parliamentary bodies have limits to repealing decisions. For example, the US House and Senate prohibit a bill from being brought back to the floor in the same session. I think requiring a year, or more, of game time to pass before a repeal can be proposed is a necessary compromise.

Nyo!

I agree that not all repeals would be for the 'furtherment of democracy'. I thought about that as I was writing it, but whatever you would define it as, the effects are still the same, would you not agree? The solution still stands. Also, check out my 'Second Draft Proposal: 'United Nations Referendum''. I brought about the exact same stipulation that once a repeal was tried, it may not be tried again, for what I felt resonable, until after a 90-day limit. We are not yet at that point of argueing about the stipulations, though I appreciate and agree with your ideas. However, do you agree with this proposed solution. That it does not change the mechanics of the game? I'm sure there are some rough spots, but do you agree with the overall idea?

First and foremost, let us fully acknowledge what the problem with repeals is as it exists in the minds of the moderators: 1) if we had repeals, it would be altering the mechanics of the game by interfering with the coding, 2) if we had repeals, nations that joined after the proposed against resolution would take a negative "drop-off" for something they originally didn't have. Now, to the best of my knowledge, and since the moderators haven't challenged that these aren't the only problems, these are indeed the only problems with repeals.

1) Yes, if we had repeals it would mean altering the code in the first place to allow it, then altering it a second time, each time to make a repeal take effect.

2) Yes, a statistic based negative "drop-off" would be caused in those nations who joined after the resolution and before the repeal of said resolution.

And talking of moderators, I've not seen them posting here as they occasionally do, this is unfair, next they'll think they have a right to a life in reality or something... :wink:

On another note, I think there are more problems, but I would need a moderator with the knowledge to come here and say it, as I simply can't remember if there are or not... Enodia, help?

Now, this is an attempt to sum up my solution without having to have people read three different umpteen long threads. If you want to know why we are fighting, read the three forementioned threads on my other posts. If you just want to hear the solution, this is the post.

Good idea, like my threads on moral issues I came up with, in the hope it would save us from seven threads debating three moral issues, or all three at the same time, :roll: , though I feel we will still be foiled in our noble ambitions on the matter, eh? :wink:

OK, Nation A comes along and proposes a resolution that says every nation must build three temples, just go with it. It passes and, since this is indeed a role-playing game, let us all acknowledge this fact as well, all nations build three temples. Nation B comes along weeks later and joins, but they want this law repealed. As of right now, this will get you booted out of the UN rather quickly. Hypothetically, let's say this happens. Now before hand, when the UN passes the bill, every nations, let's say their civil rights "score", goes up 5 points. Now when B comes along, he has 0 civil rights points. When the repeal goes through, A goes back to their original score, while B goes to -5. Do we all agree that this is what the moderators feel will happen? Good, I hope so.

Yes, based on nation statistics, this is what would happen, Nation A goes back to zero, Nation B wakes up the next day going "WTF?" :wink:

What they are proposing is that when the law passed each nation built three temples. When B comes along, since they are not grandfathered in, neither have nor need to build any temples. If the repeal goes through, they are suggesting that the temples be destroyed and any impact the law had be erased from everyones memory, doesn't sound too practical does it? What's more impractical and illogical is that B would be destroying temples that they don't even have and the effects that the law had, which is none for B, must be erased. Right here is where the problem exists, to the best of my knowledge. The problem doesn't exist within the game itself, but rather within the players and their way of thinking.

This is where I must disagree, as Nation B would not be destroying temples, it would be saying that the three new temples in other nations would need to be destroyed. As it has no new three temples, it would not need to destroy them. Naturally.

After all they are hypothetical temples. :wink:

(Heresy ! , Heresy ! , Burn Him!)

What matters are the statistics which govern how our nation details are displayed.

The solution. When B repeals the law it nullifies the power the original law had. The 'Must Build Three Temples' law, once repealed does not mean it doesn't exist anymore, it means it isn't effective anymore. It isn't a law anymore. Does this mean the building must be destroyed? No, it means all nations don't have to build three temples anymore, any nation that has followed this law up to this point, has the right to choose what they want to do with the temples. How much more democratic can you get? Now, how do you propose such a repeal. You would propose it as a bill for the 'furtherment of democracy', because repeals by their very nature support this very cause. Look at the Progressive movement in the early 1920s. That's where this idea comes from. Now, how can a law that passes under the 'furtherment of democracy' have any negative effects on, let's say, the political freedoms of a nation?

