NationStates Jolt Archive

The discussion that sparked recently about the purview and the violation of the national sovereignty of the UN got me to thinking about the idea of national sovereignty in the first place.

First question I would like to ask: can a proposal dictate what a future proposal/resolution must be like? I remember when I was here about a year ago, people were invoking all sorts of past resolutions like the spelling and grammer thing :P Is this legal first of all?

A draft has not been created yet... I'll do this when some more free time clears up for all of you to edit and rip apart... but the general gist of the proposal would be to establish a guideline, or a test if you will, that each proposal must pass before it can be acceptably be said to suggest action that would restrict national sovereignty.

For example (and please note that for now these are JUST examples):
a) Does the suggested resolution prevent more harm than it causes by restricting national soverignty?
b) Is the suggested resolution based on principles that can be applied within a multiplicity of contexts in order to respect the cultures of a multicultural group such as the UN?

(etc.)

What do you all think about a proposal such as this... adn what are your suggestions as to what should be included?

First question I would like to ask: can a proposal dictate what a future proposal/resolution must be like? I remember when I was here about a year ago, people were invoking all sorts of past resolutions like the spelling and grammer thing :P Is this legal first of all?


No it is not legal. That proposal was made before the rules. It's definitely not legal.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

First question I would like to ask: can a proposal dictate what a future proposal/resolution must be like? I remember when I was here about a year ago, people were invoking all sorts of past resolutions like the spelling and grammer thing :P Is this legal first of all?

No, in a certain way, it can't. When I first joined there were many proposals which advocated "make future proposals use good grammar!" or "no more dumb proposals". These aren't allowed as proposals as they're a change to game mechanics (I'm pretty sure, that 's teh termigology, anyway).

However, in another manner of thought, yes, you can dictate future proposals through a resolution. Consider the "Scientific Freedom" resolution. It doesn't technically 'restrict' future regulations in its text, but if you were to write a proposal which contradicts it, or affirms the same thing, that proposal would be deleted as either contradictory of double legislation (until "Scientific Freedom" were repealed).

An even better example of a resolution effecting future resolutions is the Taxation ban. Any resolution which suggests taxation of individual nations citizens is deleted (or at least not widely approved) now. The effect was the same as a proposal which says "No more proposals taxing members", but it didn't change game mechanics. The key is to use the existing interface of the definition and deletion of illegal proposals to effect the "national sovereignty" you seek.

Your proposal will need to be a little narrower than "MAINTAINS the right of nations to set their own precedents and laws in moral and cultural matters", as this would be illegal legislation (seemingly contradicting so many previous proposals).

There are limitation you can make on the UN's ability to legislate. You just have to find the right way to do it. I'll get back to this; let me put some more thought into how a possible proposal would look like and what it would cover.

the general gist of the proposal would be to establish a guideline, or a test if you will, that each proposal must pass before it can be acceptably be said to suggest action that would restrict national sovereignty.


Sorry, I didn't really get to this in my first post. The only way a set of guidelines or test which could be enforced upon the UN would be topical--in regard to a discrete issue. If you were to make a resolution which said, "SECURES the right of nations to make their own decisions with regard to exploding toilets and their subsequently discarded lids" then it would be acceptable. The guideline, in a way, would be "no future resolutions which tell us what to do with our darned exploding toilets!"

Another obstacle, which makes me think you need to narrow the focus of this "national sovereignty" proposal, is the classification into proposal categories. There aren't any categories a "test" of proposals would fit under. The only proposal passed which directly addresses national sovereignty is Frisbeeteria's. I'm interested in understanding why the "Rights and Duties of the UN" (I hope that's the right title: sorry, Fris!) was put into the category it was. It probably won't be a big thing, but category might also be a consideration for this proposal.

I would advise against this. The UN already has a system of how it deals with which proposals it allows and which it doesn't that works quite well. This just adds another unnecessary level and increases the workload of the mods.

