NationStates Jolt Archive

I have proposed the following:
"No more Axis of Evil
(subtitle is a mistake)

Description: On November 12th 2002, this resolution was approved by 2 votes against one. It is completely outdated and a mere 3 voters are absolutely NOT representative of all the UN members. Abolish this resolution:

"Fight the Axis of Evil
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Description: As the world become a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace. This means, of course, building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security."

This has been done before. You can't change previous resolutions; you can only modify by adding new clauses and amendments.

This has been done before. You can't change previous resolutions; you can only modify by adding new clauses and amendments.And that can only be done in certain circumstances, and very, very carefully.

So if someone passed the resolution 'we hate the germans' in 1948 (or whenever the UN started operating, there's no way of abolishing the resolution? Com'on, that's ridiculous. So you you should add the ammendement like this: "we hate the germans ammendement: no we don't anymore."

I'm sure that resolutions can be out of date and that there can be done something.

So if someone passed the resolution 'we hate the germans' in 1948 (or whenever the UN started operating, there's no way of abolishing the resolution?

Well, actually, the 'Enemy State' thingy still exists (I think)...

(Giving the five victories nations the right to invade Germany/ Japan at any given time, should the need arise).

Resolutions repealing previous resolutions violate game mechanics and are thus not allowed by UN Rules.


So if someone passed the resolution 'we hate the germans' in 1948 (or whenever the UN started operating, there's no way of abolishing the resolution?You seem to be confused. This is NationStates, not the real world. The UN didn't exist until November 2002.

Resolutions repealing previous resolutions violate game mechanics and are thus not allowed by UN Rules.

You seem to be confused. This is NationStates, not the real world. The UN didn't exist until November 2002.

Yes, I KNOW that, I was just giving an example.

But if it's just a matter of game mechanics, well....

You really should have read Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) It's quite clear on this matter.
Proposals can and do cover all manner of agendas. However, there are three broad categories of proposal which will always be removed from the queue before they become able to be voted on by the general membership of the United Nations. These three categories are:

1. Suggestions for how to change the game mechanics
<..snip..>
7. 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.

Well, actually, the 'Enemy State' thingy still exists (I think)...

(Giving the five victories nations the right to invade Germany/ Japan at any given time, should the need arise).

OOC: In the real UN Charter, you bet. Sad, but true.

You really should have read Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) It's quite clear on this matter.

No ammendements?
So people can't change their minds?
It think something should be done to make it possible to at least ammend resolutions, but... since I don't own the place, I truely appologise and I have no objections to the removal of the proposal off the proposal list.

You are not the first recent arrival to grumble about such things. Nor will you be the last.

This conversation pops up from time to time, and the same arguements are always raised :)

You are not the first recent arrival to grumble about such things. Nor will you be the last.

This conversation pops up from time to time, and the same arguements are always raised :)

Probably this recurring topic hasn't brought up any ideas to anyone?

grmblgrmbl

Probably this recurring topic hasn't brought up any ideas to anyone?

grmblgrmbl
It won't happen at all, ever, until the game admins build a mechanism that permits repeal. Per Goobergunchia, [violet] is in fact working on this problem. Given what else is on her plate, I wouldn't expect something quickly.

It's not just a matter of removing the paragraph from the page - each proposal had specific effects on the nations that were members at the time. Do we grant the reversal changes to only current members, to the membership that voted it in, to everybody, or what? It's a complicated issue.

When it happens, it'll be announced. In the meantime, can we just drop this?

It won't happen at all, ever, until the game admins build a mechanism that permits repeal. Per Goobergunchia, [violet] is in fact working on this problem. Given what else is on her plate, I wouldn't expect something quickly.

It's not just a matter of removing the paragraph from the page - each proposal had specific effects on the nations that were members at the time. Do we grant the reversal changes to only current members, to the membership that voted it in, to everybody, or what? It's a complicated issue.

When it happens, it'll be announced. In the meantime, can we just drop this?

OOC: Does that particular issue matter? The game stats are kinda "broken" to begin with IMHO. Environmental resolutions have immediate short term impacts ... which is a wonderful thing in our fantasy game, but yet to happen in the real world.

Let's say that we increase civil freedoms with the passage of your standard human rights resolution. What is to say that a resolution overturned means that those rights are unimplemented in UN member states?

The answer IMHO is they are every time we choose a daily issue that brings them back down again. And they are built upon every time we choose a different opinion with those options.

I don't think the justification: "But it would be too hard to code" matters. If the game stats actually were the focus of UN resolutions, they'd allow us to directly see what UN resolutions do to our game stats and get rid of the remaining small bit of roleplaying we have left.

My opinion is that the coding mechanism they should be focusing on is the actual repeal process, not game stats.

Does a repeal take a 2/3 majority vote? I would hope so. How many endorsements should it require? I would say at least 135.

And what other rules should be built around the repeal process, because the minute we allow them, we'll have every freakin nut job in the game wanting to repeal everything -- why? Because they are bored and petty.

While I think there should be a repeal process, I think the mods should continue to keep the details of that system a moderation secret *and* they should consider the long term implications for a game populated by as many trolls as serious players.

It won't happen at all, ever, until the game admins build a mechanism that permits repeal. Per Goobergunchia, [violet] is in fact working on this problem. Given what else is on her plate, I wouldn't expect something quickly.

It's not just a matter of removing the paragraph from the page - each proposal had specific effects on the nations that were members at the time. Do we grant the reversal changes to only current members, to the membership that voted it in, to everybody, or what? It's a complicated issue.

