NationStates Jolt Archive

A few weeks ago, I made a propsal and had my previous delegate, New Genoa(who was booted out because of it), submit it ads I'm not in the UN. Turns out, it was an 'illeagal' proposal because of this, from a sticky:

Game Mechanics Proposal
We've been down this street previously. Thankfully, they're becoming slightly less prevalent at the moment. It is important to notice, however, that proposals to repeal other resolutions are Game Mechanics Changes. This is because you are effectively asking for the statistics of your nation to be re-set to what they were before the proposal was passed - given that statistics are a part of the Game Mechanics, that's what you want changed.

And...

Repeals and Amendments
This is mentioned in the Game Mechanics section, but since people keep doing it I'm making it more emphasised - you may NOT submit proposals that seek to repeal or amend earlier resolutions.

Excuse my bluntness... but what in the hell were you thinking?! Even the real UN accepts ammendments and that's what mine was! It made ammendments to five resolutions to... MAKE THEM MORE EFFECTIVE. I closed the loopholes. I altered the wording to be clearer. I made it so that the the Bio-Weapons resolution was no longer laughable by including Chem-Weapons in my version. How in the hell does that change game mechanics? I said that these changes would NOT be retroactive, so it would not have reset game mechanics any more than if I wrote one up saying 'ban chem-weapons'.

Now...

Give one damn reason why that is against the rules. And it had better be a good one.

The mods have stated numerous times that the NS UN is NOT the RL UN. Thus, the rules are justified and as such, both you and your UN Delegate would be held accountable for them.

NS is a game, based on the RL, but no defined by it. That's why the UN is the way it is, and trust me, most of us don't like it.

I find the claim of it as a "Game Mechanics Issue" as highly suspect though... I would suspect there is a way around it by proposing an amendment though.. since this has been done before (Ref: 'RBH' Replacement vs. "Required Basic Healthcare"). I suspect by Amendment that might be the only way to solve the currect problems with the given proposal on the table, if we don't have appeal rights, at least we DO (provenly) have amending rights to Resolutions already passed... We might not be able to strike a Resolution from the table, but we can restrict it's scope... Which is why I am currently writing a proposal for submission for the purpose of limiting the scope of a current proposed Resolution, that is likely to pass...

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

But I don't WANT to restrict the scope. I want to make it harder to get through loopholes.

The idea of restricting the scope is to remove problems inherant to an existing resolution as it stands. For example, if a Resolution were to pass that stated simply "All drugs are illegal" the scope would include even caffine/niccotine asprin... We can't appeal the resolution, but we can ammend it's scope by indicating a limiting power to the existing resolution, "The scope of the aforementioned resolution shall be not construed to include over-the-counter medications, niccotine or caffine based products." Thus limiting it's scope.

In other aspects you are right, a large chunk of the system is not working, but that can't be solved being a mechanical issue.... The reason some of the resolutions are reaching quotum that should not, is because of a lack of responsibility being taken by BOTH the submitters, the delgates and the moderators allowing it to enter quarum in the first place. It seems to me the moderators only care about it as long as it does is not a game machanics issue and it's formated in a basic system including and reaction, clause and catagory/description inclusion. But they don't seem to pay much attention to the body of the proposal (many of which of late have violated most of the proposal guidelines). Like my current ammendment idea on the "Abortion Rights" Proposal (which is likely to pass at this stage) The body is vague, so it is left up to the concerned to write an amending proposal to limit the original Resolution to limit it's scope and allow certain provisions... It's not perfect, it's merely the best "damage-control" we can provide given the mechanics of the system.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I find the claim of it as a "Game Mechanics Issue" as highly suspect though...

Well, I find the stated reason why repeals are considered game mechanics resolutions suspect. By the reasoning they give, every single proposal is a game mechanics proposal, since all proposals fundamentally ask that the stats for all UN member nations be modified in certain ways. Basically, it doesn't seem that a repeal proposal falls under the definition of game mechanics that Max Barry seems to have been using when he wrote the prohibition on game mechanics proposals. The principal reason stated for prohibiting such resolutions is that the limits of time and technical feasability mean that the game programmer can't guarantee that a new system or game feature can be added in a timely manner just because a majority of the UN voted for it. However, national stats are altered all the time on a regular basis.

However, there may very well be technical problems with repealing UN resolutions. Given that the game is programmed to prevent UN member nations from violating any resolution passed during that nation's membership (if not all resolutions ever), two conflicting UN resolutions could lead to mechanical problems. For example, let's say that the 40-Hour Work Week resolution was overturned by a resolution allowing up to a 50-Hour Work Week. If the programming enforcing the 40-Hour Work Week couldn't be removed, the game would still be preventing UN members from extending their work-weeks over 40 hours even though the new resolution made it legal. Two directly contradictory resolutions would probably create a paradox that froze the system.

I prefer to give the mods the benefit of the doubt and assume that reasons such as these are why you can't repeal resolutions.

Isn't amendments to existing resolutions also against the rules?