I would advise against this. The UN already has a system of how it deals with which proposals it allows and which it doesn't that works quite well. This just adds another unnecessary level and increases the workload of the mods.

We mustn't give the mods work :rolleyes: it's not like that is their job as mod.

A handful of mods and admins deal with the forums, maintaining the site, UN proposals, deleting nations that break rules, the occasional bit of RPing, arguements in the mod forum, listening to complaints over a variety of chat devices, and depending on the level of trust Max Barry gives them they could be dealing with a whole lot that we don't see on here. And they don't get paid for any of it.

The more work you add on, the more the site as a whole loses quality.

Well, actually I was thinking that this should be standing less as something for the mods to police but as something that delegates must take into consideration before they endorse a particular proposal. They ask themselves the questions that the proposal requires future proposals to answer, and then if the answer is a yes to all the questions, then it is a legal proposal that can be endorsed.

Give more responsibility to the delegate to do their job I guess.

There aren't any categories a "test" of proposals would fit under.

Actually, I did a little bit of research on this one to really see if I could find a category to fit this proposal under, and I thought that the one about ensuring democratic process or something... can't quite remember what it's called... would be appropriate as it is a regulation about the way the UN should go about it's democratic processes.

Hey, maybe we should talk some... see how this could be drafted.

We mustn't give the mods work :rolleyes: it's not like that is their job as mod.
How much are you paying the mods for their work?

idjit

Well, actually I was thinking that this should be standing less as something for the mods to police but as something that delegates must take into consideration before they endorse a particular proposal. They ask themselves the questions that the proposal requires future proposals to answer, and then if the answer is a yes to all the questions, then it is a legal proposal that can be endorsed.
How would you make them follow it?

Giordano,
Sigless

We think it's...

A. Illegal
B. Been done before
C. Annoying


The discussion that sparked recently about the purview and the violation of the national sovereignty of the UN got me to thinking about the idea of national sovereignty in the first place.

First question I would like to ask: can a proposal dictate what a future proposal/resolution must be like? I remember when I was here about a year ago, people were invoking all sorts of past resolutions like the spelling and grammer thing :P Is this legal first of all?

A draft has not been created yet... I'll do this when some more free time clears up for all of you to edit and rip apart... but the general gist of the proposal would be to establish a guideline, or a test if you will, that each proposal must pass before it can be acceptably be said to suggest action that would restrict national sovereignty.

For example (and please note that for now these are JUST examples):
a) Does the suggested resolution prevent more harm than it causes by restricting national soverignty?
b) Is the suggested resolution based on principles that can be applied within a multiplicity of contexts in order to respect the cultures of a multicultural group such as the UN?

(etc.)

What do you all think about a proposal such as this... adn what are your suggestions as to what should be included?

How would you make them follow it?

Giordano,
Sigless

... er.... with a gun to their head? :P

Just kidding. Actually, i was hoping that delegates are actually there because they sort of know what they are doing and so would do it voluntarily. How do we force them to do it? Well, I think there is a resolution making it illegal for the UN to form an army... so there's no real way to enforce it other than the honour system. The real weakness I guess.

We think it's...

A. Illegal
Actually, this point has been mentioned... and I'm just curious as to exactly why it is illegal. There requires no change in game mechanics... and aren't the point of resolutions to enact laws for the better governance of all?
B. Been done before
Really? Hmmm.... that I didn't know... maybe I should look this up then.
C. Annoying
Qualification please?

A) You can't limit what the UN can do, and you most definitely cannot put the UN under national rule as to what it can or cannot do.

"We passed a resolution in the UN"
"We don't like it"
"Oh, sorry."

Never, never gonna happen. You cannot pick and choose what resolutions you obey - you WILL obey them all, like it or not.

B) Do a search on this forum.

C) It's been done to death. National Soverignty becomes (mostly) irrelevant when you hit "JOIN UN". So this is yet another annoying proposal.