Actually, if a law simply is not effective, ergo it is not a law. Effictively the law is being repealed/eliminated. Just remember this is not reality with all its legal nice-ities, this is Nation States, Text style RP game code on speed, jacked into a server and set free to give people head-aches. Or is it just me... :)

Actually, a "furtherment of democracy" law would effect those nations that do not like democracy, you know, dictatorships, both psychotic and benign, Compulsory Consumerist States... :wink:

Actually the repeal means that no nation who was a member before the repeal need build three temples and must, must pull them down. It means that nations who joined after the resolution need not build them anyway, cause that already the game mechanics as they stand,

Ergo, I pulled out of the U.N. before the just pased Education what-ever proposal passed, ergo it did not effect me.

How-ever, if the three temples or Education proposal are repealed, while such law would effect me or Nation B not, it would mean that our statistics would suffer.

Does this not seem commonsensical? Are we connecting the dots? Let's bring in an on-line example. I don't like the euthenasia bill. I want to repeal it. Now, I propose this bill as 'Euthenasia Repeal', a resolution for the furtherment of democracy. It passes; however, wouldn't nations joining after the fact be wrongfully effected? No, by a nation supporting the right to have a repeal is like saying, "Yes, let's give more power to the people." All nations would be positively effected. What are the implications? It would be up to all abiding nations to decide if euthenasia is legal or illegal or what-have-you. The original, 'Legalize Euthenasia' bill is not effective anymore because of the repeal.

Yes, its common sense, but it does not take into account the (Horror!) game mechanics. I know you'll want to slap me for this, but that is the way it stands, not my fault. :)

Ping, also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that all resolutions, are enforced, "100%" and might I add, in regards to "Power to the People",

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill.

:wink:

Some of you might be asking, but on the national level, I get an issue called 'Cancer Victims Demand Euthinasia Bill' and I belong to the UN, don't I already have this? Since this is a role-playing game, yes you do, but in all practicality, the UN really can't enforce such laws that it passes unlike in the real-world. So, it is up to the people, to maintain these laws, all the laws are prescribed. This means that there is a consent between the majority that these laws are in effect, you can either take them seriously or do what ever you want, one of the tag-lines of this very game. How much more realistic can you get? So in regards to the issue on the national level, you could maintain your obligation to uphold the UN law, or do what you want, in all practicality, no one will probably know what you choose, but your citizens of course, but again, this is a role-playing game.

Ah, now, this is a good point, and was the founding principle of my "Recognition of Precedent" proposal, still in the works on my desk-top unfortunately...

Now, yes, there is an N.S. issue that deals with this, and yes, its still banging about your issues list on occasion, but its still there I think, wait for it, because of game mechanics, no one has removed, and there is a valid reason for it.

Why? Because many nations joined after the resolution regarding euthanasia, they were not effected by it, this proposal allows them to come to a decision on it. And if you were a member, eh, (shrugs) the Resolution Violation Police, or "Moderators" ( j/k ! ) don't to my knowing, really care. If your really worried about it, then just dismiss the issue.

Q - Now, why on earth did the euthanasia proposal become a resolution if there was already a N.S. issue? Simple (Is so!).

A - No-one caught it before it hit the floor. And by the time we did catch it. Too late. Even moderators cannot remove a proposal from the general body voting floor. Its a rule.

(Shrugs, smiles sweetly)

Stop looking horrified, its just a matter of moderators and their little helpers (Me, and people like me, who love to shoot things down on points of law, :wink: ) are only human after all. Well, I say I am but actually...

Now, have I made my point clear. If not, ask me questions. As always, I look to the moderators to make sure they understand what it is I am asking. I wait for them, before I move on (maybe).

Good, its nice to know not only do you make a structured well thought out argument, but your sane too. :)

The next step? We need to draft a proposal. We need, with the help of the moderators, to design specific stipulations to purposing a repeal. There is still a lot of fighting left to do. I personally will be tackling these issues with as much tenacity as possible.

From memory this was tried a while back by some individual apparently more ignorant then you, you at least seem intelligent as well as rational, there-fore you have at least one "snow flakes chance". And at the end of the day, the answer will still be.

( ( ( Drum Roll ) ) )

"Game Mechanics"

Sigh...

