NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that, ever since the repeal function was introduced, over 2/3 of all new UN proposals are trying to repeal some previous resolution. Rather than talking about new ideas, we are endlessly debating and re-debating the same old resolutions. I don't know about you, but I find this to be increasingly annoying. Please, for the sake of keeping the game interesting, stop this deluge of repeals and start thinking of new resolutions!

Many people were not around, or not active, when these resolutions were originally passed. If they are going to be ruled by these law's, they should have the option to attempt to fight them.

Sometimes it makes sense to repeal a resolution, especially when 95% of all resolutions put to a vote are passed.

the post above mine is also true.

1. Nobody is forced to join the UN.
2. I'm not saying we should ban repeals or anything, I'm saying people should act more responsibly and limit their own volume of repeals.

Perhaps game mechanics should be tweaked to allow, say, only one repeal per resolution per month (so you can't try to repeal the same resolution more than once a month).

And in some cases the repeal is to make way for a better version of the resolution.

Again, I'm not saying all repeals are bad, I'm saying we're paying far too much attention to repeals and far too little to new ideas.

Why, if you don't want to pay attention to an appeal just don't read it. Or if your so fed up with them, you could always take your own suggestion and leave the UN.

I find myself somewhat in agreement with constantinopolis, for instance there are 3 proposals regarding repealing citizen rule up right now, I think that is a bit redundant.

I have more of a problem with the nations that spam the same proposal. Once is enough, more just makes it more likely you will get ignored.

I have more of a problem with the nations that spam the same proposal. Once is enough, more just makes it more likely you will get ignored.
I think maybe that has to do with the server not responding the first time somebody clicks the button...

I think maybe that has to do with the server not responding the first time somebody clicks the button...

It could be that people with dial-ups (like me half the time) have slower connections. Aye.

I figured I'd weigh and and say the thing that bothers me is so many of the repeals aren't well presented. Tuesday Heights has an excellent guide to how to write repeals that is stickied here, but the authors of many repeals don't really seem to go just go to the effort that the authors of original proposals do.


A question to delegates ... how many of you are getting telegrams asking you to endorse repeals? Do you feel there are as many telegrams sent to you asking about repeals as there are for original proposals?

I think I've gotten more spam tg's asking for an approval of an original proposal rather than a repeal.

Bumpity. :)

The fact is that many of the resolutions in force were passed in the very early days of NS and are poor resolutions which need to be repealed.

The fact is that many of the resolutions in force were passed in the very early days of NS and are poor resolutions which need to be repealed.

Oh, I agree. But I generally question a repeal that is written *just* as poorly as the resolution it seeks to remove from the records.

Though I understand that Delegates are very polite to telegram campaigners, if I were in your shoes, I'd politely point telegrammers to Tuesday Height's repeal guide.

I'm thinking something like,

Hello,

Thanks for the telegram. I checked out your proposed repeal and will discuss this with the UN members in my region. However, I noticed that your repeal seems to speak to the lack of form and organization of a resolution, and think that if you visit Tuesday Height's repeal guide (insert url), that you might be able to collect more swing endorsements.

Thanks,
(insert name)

Would something like this help?

...make a prop to limit repeals, or is that game mechanics?
Something along the lines of:

United Nations Resolution: The Focused Legislation Act

REALIZING that the UN is a large lawmaking body that can handle only a limited flow of incoming bills

UNDERSTANDING that everyone living under a law deserves the opportunity to repeal said law

CONCLUDING that these rights may very well have to be temporarily suspended in favor of new legislation due to afore-mentioned processing constraints

ESTABLISHING an administrative statute declaring the supreme importance of fresh considerations over repeals

MEANING that five (5) new laws must be considered for every repeal.

(NOTING that laws that effectively nullify other resolutions without directly being stated as "repeals" are considered repeals in the context of this resolution)

I'm new to this, havent read the guidlines or anything yet, but is something like this possible? Who choses what goes up for a vote?

...make a prop to limit repeals, or is that game mechanics?

I'm new to this, havent read the guidlines or anything yet, but is something like this possible? Who choses what goes up for a vote?

Technically we can't use UN proposals / resolutions to change the way the game works.

It is possible to post on the Technical forum and request that the game admins make changes (to the game code), but even that may not address our short term issue.

I think what happened in the time before repeals is that players would submit more joke or otherwise garbage proposals. Now with the magic of the repeal process (just a button click), it is far easier to say:

"This resolution should be repealed. It is stupid."

A few of these types of repeals do make it into the queue. There are actually some well worded repeals and some horribly written resolutions that passed. I think the process / concept of repeals is good. It is just how as a community that we treat them that is often annoying.