Well, actually I was thinking that this should be standing less as something for the mods to police but as something that delegates must take into consideration before they endorse a particular proposal. They ask themselves the questions that the proposal requires future proposals to answer, and then if the answer is a yes to all the questions, then it is a legal proposal that can be endorsed.

Give more responsibility to the delegate to do their job I guess.

This could be done by distributing a list of questions for delegates to answer before approving proposals, but it could not be enforced. Just as the game doesn't stop players from submitting legal-yet-dumb proposals now, it won't stop delegates from approving legal-yet-dumb proposals. As long as a proposal's legal, the UN can't stop delegates from approving it.

And if a proposal is illegal it is, hopefully, deleted. The United Nations can only change what makes up an illegal proposal in specific cases (such as the through Taxation Ban or any other passed resolution). We can't change the rules about what constitutes illegal proposals, we can only make the proposals we don't like fit into the already existing categories.


A) You can't limit what the UN can do, and you most definitely cannot put the UN under national rule as to what it can or cannot do.

I'm not sure of exactly what you mean, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're wrong.

You can limit what the UN can do. In one way, consider the Taxation Ban, which overtly states limitations on the UN. Also, by passing any resolution you keep future proposals that are contradictory to this proposal off the table--until a repeal arises.

And there is no mandate for proposals to decide policy UN-wide. A perfectly legal proposal could say, roughly, "all UN nations can decide upon this issues for themselves without involvement of the UN". Legislating upon an issue in the UN is not necessarily a matter of taking all rights away from countries.



"We passed a resolution in the UN"
"We don't like it"
"Oh, sorry."

Never, never gonna happen. You cannot pick and choose what resolutions you obey - you WILL obey them all, like it or not.

Any time an argument includes "never gonna happen" I put it in the FEABLE ARGUMENTS pile. Consider what was said (perhaps by Vastiva itself) about my repeal of "legalize prostitution" in contrast to what actually happened. Don't act like you know what's going to happen in the UN based on your personal conviction, ethos, or sage understanding of goings on here. You don't. Don’t expect absolute statements like that to have any weight.


C) It's been done to death. National Soverignty becomes (mostly) irrelevant when you hit "JOIN UN". So this is yet another annoying proposal.


Not true. National Sovereignty is a very relevant issue in the UN, to its members--all of whom have hit the "JOIN UN" button. Consider Whited Fields's 'UN Reduced Arms' proposal (paraphrased). Even though it's been around for several months in various versions, it hasn't received enough support to reach quorum (most unfortunate for Whited Fields). Too many nations in the UN want to have the right to legislate on their military arms independent of the UN--they wish for sovereignty to rest in the independent nation in this issue. Just about every vote in the UN is about national sovereignty, because just about Every vote is a decision of whether we want the proposal at vote to supersede our individual nation’s sovereignty.

Just because passed resolutions do supersede independent nation's legislation doesn't mean that national sovereignty isn't important. Just because you can't "ignore" resolutions doesn't mean you don't have national sovereignty. You do. Your nation has sovereignty in every area the UN hasn't explicitly ruled otherwise. This is what debate in the UN is about--deciding if there is enough legitimate cause not to impose on nation's sovereign rights in an issue. "Ban nuclear weapons", for instance, failed because it was decided (in a collective, democratic way) that not only was it not the UN's place to tell individual nations to ban nuclear arms.

The existing national sovereignty on a given issue is on referendum almost every time a proposal comes to vote (an exception perhaps being a proposal which secures rights of nations to decide upon an issue). "Nuclear Terrorism" took away nation's sovereign right to sell nuclear weapons to "suspected or known terrorist organizations"; "Gay Rights" took away nation's rights not to "endorse gay marriages"; "Freedom of the Press" took away nation's rights to oppress the press in certain ways. Each resolution deals in some way, with national sovereignty.

National sovereignty is very relevant.

Just kidding. Actually, i was hoping that delegates are actually there because they sort of know what they are doing and so would do it voluntarily.
Yeah... Why bother with a proposal. Why not make a post of what you think we should look into?