Sincerely,

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

EDIT: "An appeal... is when you ask one court to show its contempt for another court." - Finley Peter Dunne. :wink:

I just have one problem with your well put arguement. If we had a repeal of the 'Must Build Temples' law, which might very well be a terrible example, it would not demand that all countries must destroy the temples. It's like with Prohibition, yes I am bringing a real-world issue in to this arguement. One day, you can't do anything in regards to alcohol. The next day, once its repealed, you can do it again. The previous law, as you stated, is not a law anymore. I agree. The repeal is designed to do this. I also agree that certain resolutions, whatever there purpose, whether it be for the 'futherment of democracy' or 'improvement of civil rights' that would depend on the law being repealed. I agree, that this would effect certain nations, just like all of the laws do at this point in time. This arguement should be saved for when, if ever, repeals are allowed.

Again, people suggest that this changes gaming mechanics. From the two points I have forementioned, how, from my line of thinking does this effect gaming mechanics? I am saying that repeals should be presented in the same fashion as all the other laws in the UN. Is this not true? If not, help me understand where my logic is disappearing.

All a repeal does, is not make a law valid anymore. That's it. It does not mean you must go back and eliminate it from ever existing. That is not what I am asking you to do.

So....

I want to repeal a law. I submit a proposal. This passes by a large majority. The repealed law isn't effective anymore, actually, it isn't a law anymore. Semantics!!! So, depending on what it is designed as and what its strength is, it will either add or subtract a "score" depending on the country. Right?! In a democratic country, positive points, for furthering democratic ideals. In a corrupt dictatorship, negative points, for furthering democratic ideals. Right?! Hypothetically. Does this not happen with all other laws?

I just have one problem with your well put arguement. If we had a repeal of the 'Must Build Temples' law, which might very well be a terrible example, it would not demand that all countries must destroy the temples. It's like with Prohibition, yes I am bringing a real-world issue in to this arguement. One day, you can't do anything in regards to alcohol. The next day, once its repealed, you can do it again. The previous law, as you stated, is not a law anymore. I agree. The repeal is designed to do this. I also agree that certain resolutions, whatever there purpose, whether it be for the 'futherment of democracy' or 'improvement of civil rights' that would depend on the law being repealed. I agree, that this would effect certain nations, just like all of the laws do at this point in time. This arguement should be saved for when, if ever, repeals are allowed.

Lol, you brought in a real world issue ! ( GUN-FIRE ) :wink:

But hey, its a good example. Okay, your issue with me saying destroy the temples, my mistake, I thought the repeal would involve repealing the temples themselves if you see my argument. :)

Again, people suggest that this changes gaming mechanics. From the two points I have forementioned, how, from my line of thinking does this effect gaming mechanics? I am saying that repeals should be presented in the same fashion as all the other laws in the UN. Is this not true? If not, help me understand where my logic is disappearing.

It effects game mechanics because as the moderators see it (Well as I se them seeing it, errr, if you see what I mean!) they would need to code in about how such a proposal to repeal would effectively remove the law, as laws are enforced 100% you would need to un-enforce the law 100%.

I know I am not explaining this very well, as I said before, Enodia, help?

All a repeal does, is not make a law valid anymore. That's it. It does not mean you must go back and eliminate it from ever existing. That is not what I am asking you to do.

Yes, its the anti-law of the law, it removes the law from the books, oh yes it does. Thats what repeals do, they cause a law to cease being a law. I know it not what your asking for, but thats what it is.

So....

Uh-oh, core argument time. :)

I want to repeal a law. I submit a proposal. This passes by a large majority. The repealed law isn't effective anymore, actually, it isn't a law anymore. Semantics!!! So, depending on what it is designed as and what its strength is, it will either add or subtract a "score" depending on the country. Right?! In a democratic country, positive points, for furthering democratic ideals. In a corrupt dictatorship, negative points, for furthering democratic ideals. Right?! Hypothetically. Does this not happen with all other laws?

No, not exactly semantics, if you repeal the law, thats it, law goes bye bye and its gone, for-ever, unless it gets voted back in... :) I know its not exactly reality at work, but this is Nation States. :wink:

Yes, a score, but the way you put it sounds like there are different score systems for countries depending on politics think of it like this instead,

100 : Best Democracy Possible.

... Other Political Systems Range Between These Figures.

51 : Border of / Worst Level of Democratic System.

... Space filler line this is ! :wink:

50 : Border of / Worst Level of Dictatorship System.

... Other Political Systems Range Between These Figures.

000 : "Best" Dictatorship Possible :wink: .

Depending on the points, e.g. - 10 or + 10 my country could become a better democratic society or "slip down" into a dictatorial regime.

Hope that helps a little.

Note: I am not saying this how it works, just this is how I think it works.

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

Should this worthwhile discussion be adjourned to the Technical forum?

Yes, but laws can be ammended also. Most statutes of limitations are added onto, and not fully erased from the law books.

