NationStates Jolt Archive

Limitations of the UN

A Resolution to promote independence and severence among U.N. Nations by not being controlled entirely by Major U.N. Leaders...

The U.N. Shall have no right to engage in military action against any Member State.

The U.N. Shall have no right to set up office within a member state without the consent of the government

The U.N. Shall have no right impose judicial hearings on terrorists oringinating from any U.N. State.

The U.N. Shall take no terriroty under its juresdiction

The U.N. Shall have no right to send in officials to any U.N. State without the consent of the government.

The U.N. Shall have no right to govern any nation through taxes, propaganda, media, military, or by elected officials.

The U.N. Shall have no right to sieze weapons unless permitted so by a resolution passed by the voters.

The U.N. Shall have no right to ally itself on any side during any way containing two or more U.N. Member States.

The U.N. Shall only be permitted into national airspace either by consent of the government or on an aid mission
sponsored by the government.

The U.N. Shall have no right to set up any further non-military facilities unless permitted so by a resolution vote.

All U.N. Resolutions are to be read carefully before being voted upon, the decision of one nation may change the course of another.

The U.N. Shall have no right to impose embargoes on any U.N. Member State.

The U.N. Shall have no right to station any military forces in a nation without the consent of the government.

The U.N. Shall have no right to publically own any factories, companies, refineries, stocks, or any non-military property without a resolution permiting it to do so.

The U.N. HQ Shall not be quartered anywhere where 3/4 of the region oppose it, even with delegate approval.

U.N. Delegates are to be representatives of a region only, not to be the region's complete opinion and spirit.

A Resolution to promote independence and severence among U.N. Nations by not being controlled entirely by Major U.N. Leaders...

This is the only sentence that doesn't blatantly violate game rules. You aren't allowed to limit the powers of the UN through legislation. However, you would probably be interested in the National Sovereignty Coalition, a UN political party that has recently been established. Visit the board (http://s8.invisionfree.com/NSC/index.php) and register or telegram Zamundaland for details.

I also came to invite you to the NSC forum.

But I think at least half the things in your proposal are not violations of game rules.

Limitations of the UN


Illegal.



A Resolution to promote independence and severence among U.N. Nations by not being controlled entirely by Major U.N. Leaders...

Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to engage in military action against any Member State.

UN has no military. This one is a duh.



The U.N. Shall have no right to set up office within a member state without the consent of the government

Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right impose judicial hearings on terrorists oringinating from any U.N. State.

Illegal.



The U.N. Shall take no terriroty under its juresdiction

Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to send in officials to any U.N. State without the consent of the government.

Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to govern any nation through taxes, propaganda, media, military, or by elected officials.

Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to sieze weapons unless permitted so by a resolution passed by the voters.

Define the "voters". If you mean the UN membership, legal. If not, illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to ally itself on any side during any way containing two or more U.N. Member States.

Legal.



The U.N. Shall only be permitted into national airspace either by consent of the government or on an aid mission sponsored by the government.

Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to set up any further non-military facilities unless permitted so by a resolution vote.

Illegal.



All U.N. Resolutions are to be read carefully before being voted upon, the decision of one nation may change the course of another.

Legal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to impose embargoes on any U.N. Member State.


Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to station any military forces in a nation without the consent of the government.

UN has no military. Pointless, but legal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to publically own any factories, companies, refineries, stocks, or any non-military property without a resolution permiting it to do so.

Questionable.



The U.N. HQ Shall not be quartered anywhere where 3/4 of the region oppose it, even with delegate approval.

Illegal.



U.N. Delegates are to be representatives of a region only, not to be the region's complete opinion and spirit.

Pointless.

Go ahead and submit it, we'd love to see you warned or booted.

Go ahead and submit it, we'd love to see you warned or booted.
I think what my colleague meant to say was, "Hey. Just a head's up: You really can't propose legislation limiting the powers of the UN. In fact, the punishment for trying is pretty severe. You should probably read the stickies at the top of the board before proposing again. Good job taking initiative, though. It's too bad more nations aren't involved in legislation." ;)

TheUNShallTheUNShallTheUNShallTheUNShallTheUNShall ow! My brain hurts and my eyes are doing bogglies. This proposal literally hurts the vision.