How do we force them to do it? Well, I think there is a resolution making it illegal for the UN to form an army...
Not to the best of my knowledge. This is a rule.

so there's no real way to enforce it other than the honour system. The real weakness I guess.
Yeah, why bother following it? People would not follow it out of spite, well not anyone I know...

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I'm not sure of exactly what you mean, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're wrong.

You can limit what the UN can do. In one way, consider the Taxation Ban, which overtly states limitations on the UN. Also, by passing any resolution you keep future proposals that are contradictory to this proposal off the table--until a repeal arises.although I can't talk for him, you missed the point. while the UN can limit himself, he can't make rules that consider every national law. any time, any place, the international law is stronger than the national law.
may you read his example? clearified the issue good (but unfortunally you "missed that parts).

And there is no mandate for proposals to decide policy UN-wide. A perfectly legal proposal could say, roughly, "all UN nations can decide upon this issues for themselves without involvement of the UN". Legislating upon an issue in the UN is not necessarily a matter of taking all rights away from countries.the UN can't do that, because the UN power come from deciding on issues. If some proposal will try to make that, It will deleted (or just will failed).
undecided issues are already up to the countrey, so all the UN resolutions trying to change it (and they always will, despite the repeals who take the opposite way).


Any time an argument includes "never gonna happen" I put it in the FEABLE ARGUMENTS pile. Consider what was said (perhaps by Vastiva itself) about my repeal of "legalize prostitution" in contrast to what actually happened. Don't act like you know what's going to happen in the UN based on your personal conviction, ethos, or sage understanding of goings on here. You don't. Don’t expect absolute statements like that to have any weight.wrong. I can say you right now that the UN never passed laws that put national sorveignety higher than the UN.
the UN will never establish an army, or legalize jenocide.
and as vastiva said: "the UN will never delete winning resolution because some nations are against it.
see? it could be easy to tell the future.

Not true. National Sovereignty is a very relevant issue in the UN, to its members--all of whom have hit the "JOIN UN" button. Consider Whited Fields's 'UN Reduced Arms' proposal (paraphrased). Even though it's been around for several months in various versions, it hasn't received enough support to reach quorum (most unfortunate for Whited Fields). Too many nations in the UN want to have the right to legislate on their military arms independent of the UN--they wish for sovereignty to rest in the independent nation in this issue. Just about every vote in the UN is about national sovereignty, because just about Every vote is a decision of whether we want the proposal at vote to supersede our individual nation’s sovereignty.

Just because passed resolutions do supersede independent nation's legislation doesn't mean that national sovereignty isn't important. Just because you can't "ignore" resolutions doesn't mean you don't have national sovereignty. You do. Your nation has sovereignty in every area the UN hasn't explicitly ruled otherwise. This is what debate in the UN is about--deciding if there is enough legitimate cause not to impose on nation's sovereign rights in an issue. "Ban nuclear weapons", for instance, failed because it was decided (in a collective, democratic way) that not only was it not the UN's place to tell individual nations to ban nuclear arms.

The existing national sovereignty on a given issue is on referendum almost every time a proposal comes to vote (an exception perhaps being a proposal which secures rights of nations to decide upon an issue). "Nuclear Terrorism" took away nation's sovereign right to sell nuclear weapons to "suspected or known terrorist organizations"; "Gay Rights" took away nation's rights not to "endorse gay marriages"; "Freedom of the Press" took away nation's rights to oppress the press in certain ways. Each resolution deals in some way, with national sovereignty.

National sovereignty is very relevant.
national sovereignty can't stand alone. anyone could claim for it on every issue, but resolutions never failed for this reason. prostituion, gay rights, aboritions and more was against the "moral", the "national sorveignety", and the "will of god". on the other hand they had more practical arguments (or human rights). the first group of arguments never worked. even the repeal of prostitution passed just because people want more regulation on the prostitutes (and all the moralists failed in the second resolution, while they can't use other practical arguments or rights).
arms resolution are different case, since they debate the right of countries to defend themselves (especially from the rough nations) against the agenda that claim for "safer world with less weapons (especially un-conventional).

