NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Looking through my old posts and found....

IC: Nations of the UN, the Lindimese delegation recognizes that the problems that plagued the UN months ago continue today, even with our new found ability to repeal resolutions.

Therefore, we endeavor to bring forth the World Body Powers Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=325496).

Any help would be appreciated, and concerns and comments will be addressed promptly.

OOC: Read through the whole thread before you make any statements.

I would like to support a proposition of this sort, although it still is not entirely clear how it would be carried out (perhaps include a repeal of all previously states resolutions and the state the powers of the UN in a clear, concise document). I feel it is very important to have a strictly defined national sphere that cannot be violated.

Unnecessary. The UN forces compliance. There is no allowance of disobediance. Ask Hack about his gnomes.

Unnecessary. The UN forces compliance. There is no allowance of disobediance. Ask Hack about his gnomes.

Did you read what his proposal is about?

His idea is to create a proposal that limits what actions the UN may take by classifying issues based on whether they concern only one nation or the international community.

OOC: Yes, this seems to blur the line between IC and OOC, as most of the NSUN does, but this is IC. And it would provide an IC guideline for proposals. Wait. Okay, well, anyways, I am very aware of the gnomes.

...gnomes....

Did you read what his proposal is about?

His idea is to create a proposal that limits what actions the UN may take by classifying issues based on whether they concern only one nation or the international community.

OOC: Yea, you said it better. Thank you.

Power of the UN = all encompassing over its own membership. And governed by mechanical rules beyond our own control or legislation.

Did you read what his proposal is about?

His idea is to create a proposal that limits what actions the UN may take by classifying issues based on whether they concern only one nation or the international community.

The proposal would be deleted by the magic Gnomes...


Game Mechanics:
This is one of the most important rules governing what a resolution is allowed to do with regards to policy. The action clauses of your proposal may not require any action that would necessitate additional programming by the system administrators. This includes things like setting tax rates, mandating a committee be formed in character, or requiring the General Assembly to vote on a subordinate issue. Understand that this isn’t a complete list, though, and many other actions qualify as game mechanics violations.
...
Restricting Future Proposals:
It is illegal for the United Nations to prohibit itself from performing an action in the future. To do so would require reprogramming the game so certain proposal categories or specific clauses aren’t allowed, a mechanics issue.

His idea is to create a proposal that limits what actions the UN may take by classifying issues based on whether they concern only one nation or the international community.
From the Forbidden Actions section of "Before you make a proposal..."
2. 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 about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.
If that's not clearly saying what I think you think this is saying, then by all means continue this discussion. It reads like you want to Consolidate previously passed resolutions without repealing them first
limit what can or can't be passed in the futureAs both of these clearly qualify as illegal actions, I'm missing the point of this (and the previous) topic.

Did you read what his proposal is about?

His idea is to create a proposal that limits what actions the UN may take by classifying issues based on whether they concern only one nation or the international community.

Actually, I did. I chose to ignore the parts that are blatant rules violations by trying to change game mechanics.

Wow. A triple lindy of identical ideas presented in entirely different ways. Cool.

Wow. A triple lindy of identical ideas presented in entirely different ways. Cool.

OOC: Haha, yes, I thought was funny too.

Odd, I am usually not flamed. This is an unique experience for me.

Okay, if you read the thread, you could see the progression of my proposed proposal from highly illegal game mechanics changing idea to one that simply attempted to streamline previous resolutions into a cohesive divisions, allocating who controls what and so forth.

If that still violates the game mechanic changing clause, then by all means, let me know. But, please, don't jump all over me. A simple and gentle correction is all that's required. I am no "Thong Proposal" n00b, perhaps only an over-eager member nation.

With all honesty.

Odd, I am usually not flamed. This is an unique experience for me.
You weren't flamed this time either. You asked for opinions about your proposal, and opinions you got. The fact that they were uniformly against the idea you proposed doesn't reflect on you, just that we don't think your idea will fly.

Basically, you can make new proposals that don't conflict with old ones and the game rules, and you can put stuff in for a repeal. Those are your choices, and any attempt to streamline that, no matter how nobly born, is illegal.

You weren't flamed this time either. You asked for opinions about your proposal, and opinions you got. The fact that they were uniformly against the idea you proposed doesn't reflect on you, just that we don't think your idea will fly.

Basically, you can make new proposals that don't conflict with old ones and the game rules, and you can put stuff in for a repeal. Those are your choices, and any attempt to streamline that, no matter how nobly born, is illegal.

If disagreeing with me was flaming, than I definitely would be a troll. No, it just seemed from my perspective the objections were a bit patronizing and harsh.

Indeed, I don't seem to do anything right on NS. Stupid idea scrapped.