When it happens, it'll be announced. In the meantime, can we just drop this?

Again, my deepest apologies.

You could submited a revised version that everyone can vote on...

You could submited a revised version that everyone can vote on...
I'm of the opinion that would not be possible under the current ruleset. It would be almost impossible to phrase it as a non-repeal. Even if it was, it refers to existing real-world nations, and those are no longer permitted in resolutions.

If you have something specific in mind, please post it. Otherwise, let's let this drop.

Doesn't the resolution in question itself violate the rules? Since when are we allowed to call for action relating to real life situations?

Or is the real life title ok because it doesn't at all describe or have anything to do with what the resolution actually does? Isn't that also against the rules?

I don't think a new resolution like that one would be allowed to pass at present.

I apologize, Thaibet. I am partially responsible for the recent attacks on "Amendment" proposals, due to my mis-named "Amendments to the UNEC" proposal, which is now titled, "Defining the UNEC". This also goes to show that not even the author of a resolution can come along and amend it later.

Off topic, but if you feel like having a proposal add any role-play aspects in the forum, don't mention the forums in the resolution (I'm responsible for that addition as well.).

Doesn't the resolution in question itself violate the rules? Yes

Since when are we allowed to call for action relating to real life situations?
This was changed in 2002 or 2003. It's been illegal ever since.

Or is the real life title ok because it doesn't at all describe or have anything to do with what the resolution actually does?
This was a test resolution and it was inadvertantly left in place

Isn't that also against the rules? Yes

I don't think a new resolution like that one would be allowed to pass at present. Correct

The rules have evolved as the game grew ... grew far faster than Max or anyone ever imagined. We're stuck with elements of code that have slowly but surely evolved into more appropriate aspects of such a massive game. The fact that it's so massive makes safe change difficult - lots of factors have to be considered before changing even the simplest aspect of the game.

A lot of this is explained in the stickys, as you have almost certainly been told. It's boring to hear, and yes, there are a lot of them ... but read the stickys and the FAQ. That's where the explanations are.

Well, what I'm getting at, much like my point about the redundant environmental resolutions, is that a little spring cleaning may be in order once every couple years. I can't imagine the absolute end-all fix to this question (removing the antiquated and now illegal resolution) being any more difficult than, for example, deleting an offensive forum thread.

Forum FAQs don't help when the game itself displays rules violations as fair resolutions, because 1) about 2% of the players come to the forums and 2) that situation forces the question to be asked before someone could even consider consulting such an FAQ. FAQs are supposed to be preventative instead of reactive, and unless it's added to the main FAQ and/or past resolutions are trimmed to comply with current rules, this is just going to keep coming back over and over.

Apparently, I wasn't the only one that had a bad taste in his mouth about ammendments and repeals or not, since many have preceded me making an objection. But, I apologised (twice actually).
But here's a question, do you (or whoever I'm talking to) kick everyone out of the UN for making a mistake and apologising? I bet that's a full-time job because of all the jokers making proposals.

I bet that's a full-time job because of all the jokers making proposals.

From my observations, it appears that they (the mods) tend to delete the first proposals from nations if they are unworthy, and let them know why via telegram

I imagine further action is taken if the jokers don't take the telegram seriously and continue to submit unsuitable proposals.

Go read "Before You Submit a UN Proposal". The first post clearly lays out what punishments are issued for proposals that violate the rules.

Apparently, I wasn't the only one that had a bad taste in his mouth about ammendments and repeals or not, since many have preceded me making an objection. But, I apologised (twice actually).
But here's a question, do you (or whoever I'm talking to) kick everyone out of the UN for making a mistake and apologising? I bet that's a full-time job because of all the jokers making proposals.

First, *we* don't really do anything other than keep the oral tradition of the game rules alive. The moderators (see the Moderation forum to catch glipses of these secretative people) are the ones who do all the dirty work.

Personally I agree with about 1/2 of what they do and disagree with the other 1/2 (though there are certainly some moderators whom I feel make decisions I like more than others). This is probably a sign that they are doing the right thing and provide a balance to the game.

Second, the moderators do in fact kick nations out of the UN, but not for *posting* and talking about wanting amendments. Instead they usually kick nations out for violating rules when actually submitting proposals. Sometimes they immediately kick out nations, other times they give you a warning.

Now they'll tell you that the warnings are permanent, and if you get three, you are history. But even that isn't entirely true. They *have* in the past claimed to have removed warnings, but they could just have told me this. ;)

Thaibet, I've actually appreciated your posts on several of the forums as of late. Continue to speak your mind, just don't be surprised if you continue to get, "We've been there, and tried that" often as well.

Those mods seem to have extremely long toes. Hard not to step on them, hard not to trip over them. Now my main man can't change the world anymore.

Anyhow, has the US paid his depts already? I mean, the UN can't keep sending plains and other help, and put it on their tap. :p

Those mods seem to have extremely long toes. Hard not to step on them, hard not to trip over them. Now my main man can't change the world anymore.

Anyhow, has the US paid his depts already? I mean, the UN can't keep sending plains and other help, and put it on their tap. :p

OOC: To be honest, I don't know. The US debt to the UN was paid years ago by Ted Turner IIRC, but after that the US fell behind in its payments. Getting a straight answer from the UN, the US, the UNA, or just about any other private citizen is not easy. I was hunting around for this answer weeks ago with respect to Sophista's proposal. *shrug* I was hoping to make an informed discussion instead of the usual name-calling and knee jerk reactions you deal with from the anti-UN crowd. Fortunately Frisbeeteria took a more sensible approach and used in game stats to justify things instead.