Coll : I agree, the Tech Sect would be best for this discussion at this rate, despite its original U.N. forum relation (The proposition by Bytek).

Terran Assemblage : While laws can be amended, the point of all this is to keep things simply, the kind of ammendments and alterations to statute limitations would have to result in game mechanics issues, because ultimately we would begin developing an entire legal system, which, though cool ! ,

Would result in much confusion as it grew, due to the simplicity of the current programming. In other words, it will probably happen, but not till NS2. Oh good-non-existing-lord, I sound like a Moderator. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

Oh you never know, that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow people to talk about it. It has always been a rather touchy subject, and some individuals would rather speak their minds fully on the matter. To repeatedly state that it's never going to happen here is such a final verdict, that no one could actually state if it will or if it will not sometime in the future.

After all, almost every enlightened civilization has the right to free speach.

Unless that's against UN law now? I don't remember seeing any UN resolution pertaining to the delegates not being allowed to gripe about poorly worded resolutions being passed.

Sorry, did not mean to say we should not talk of it, simply that there were a few things to be aware of. :)

And whats wrong with saying it will never happen? It won't!

Untill NS2... :) (Shrugs)

Right to free speech? Yes, for them, but as I remember this is Nation States... :wink

And there is no such legislation as what you mention to my knowing, but eh, there should be regarding such proposals as those which are poorly written/worded... I distinctly remember those damn rider clause things... :)

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

Why must the law be taken off the books? I'm not wanting this, I think the law, granted its not realy a law anymore, should stay on the books as a monument of changing times. Uh-oh, more real-world woes, in the US Constitution, yes I am bringing up the goddamn US Constitution, the Prohibition Amendment is in there, but with the Amendment that repealed it, it is nullified. Why can't we work it like this? Yes, I know this is not the goddamn real-world, but explain this to me. BTY, sorry for the goddamn language. Anywho, it's like reading a book, you follow it one resolution at a time and then pay attention to what each one does, what's wrong with this? Except that it might take up too much room, which the server is already getting ready to blow-up anyway, I can understand this.

Why must the law be taken off the books? I'm not wanting this, I think the law, granted its not realy a law anymore, should stay on the books as a monument of changing times. Uh-oh, more real-world woes, in the US Constitution, yes I am bringing up the goddamn US Constitution, the Prohibition Amendment is in there, but with the Amendment that repealed it, it is nullified. Why can't we work it like this? Yes, I know this is not the goddamn real-world, but explain this to me. BTY, sorry for the goddamn language. Anywho, it's like reading a book, you follow it one resolution at a time and then pay attention to what each one does, what's wrong with this? Except that it might take up too much room, which the server is already getting ready to blow-up anyway, I can understand this.

Ah, but I think the way the Moderators see it is that the law would be removed from the books. I think, this is just my thoughts, as no mod has yet made comment. Server getting ready to blow up? Getting ready? Did I miss some-thing, :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister for Stuff.

I agree that the moderators think that exact same thing. Also, where have they been, on vacation probably. Anyway, if this is the case, why is the 'Fair trial' resolution still there when clearly the 'Definition of 'Fair Trial'' doesn't nullify the 'Fair trial' law, but it does alter it. Doesn't that make it a newer form of the same law, why don't they delete the 'Fair trial' law from the books? I know Enodia said the 'Definition of 'Fair Trial'' fell through the cracks, but that doesn't mean that they can't go back and delete the 'Fair trial' law. As always, K' it's always a pleasure debating with you.

I think Enodia brought up a point on time about Monopoly (R) and how it is just a game and has its own rules for which to follow, plus, does it simulate the real-world monetary system rather well. Of course it doesn't, but how many times have we played Monopoly (R) -- or is it a trademark -- with some friends and through each other agreed upon some different rules for which to play the game by, this is kind of what I'm asking for. How's that for an example?

I think Enodia brought up a point on time about Monopoly (R) and how it is just a game and has its own rules for which to follow, plus, does it simulate the real-world monetary system rather well. Of course it doesn't, but how many times have we played Monopoly (R) -- or is it a trademark -- with some friends and through each other agreed upon some different rules for which to play the game by, this is kind of what I'm asking for. How's that for an example?
In response to your example, allow me to continue it further before locking this thread as part of stopping this endless and pointless campaign.

You're more than welcome to come up with different rules to play the game, as long as you're the only ones playing it. Unfortunately, you're playing Monopoly on someone else's board, in someone else's house. Therefore, you don't get to make up the rules. You can leave and play at home if you want, but you don't get to change rules on people.