Even if this can be considered so, it is pointless..... What could be the worst that would happen? I'd get one minor strike, and been ousted from the UN? Simple fact is, the current resolution on the table is problematic, the procedure by which it was presented for proposal violated the system by which it should have been submitted. The moderators took no notice of the contruction of the proposed resolution. They let it reach quarum, and now I've got tons of people yelling around me, because it's being voted in bu the plethora of UN yes-men nations who don't really care much about the whole system. It's all irregardless because without the addition of an amendment at this stage, alot of people will simply leave the UN. I mean, it's pretty bad when you have an Abortion Rights proposal so vague as to upset most of the pro-choicer members on the board. To top it off, the proposal was NEVER submitted to the forums here for amending in the first place (as provisioned in the Resolution Writing Guide), making it through to resolution... this is a failure of the entire system at ALL levels (Mods and Admins included) and HEAVILY upon the Mods, since they have the most control and responsibility in this area... So back to the worst, what will they do? put on "strike-one" in a three strike system? I'd never reach three strikes, because I'd have to leave merely at the idea that this resolution would stay in broad all-consuming effect.....

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Umm... I don't really see how the mods can be blamed. This resolution does not break, or even really bend, any of the rules governing proposals, at least as far as my reading of the rules goes. Yes, we may not agree with what it is saying, but them's the breaks. Proposals do not have to be submitted to the forum, but they can be. If the proposal has not broken any rules, then the mods cannot touch it.

As regarding national sovereignty, this resolution could be regarded by some as being a universal human right, and therefore going beyond mere borders. Others would disagree. I believe that the mods erred on the side of caution by not striking down this proposal.

They erred on the side of <edited for content>..... this proposal made it through quarum and is all of 15 characters shorter then the propsal to make Vodka the UN's official beverage, the construction is repetative, it only contains a operatory clause, no preamble.


Following the heading section, resolutions are split into preambulatory and operative clauses. Preambulatory clauses are listed first, and are used to justify action, denote past authorizations and precedents for action, and/or denote the purpose for the action. Operative clauses are the statement of policy in a resolution. They are numbered, begin with a verb to denote action (or suggest action), and each clause usually addresses no more than one specific aspect of action to be taken


Where were these supposed "scribes" when the resolution was submitted, it doesn't even match the correct submission format.

Irregardless, If the resolution passes, I will, on principle propose my amendment, and the moderators can either allow it (as they did with the 'RBH' Replacement Resolution), or they can deny it and give me a strike. But at least I have a proceedural point to make in getting it allowed in the first place.... On the other hand, I have encouraged the pro-choicers who actually pay attention to what is going on around here, if the resolution on the table fails, they can edit my proposal-in-draft as a new, better, and more equitable "Abortion Rights Resolution"..... But I can at least make the plea for allowing the Amendment on precedent, especial given the problematic situation developing.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I find the claim of it as a "Game Mechanics Issue" as highly suspect though...

Well, I find the stated reason why repeals are considered game mechanics resolutions suspect. By the reasoning they give, every single proposal is a game mechanics proposal, since all proposals fundamentally ask that the stats for all UN member nations be modified in certain ways. Basically, it doesn't seem that a repeal proposal falls under the definition of game mechanics that Max Barry seems to have been using when he wrote the prohibition on game mechanics proposals. Exactly. A repeal or an ammendment would not change a nation's stats back to what it was before. It would simply make that part of the stats changable by the player.

It is a good idea to amend the proposals if it becomes necessary, but, d'you really think it's going to be implemented anytime soon?

Nope. :D :lol:

*sigh* Well... I think this conversation has reached it's peak. Now to get the mods in here with a title change.

bump

Exactly. A repeal or an ammendment would not change a nation's stats back to what it was before. It would simply make that part of the stats changable by the player.

And in what way is this conflicting with the general purpose of an international political medium such as the NS UN?

g.e.
spokesperson for the future peoples of the jovian worlds

It doesn't. It conflicts with the mod rules. Which I think should change.

Little mod attention over here?

Perhaps I didn't make it clear.

The mods do not make the rules. However, they enforce them. Blaming the mods is of little or no use.

The rules are made by Max Barry and/or [violet]. Any changes to the underlying rules of the game must go to either of them (assuming they are in fact seperate people).

I know that several mods in the past have stated that they do not agree with some of the rules, particularly regarding appeals and repeals, but they cannot change the rules.

This game is free, you do not pay to play it. Because of this I see very little real cause for you to complain about the rules, and complain about those who enforce the rules.

Perhaps you would have greater success posting in the Moderation forum...

Yea, you should just create a new thread over in Moderation and let this one die. This thread as it is now isn't going to get to many moderators. On the other hand, if you changed the titile to "Attention Moderators!" it might help attract some more attention.

I know Cog's been wandering around this forum, but I'm not sure about the other mods.

This game is free, you do not pay to play it. Because of this I see very little real cause for you to complain about the rules, and complain about those who enforce the rules.

Hmm...I always wondered if there was an underlying motive to this game (Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out there!). The complete lack of banner ads in any way, even to pay for bandwidth was always slightly perplexing. though, I suppose the designer could always have venture capital.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear.

The mods do not make the rules. However, they enforce them. Blaming the mods is of little or no use.

...

This game is free, you do not pay to play it. Because of this I see very little real cause for you to complain about the rules, and complain about those who enforce the rules.A mod made the sticky I quoted.

And I know it;s free, but just because it;s free doesn't mean I can't complain about a stupid rule.

And I posted this in the UN forum as it's a UN issue. Normally Porn attracts mods like moths to flame, but that failed. So... one title change comin; up

I would just like to direct your attention towards the 'INACR' thread, which contains (apart from a discussion about Latin pronunciation) an announcement by Cog that [violet] is currently re-coding the game in order to allow appeals of UN resolutions. This may be why there has not been a moderator response to this thread.

...

Well. Rather timely.