Also, those bits that Vastiva says are legal actually belong in the pointless or illegal thread, because they attempt to limit resolutions in the future or can't really have an effect. Just to crush your hopes and dreams for a better U.N. even further and hopefully hurt your feelings as well.

I mean, seriously, you cannot pass a resolution that says that everyone should read the resolutions and expect everyone to read the resolutions because they passed it, especially if they didn't read the resolution before they decided not to pass it! Bwaha! My logic is brilliant but compelling!

I must need sleep.

I mean, seriously, you cannot pass a resolution that says that everyone should read the resolutions and expect everyone to read the resolutions because they passed it, especially if they didn't read the resolution before they decided not to pass it! Bwaha! My logic is brilliant but compelling!
Huh?

I must need sleep.
Oh. I understand now. Nargopia seconds the motion that Pojonia gets some sleep.

Limitations of the UN
Illegal.

A Resolution to promote independence and severence among U.N. Nations by not being controlled entirely by Major U.N. Leaders...
Illegal.
Those are non-actionable preamble, as far as I can tell.
I don't see how that could be illegal.

The U.N. Shall have no right to set up office within a member state without the consent of the government
Illegal.
I don't buy that this is illegal.
Source something from the charter or the FAQ.

The U.N. Shall take no terriroty under its juresdiction
Illegal.
The NSUN can't tax, but it can appropriate territory?
That's news to me.

The U.N. Shall have no right to send in officials to any U.N. State without the consent of the government.
Illegal.
Again, in what way is this illegal?
Are you claiming that the delegate from a country you are at war with must have free access to your country?

The U.N. Shall have no right to govern any nation through taxes, propaganda, media, military, or by elected officials.
Illegal.
Which of those is illegal?
The UN now has no riight to directly govern any nation or assess taxes on any nation. You yourself said above the UN has no military.
Do you foresee a resolution mandating UN ownership of all media?

The U.N. Shall only be permitted into national airspace either by consent of the government or on an aid mission sponsored by the government.
Illegal.
I don't get this at all. Isn't this more like your response about the military - the UN doesn't have an airforce, so duh!

The U.N. Shall have no right to set up any further non-military facilities unless permitted so by a resolution vote.
Illegal.
How could this possibly be illegal?
The UN can't do anything except by resolutions.

All U.N. Resolutions are to be read carefully before being voted upon, the decision of one nation may change the course of another.
Legal.
Non-actionable. Insulting, even.

The U.N. HQ Shall not be quartered anywhere where 3/4 of the region oppose it, even with delegate approval.
Illegal.
???
I don't even know what this one is about.

I had a look at Vastiva's response, now here's my interpretation.
Limitations of the UN

A Resolution to promote independence and severence among U.N. Nations by not being controlled entirely by Major U.N. Leaders...
Major UN Leaders? Who are they? The Pacific Delegates?

The U.N. Shall have no right to engage in military action against any Member State.
As Vastiva mentioned, this is pointless - the UN does not, and cannot have a military force (beyond the UN Gnomes, whose powers continue to amaze).

The U.N. Shall have no right to set up office within a member state without the consent of the government
I don't quite get this. How could the UN force anything of the sort?

The U.N. Shall have no right impose judicial hearings on terrorists oringinating from any U.N. State.
Borderline, but this is probably illegal given the passage of the EON Convention.

The U.N. Shall take no terriroty under its juresdiction
When has it ever? Why would it? This is another part I just don't get.

The U.N. Shall have no right to send in officials to any U.N. State without the consent of the government.
The UN Gnomes enter your nation and change your laws any time a resolution is passed. Saying no to them is impossible.

The U.N. Shall have no right to govern any nation through taxes, propaganda, media, military, or by elected officials.
The UN is not allowed to collect taxes from member nations. It has no military. Propaganda, media? Not sure whether this is needed. Elected Officials? Technically, the UN overrides any national officials with every passed resolution.

The U.N. Shall have no right to sieze weapons unless permitted so by a resolution passed by the voters.
Huh? You can't do it, unless you're allowed to do it? Me confused.