Not being a delegate, I only read through about half of the list 1-2 times a week. I am still seeing good and bad ideas for resolutions. And I'm also seeing poorly worded and well constructed repeals too.

I think the best thing any player can do is to search the proposal queue. If you see an idea that you 90% like, telegram the author and make a suggestion for an improvement. Also offer to help them in a telegram campaign ... telegramming makes the difference. I submitted a few proposals that I didn't telegram for at all. They got no where, and then I later submitted them and aggressively campaigned for them ... they passed and with significant majorities.

1. Nobody is forced to join the UN.

I am getting tired of this argument.

The point of the UN is to be involved with international issues, debate them, and decide on a course of action (resolutions). If a nation(s) decide that the resolution passed is out of date, or otherwise unsuitable, it is their right as a member of the UN to propose a repeal of said resolution.

The UN does not force it's members to be active in any way, so why not excercise your right to ignore any repeals or proposals that you think are just a waste of time instead of telling people where the exits are.

If proposals like the one I sorta outlined were allowed, th UN would have real power. The tech of the game woulnt have to change, it would simply change what gets approved.

I think the idea of a UN is cool, but if there is no real power, it's all hypothetical.

Honestly, the UN should be able to govern iteself if it is expected to legislate for the whole world.

What I'd like to see, even if it's not likely to happen, is a seperate "Repeal Proposals" category. New proposals (positive legislation) goes in one list, Repeals in another. Either that or the ability to sort by Category generally (i.e. see only Social Justice or only Drug laws) to cut down the clutter and make searching for a specific proposal a little easier.

The other thing, if Repeals go in a seperate category, is it would allow a rule that only one Repeal of a resolution can be active at any time. The only problem I see with it is a poorly worded repeal would have to time out before a well worded repeal of the same resolution could be proposed.

You cannot change the game mechanics.

It would be better for the game if we could propose amendments to passed resolutions.

imho.

One of my favorite arguements I'm still laughing at is where someone stated that these nations should have a right to attempt repeals of resolutions they didn't pass.

Okay, let's use an example close to this. I invade Mexico, overthrow the government, put myself in charge, and divide the nation among my loyal friends. Then, I ask the US to annex my portion and, after they do, apply for statehood. Since this is my fantasy, they approve me within a day. Poof, I'm the 51st State of the Disunion.

Now, under the logic I was just laughing at, I should be able to attempt to repeal every federal law in the United States just because my State wasn't involved in helping pass them.

Do I really need to go on and point out how silly this is?

One of my favorite arguements I'm still laughing at is where someone stated that these nations should have a right to attempt repeals of resolutions they didn't pass.

Okay, let's use an example close to this. I invade Mexico, overthrow the government, put myself in charge, and divide the nation among my loyal friends. Then, I ask the US to annex my portion and, after they do, apply for statehood. Since this is my fantasy, they approve me within a day. Poof, I'm the 51st State of the Disunion.

Now, under the logic I was just laughing at, I should be able to attempt to repeal every federal law in the United States just because my State wasn't involved in helping pass them.

Do I really need to go on and point out how silly this is?

I don't understand how that is silly. If you are affected by those federal laws, and have full statehood priveleges, you have every duty to try to repeal those laws if they are not in the interests of the people of your state.

I don't understand how that is silly. If you are affected by those federal laws, and have full statehood priveleges, you have every duty to try to repeal those laws if they are not in the interests of the people of your state.

Tell that to a certain state that had to alter its laws on marriage before being allowed to become a state.

It would be better for the game if we could propose amendments to passed resolutions.

imho.

I thought that too, but then realized that since it is much easier to write an amendment than an actual new proposal, the proposal list would be even more flooded than it is now.

Tell that to a certain state that had to alter its laws on marriage before being allowed to become a state.

I don't understand how this relates to your example of a state trying to change legislation after it has been admitted.

I don't understand how this relates to your example of a state trying to change legislation after it has been admitted.

Because that is, in effect, how it works with the NSUN. When you join, your nation's laws automatically change to comply with the international laws of the UN.

Because that is, in effect, how it works with the NSUN. When you join, your nation's laws automatically change to comply with the international laws of the UN.

Which is how it should be. New nations should have to comply with the same laws as everyone else; however, they should also have the right (and duty) to work for legislation with the same privileges as veteran nations.

Which is how it should be. New nations should have to comply with the same laws as everyone else; however, they should also have the right (and duty) to work for legislation with the same privileges as veteran nations.