In the end, using guidelines, you would have a group that followed them and a group that didn't. I wouldn't like to be part of those arguments.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I havent actually read any of the arguements here but
Simple: Make rules about the UNs jursidiction(These rules will not be influenced in anyway by anyone playing this game(too many facists out to abuse us with the Un).
Moderators will be assigned to this task after understanding that they will be removed from this job under poor judgement will then Go over each and every proposal before it is put up for approval, and deem whether it follows the jurisidiction of teh UN. (as in it does not break the individual right of opinion of a nation, or the right of a nation to be anything, such as Proposing to eliminate democracy)

The United Nations is obviously being abused by people who just simply want to be able to say "I won the arguement". That is all it really is actually, they just want the advantage in teh arguement to say "Everyone voted for it, your opinion is wrong. Get over it"
The way to stop it, is Rules of Jurisdiction, and Special moderators to insure that there is not a single word in the resolution that would endanger the rights of the nations involved. Also, they should also be able to remove previous resolutions, under agreement of all UN moderators. Resolutions such as the recent Prostitution legalization.

One would say: Its just a game, its supposed to be fun.
I would in turn say: its not fun if someone is abusing part of it for their own pleasure.

-DEK

Most decidedly OOC:

Kamuras, do have any idea of the amount of work it takes to moderate a forum? While I don't moderate a gaming forum, I do work with others on another site and it's a nightmare just in enforcing the rules with mostly-cooperative posters. Adding things for the mods to do here is:

1. Unfairly demanding more of their time to deliver a free product,
2. Unfairly implying that they don't do enough already, and
3. Totally underestimating the time and effort that goes on behind the scenes to keep things in working order already.

IC, and not directed at any single person:

The United Nations is a political organization, and just like any others, so long as people follow the letter of the law, they can abuse the spirit of that same law to their heart's content. Maybe that's not the most moral thing to do, but it gives the UN something to do other than condemn terrorists and pass flowery resolutions. As Vastiva (and many many others) have said, nations choose to subordinate their sovereignty somewhat by deciding to join. Crying about national sovereignty when confronted with every resolution one doesn't like amounts to sour grapes to me. Personally, if the resolution is so horrifying, at least target complaints to the parts that are considered "overreaching". At this point, I practically ignore resolutions and criticisms of resolutions that are primarily based on the sovereignty issue (OOC: and I've only been on NS for two weeks).

The way to stop it, is Rules of Jurisdiction, and Special moderators to insure that there is not a single word in the resolution that would endanger the rights of the nations involved.
Pretty much every resolution will 'danger the rights of the nations involve'. Take, for instance, Habeas Corpus. This resolutions went against some nations laws, those regarding to the imprisonment of people without charge. In any case, the mods are not allowed to change a proposal once it has been submitted. It's not a matter of whether they want to, they are simply not allowed to. The only choices available are deletion (for which mods must give a reason) or allowing it to pass.
Also, they should also be able to remove previous resolutions, under agreement of all UN moderators.
The only time the mods have ever been allowed to do this was in the move to Jolt, when several illegal resolutions were removed from the books. Only the admins have the right to remove passed resolution. This is something that can only be discussed on the Technical forum, where you can actually get an admin's opinion.
Resolutions such as the recent Prostitution legalization.
Which one? The one that was repealed, the repeal itself, or the Sex Industry Worker Act? Why should the mods remove any of them?

Not quoting but, obviously when there are many moderators it reduces the work and time involved. Id do it if i wasnt a nation(If a nation were to be able to do it, he/she could propose some totally corrupt thing, and approve of it. It does not take that much time to read a proposal and click Approve or Disapprove.
2. Its fun to read the crap that people send in there, you could actually get enjoyment from it.