The U.N. Shall have no right to ally itself on any side during any way containing two or more U.N. Member States.
The UN can't ally itself with anyone, regardless of whether they are at war or not. As the UN cannot pass resolutions effecting individual nations, this is pointless.

The U.N. Shall only be permitted into national airspace either by consent of the government or on an aid mission
sponsored by the government.
See the bits above about UN officials and offices.

The U.N. Shall have no right to set up any further non-military facilities unless permitted so by a resolution vote.
This seems pointless. Why say you can't do it, but leave the door wide open?

All U.N. Resolutions are to be read carefully before being voted upon, the decision of one nation may change the course of another.
This is a combination of common sense and coming very close to mandating what member nations do with resolutions.

The U.N. Shall have no right to impose embargoes on any U.N. Member State.
It's not a matter of whether we have the right to, we have no ability to do any such thing.

The U.N. Shall have no right to station any military forces in a nation without the consent of the government.
The UN has no military.

The U.N. Shall have no right to publically own any factories, companies, refineries, stocks, or any non-military property without a resolution permiting it to do so.
See further back - this is just pointless.

The U.N. HQ Shall not be quartered anywhere where 3/4 of the region oppose it, even with delegate approval.
Huh? What is this even meant to be?

U.N. Delegates are to be representatives of a region only, not to be the region's complete opinion and spirit.
This goes directly into regional politics. In some regions, the Delegate is indeed but a representative. In others, the Delegate is the actual regional leader, and they hold elections for the position. I'm not sure it's illegal, but I certainly don't think it would pass.

All in all, this seems to have little point. Much of it seems to have no relation to the way the NSUN works.

Go ahead and submit it, we'd love to see you warned or booted.
Well Vastiva, they took your advice and submitted it.

Reason #364 I have insomnia...


Limitations of the UN
Illegal.



A Resolution to promote independence and severence among U.N. Nations by not being controlled entirely by Major U.N. Leaders...


Illegal.


Those are non-actionable preamble, as far as I can tell.
I don't see how that could be illegal.

1) It is illegal to limit the UN. FAQ violation. Illegal.
2) You are neither independant from nor can be severed from the UN without leaving the UN. Game mechanics violation. Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to set up office within a member state without the consent of the government

Illegal.

I don't buy that this is illegal.
Source something from the charter or the FAQ.

Easier. We set up the International Red Cross. This seeks to prevent the IRC from having an office in that nation without the governments consent. The resolution says otherwise. UN Resolution trumps governmental consent. FAQ violation. Illegal.



The U.N. Shall take no terriroty under its juresdiction

Illegal.

The NSUN can't tax, but it can appropriate territory?
That's news to me.

See "The Law of the Sea". It has the power to delineate what belongs to whom. Therefore, Resolution violation, illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to send in officials to any U.N. State without the consent of the government.

Illegal.

Again, in what way is this illegal?
Are you claiming that the delegate from a country you are at war with must have free access to your country?

Example: UN Gnome. UN observers. Any UN official from any UN Resolution. Violates several resolutions and FAQ. Illegal.



The U.N. Shall have no right to govern any nation through taxes, propaganda, media, military, or by elected officials.

Illegal.

Which of those is illegal?
The UN now has no riight to directly govern any nation or assess taxes on any nation. You yourself said above the UN has no military.
Do you foresee a resolution mandating UN ownership of all media?

a) The UN already raises and lowers taxes via resolution (Game mechanics violation, illegal).
b) EVERY UN Resolution could be said to be propaganda (Game mechanics AND FAQ violations, illegal)
c) "DVD Region Removal" is a media resolution. There are more. (Game Mechanics and Resolution violations, Illegal)
d) The UN has the right to raise or limit the military. (FAQ violation. Illegal)
e) "Citzen Rule Required". (Resolution violation and FAQ violation. Illegal)



The U.N. Shall only be permitted into national airspace either by consent of the government or on an aid mission sponsored by the government.

Illegal.

I don't get this at all. Isn't this more like your response about the military - the UN doesn't have an airforce, so duh!

The IRCO has the right to go where it wants, whether that action is sponsored by the government or not. There are others. Resolution and FAQ violation.


The U.N. Shall have no right to set up any further non-military facilities unless permitted so by a resolution vote.