Absolutely true. For example, when I joined the U.N., I had an issue with resolution number 1, Fight the Axis of Evil. I joined anyway, because the next couple of dozen were pretty cool (save one that outlawed piracy, and therefore ninja pirates). That resolution was formed when there were currently 3 voters in the U.N. New additions were not pleased. Two of the veteran nations liked it, though. On the same basis, the nations of NS often fluctuate in and out as people become bored with the game and eventually you have an almost entirely new crowd. Do they always want to follow the old rules of the U.N.? No. But they like a lot of the benefits, so they join anyways and attempt to repeal that which disagrees with them.

It's not so much that we're crushing originality as that the U.N. already has almost everything needed for most nations. So now, we look to efficiency, sizing down on the resolutions that are erroneous or create detrimental effects. The truth is, if these people weren't writing dumb repeals, they'd be writing dumb and already used proposals (most likely based off of NationStates issues) and you'd be complaining about those instead.

The thing is, repeals are actually very hard to pass precisely because there is so many of them and because people like to keep their benefits, so as a result of the repeal function you have less to worry about from someone with stupid yet masses-appealing ideas.

Perhaps I have a bias, seeing as I've submitted a Global Library repeal, but I have to say: that resolution is really, really stupid and I reserve the right to spend hours and hours on repealing the bloody thing.

Jeianga - you cannot change the game mechanics in a resolution, specifically. I'm fairly certain, however, that you can leave your idea with Max, who will promptly ignore it and continue working on his books, as is his job. Don't jump on Asshelmetta for his opinion, he wasn't talking about putting it into a resolution.

Which is how it should be. New nations should have to comply with the same laws as everyone else; however, they should also have the right (and duty) to work for legislation with the same privileges as veteran nations.

Aye, they should. But that doesn't mean they have the right to repeal a resolution just because they dislike it, which is why many of them are trying to repeal resolutions. The same is true of the veteran players.

In most cases, there has to be an actual concern over the resolution. The Fight the Axis of Evil resolution was never actually voted on by the UN, making that an important case. The one about prostitution brought up, despite the problems with the arguement thread, health concerns that a current resolution about to go up for vote addresses. And the Global Library had so many problems with it even the author turned against it before the vote was finished.

But, in the end, most repeals are done because the author doesn't like the resolution and is looking for any excuse to be rid of it.

But they don't succeed. That's the difference. People motivated by sheer whim are going to submit dumb proposals regardless of whether those proposals are repeals. We'll ignore them regardless of what type they are. I actually think stupid repeals are less dangerous than stupid proposals (as seen by the passage of idiocy like the Global Library and the failure of any dumb repeal to pass). So that makes this a non-issue, and a rather irritating complaint. We aren't repealing the ability to repeal. Live with it.

In most cases, there has to be an actual concern over the resolution. The Fight the Axis of Evil resolution was never actually voted on by the UN, making that an important case. The one about prostitution brought up, despite the problems with the arguement thread, health concerns that a current resolution about to go up for vote addresses. And the Global Library had so many problems with it even the author turned against it before the vote was finished.

But, in the end, most repeals are done because the author doesn't like the resolution and is looking for any excuse to be rid of it.

Isn't saying that the author doesn't like the resolution the same as saying that he/she has concerns over it? In a democratic institution such as NSUN, every nation's vote counts (please don't make a comment about how this is untrue because the only votes that really matter are powerful delegate votes). Therefore, if enough nations "dislike" a resolution, then it should not be on the books. I for one refuse to mock a UN member for trying to gain enough support to repeal legislation he/she finds offensive, impractical, or burdensome.

Isn't saying that the author doesn't like the resolution the same as saying that he/she has concerns over it? In a democratic institution such as NSUN, every nation's vote counts (please don't make a comment about how this is untrue because the only votes that really matter are powerful delegate votes). Therefore, if enough nations "dislike" a resolution, then it should not be on the books. I for one refuse to mock a UN member for trying to gain enough support to repeal legislation he/she finds offensive, impractical, or burdensome.

And that is where we disagree. I feel it must have a real reason beyond just dislike behind the opposition of it. I dislike quite a few resolutions the UN has passed, but you don't see me pulling the membership of my UN puppet or submitting hundreds of repeals on them.

And that is where we disagree. I feel it must have a real reason beyond just dislike behind the opposition of it. I dislike quite a few resolutions the UN has passed, but you don't see me pulling the membership of my UN puppet or submitting hundreds of repeals on them.
No, I don't see you submitting repeals, and I thank you for that, but I still acknowledge your right to do so.

It is bound to happen that someone is upset with a res and attempts to repeal it. The problem comes when MUltiple people try to repeal a res at once. I urge people to check the list o rpropsitions beofre makign a new one. Short of leaving the UN i don't see another choice,