NationStates Jolt Archive

A resolution authored by my NS to define a key term of a resolution was arbitrarily returned as a joke. Definitions of terms should be a standard concept with resolutions; as the definition of marriage resolution illustrates.

Now, as moderators, I understand it is your duty to limit resolutions based on your subjective notions as to whether proposals are serious or not. However, many debates focused on the Human Rights and Gay Marriage resolutions have centered on the belief of some that NS are now required to perform gay marriages, and that ambiguity of language/non defined terms are allowable.

First point: no resolution requires NS to perform marriages; second, neither gay or marriage are defined in the gay marriage resolution. The first point is moot to this discussion, the second however, illustrates a common misunderstanding of players: That A Resolution Has Power if None of the Terms are Defined. The current resolution is proof that NS are beginning to realize the importance of definitions. Thanks to the Nation that Submitted the Definition of Marriage Proposal.

Since one definiton of gay has not been allowed to be proposed, UN Resolutions dictate that no other UN Proposal allowing a definiton of Gay should be allowed either, per the Human Rights Resolution. This precedent also illustrates that no other defintions of terms should be allowed, since Moderators are biased towards common and applicable definitions.

From this point forward any UN Resolution is void for want of clarification if it is without definitions of key terms. (elaborated in response to Vastiva)

Thank you,

-AP

GAH!

Can you imagine a 30,000 word proposal, 150 of which is the actual proposal, the rest of which is definitions of the words, definitions of the words used to define the words, definitions of the worlds used to define the definitions of the words....

AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Oh, while I'm at it:


From this point forward any UN Resolution is void for want of clarification if it is without definitions of key terms.

You're not a Mod, you don't make the rules. Quotes like this are misleading, some would say intentionally so.

Oh, while I'm at it:



You're not a Mod, you don't make the rules. Quotes like this are misleading, some would say intentionally so.

Good point. Meant in the context that a NS can use semantics to avoid implementation of UN Resolution when they are based on key terms that carry dual common language uses. Since the UN is without a court, this is possible.

Unfortunately, this topic is a tad... ill titled. It sounds like a rule has been passed when it has not.

You might want to delete it before a moderator takes it wrong and... *ahem*

GAH!

Can you imagine a 30,000 word proposal, 150 of which is the actual proposal, the rest of which is definitions of the words, definitions of the words used to define the words, definitions of the worlds used to define the definitions of the words....

AAAAUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!


Unfortunately, yes, on a daily basis I live with this problem.

There are ways to limit it so that such is not the case.

Unfortunately, this topic is a tad... ill titled. It sounds like a rule has been passed when it has not.

You might want to delete it before a moderator takes it wrong and... *ahem*

Yeah, thought that after hitting the reply button.

Guess it depends on how define substantive :)

But hey, so long as that 'Rights of Minorities and Women' resolution stays up there, whatever my arbitrary belief of what a word means is equal in the eyes of the UN to yours. So if I believe that "marriage" can be defined as "chopping everyone's heads off" then there you have it.