Illegal.

How could this possibly be illegal?
The UN can't do anything except by resolutions.

New nation joins the UN. IRCO offices are immediately set up, they do not require a new vote. You also get a compliance office, without vote necessary. Game mechanics and FAQ violations. Illegal.



All U.N. Resolutions are to be read carefully before being voted upon, the decision of one nation may change the course of another.

Legal.

Non-actionable. Insulting, even.

Yep. Unenforcable and stupid... but legal.



The U.N. HQ Shall not be quartered anywhere where 3/4 of the region oppose it, even with delegate approval.

Illegal.


???
I don't even know what this one is about.

Seeks to limit locations the UN can place its offices. FAQ violation. Illegal.

Well Vastiva, they took your advice and submitted it.

Sorry, we are not responsible for the stupid actions of the uninformed who want to see and/or read only what they want to see and/or read.

You do the crime, you do the time.

Generally speaking, this sort of thing isn't going to get you deleted from the game. However, resolutions altering the powers or responsibilities of the UN from the scope outlined in the rules, or requiring changes to game mechanics, are illegal, will be deleted from queue, and the person posting them can, after multiple offenses, be removed from the UN. Just a heads-up.

Anyway, most of the points are non-actionable, thanks to any or all of the following:
- they're already in place either directly or indirectly as a result of game mechanics and rules
- they're actually restrictions on player behavior
- putting them in place would require changes to the game engine

...ookay, actually, all the points are non-actionable for those reasons, as far as I can see.

The proposal "Limitations of the UN" has been deleted.

I Don't understand how the UN couldn't enforce some of these things, like controversial subjects, if it gets enough votes, it should be enforced, common sense, right?
-curious-
Treynation

Yup. Menelemacar's right, and deleted it before I could, pity. I did want to clear some things up, however:

All U.N. Resolutions are to be read carefully before being voted upon, the decision of one nation may change the course of another.
Illegal, actually. This would be a meta-game violation. Just as you can't do a proposal saying that all UN Proposals must be run through a spell-checker, you can't have one mandating that the players read carefully before voting.

The U.N. Shall have no right to publically own any factories, companies, refineries, stocks, or any non-military property without a resolution permiting it to do so.
Illegal and outside the scope of the UN. The UN owns nothing. This would be like saying that the UN can't teleport llamas to and fro Pluto without approval by Resolution.

I Don't understand how the UN couldn't enforce some of these things, like controversial subjects, if it gets enough votes, it should be enforced, common sense, right?
-curious-
Treynation
Vile necromancer! Begone!!

OOC: Ignore this if the proposal's been resubmitted.

I Don't understand how the UN couldn't enforce some of these things, like controversial subjects, if it gets enough votes, it should be enforced, common sense, right?
-curious-
Treynation
it is not a matter if they are enforcable, they violate many game rules and therefore are illegal. i submitted one to review the proposal list periodically, and that was deemed to be illegal, and this goes way beyond that proposal. also, with the last point, of needing 3/4 of the region's aproval before a UN facilitiy is established, regions have next to f-all to do with the UN, save for regional deligates approving of proposals to go to vote. UN affects member nations only. it means nothing to non-UN countries if there is a UN office in a UN country within the region

~watches a dead proposal stumble past his door~

Brains!.... Brains!.... Brains!....

~scribbles on notepad~


*Note to Self: Have office fumigated for zombies, necromancers, and other such pests at earliest convenience. Preferably Tomorrow.*

Go ahead and submit it, we'd love to see you warned or booted.
I think what my colleague meant to say was, "Hey. Just a head's up: You really can't propose legislation limiting the powers of the UN. In fact, the punishment for trying is pretty severe. You should probably read the stickies at the top of the board before proposing again. Good job taking initiative, though. It's too bad more nations aren't involved in legislation." ;)

Nargopia I think that Vastiva ment exactly what they said. In Engineering Chaos we value people who say what they mean and don't mess around with words, well done Vastiva!

OK, please forgive me if I missed this in my reading of the stickies, but can the UN declare an embargo of a NationState? It would seem that this is just a trade restriction on the membership.

(Granted, if the target is not a UN member, the resolution [as I understand the mechanics of the UN] would have no effect; if the target were a UN member, however, they'd have to adhere to the effects of the embargo or quit the UN, right?)

Again, forgive me if I missed this in the stickies, but while the UN has no military, couldn't it do one of the following:

Call upon all of its members to contribute to the defense of another nation (binding)?
Call upon its membership to go to war with a particular nation (non-binding)?

IOW, on the first item, I write a resolution saying that "The UN recognizes First-So-and-So as an aggressor and agrees that its members will volunteer X% of their military resources (assets, budgets, etc.) to the defense of Second-So-and-So, paid for (or not) with a tax increase of Thus-and-Such %". Wouldn't that pass muster?

If not, why not?

On the second item, the effect is just PR, to encourage members to act (akin to a "Sense of Parliament" resolution).

You can't pass a resolution condemming or condoning the actions of any nation or group of nations (unless they're a demographic group if you see what I mean)*. It's in the FAQ or the stickies somewhere.

*i.e. If you submitted a proposal requiring all right wing nations to bring their economies under state control this would be legal. However, if you submitted a proposal requiring all the right wing nations in a region to bring their economies under state control this would be illegal. If you're with me (I'm not)

You can't pass a resolution condemming or condoning the actions of any nation or group of nations (unless they're a demographic group if you see what I mean)*. It's in the FAQ or the stickies somewhere.

*i.e. If you submitted a proposal requiring all right wing nations to bring their economies under state control this would be legal. However, if you submitted a proposal requiring all the right wing nations in a region to bring their economies under state control this would be illegal. If you're with me (I'm not)
Hmmmm. I'm not sure I've expressed myself clearly:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sample Proposal #1 (Trade Embargo)

Category: Social Justice

Text: It being the sense of the United Nations that The United Soviet Bigtopian People's Republic of Kibbles and Bits [henceforth referred to as "USBPRK&B"] has acted in violation of international standards of decency by requiring its citizens to chew with their mouths open (cf. See this bogus hyperlink for details), the Membership of the United Nations hereby declare an embargo on all trade of a non-humanitarian nature with USBPRK&B.

Effect: All member nations will take a hit on trade. Nations within the same region as USBPRK&B at the time this embargo is declared will take a bigger hit on trade. If USBPRK&B is not a member within the standard length of time required to implement a UN proposal [henceforth referred to as the "implementation period", it will take no hit, since the UN can't affect a non-member. If USBPRK&B is a member at any time after the implementation period (which would be the case even if USBPRK&B quit before the end of the implementation period and then immediately rejoined), it will take a huge hit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sample Proposal #2 (Military Intervention)

Category: International Security

Text: It being the sense of the United Nations that The Armed Rogue Nation of Bad Comic Sketches and Funny Walks, Inc. [henceforth referred to as "ARNBCS&FW, Inc."] has acted in violation of international standards of peace and workplace safety by invading The Cockeyed Republic of Poor Worthless Wretches Hanging Out on Street Corners [henceforth referred to as "CRPWWHOSC"] (cf. See this bogus hyperlink for details), the Membership of the United Nations hereby offers military assistance to CRPWWHOSC in its struggle to repel the invaders from ARNBCS&FW, Inc. Such assistance will be paid for by a minimal increase in defense spending on the part of all members.

Effect: All member nations undergo a defense spending increase. If CRPWWHOSC is a UN member, it experiences both a massive economic increase and a massive defense spending increase (simulating a huge influx of war material). If it is not, it does not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ignoring for a second your statement that "You can't pass a resolution condemming or condoning the actions of any nation or group of nations (unless they're a demographic group...), is there anything illegal about these resolutions?

Re: your statement that "You can't pass a resolution condemming or condoning the actions of any nation or group of nations (unless they're a demographic group...), I'm trying to find it. Any idea where that might be?

And - assuming you couldn't condemn or condone - could you still differentially punish or reward, as long as you spoke in language neutral terms?

Here it is: "The United Nations is not allowed to single out specific nations or regions in its legislation. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360)"

That answers my question.

Ah there it is!
Sorry if I got the wrong idea, I was going by your two preceding posts and it's been a long day.