"within jursidiction", very few resolutions deny moral and opinionative rights to other nations. If they do, it may just be a simple break, not hurt the nation much, not forcing a major issue like prostitutism.
Also not that it even matters, i dont see the relevance in why you asked. But obviously since i said "recently", and "Legalization". I mean the Trade industry one. Even though it can be gotten around of, it is still outside of the United Nations Rightful jurisdiction.

I havent actually read any of the arguements here but

Well, that preamble certainly limits the worth of anything else you had to say.

This is your second flamebait towards me i believe.. Im saving these by the way. Please do not follow my posts attempting to discredit me simply because i do not agree with fascists, and the corrupted abuse of the United Nations. As i said before, further activity in this matter will be reported as abuse to the moderators.

Anyways, assuming that you had said this in a more respectable manner i would have answered that regardless of what anyone else had previously stated, it would not have changed teh value of what i had to say, since everyone has their own opinion, and usually doesnt blindly create it because of a post in a forum.
Here i simply state my own opinion, and what i see as the correct way to deal with this issue.

In a final note, if you disagree with my opinion, do not attempt to discredit me because of it. I could just as easily discredit you for your arguements elsewhere, but i dont.

Not quoting but, obviously when there are many moderators it reduces the work and time involved. Id do it if i wasnt a nation(If a nation were to be able to do it, he/she could propose some totally corrupt thing, and approve of it. It does not take that much time to read a proposal and click Approve or Disapprove.
2. Its fun to read the crap that people send in there, you could actually get enjoyment from it.
I'll just let you in on something. Nearly all (maybe all of them)of the moderation positions in the game are taken by people who are running nations. There is no conflict of interest - how could they know how things were going if they didn't have personal experience?
Decisions relating to who becomes moderator are done by Max Barry. No-one else. People putting themselves forward is usually not the best indicator of suitability for moderation duties when you are talking about a site of this size.
Much of your argument seems to not relate to the way this game actually functions. Anyone can read the proposal list, only Delegates can actively approve of proposals, and only game mods and admins have the power to delete proposals. It's worked so far, and I have yet to see a convincing argument against the way the game is currently set up.
"within jursidiction", very few resolutions deny moral and opinionative rights to other nations. If they do, it may just be a simple break, not hurt the nation much, not forcing a major issue like prostitutism.
Also not that it even matters, i dont see the relevance in why you asked. But obviously since i said "recently", and "Legalization". I mean the Trade industry one. Even though it can be gotten around of, it is still outside of the United Nations Rightful jurisdiction.
Why is it outside the United Nations jurisdiction? Prostitution is not something that only happens within one nation - it is a global phenomenon (ICly, a galactic phenomenon).
Provided something does not break the games rules, and enough campaigning is made, it may be voted on by all UN member nations. If people do not see it as truly worthy of the UN's time, then it will not get to that stage.

Not quoting but, obviously when there are many moderators it reduces the work and time involved. Id do it if i wasnt a nation(If a nation were to be able to do it, he/she could propose some totally corrupt thing, and approve of it. It does not take that much time to read a proposal and click Approve or Disapprove.

:confused: :eek:
They apparently have very high standards for who they let be a moderator here - and a good thing it is, or we wouldn't have a hundred thousand other people to play this game with. You, with your 24 posts, are in no danger of coming close to those standards any time soon.


"within jursidiction", very few resolutions deny moral and opinionative rights to other nations. If they do, it may just be a simple break, not hurt the nation much, not forcing a major issue like prostitutism.
Also not that it even matters, i dont see the relevance in why you asked. But obviously since i said "recently", and "Legalization". I mean the Trade industry one. Even though it can be gotten around of, it is still outside of the United Nations Rightful jurisdiction.
Ah, so this is the reason you're attacking this forum? Because you're upset the NSUN passed the Sex Industry Workers Protections act?

I'll bet you didn't read the arguments for and against legalized prostitution, did you? Do you realize that it was legal for a long time under a prior resolution, was recently repealed, and that this resolution reflects the overwhelming will of the nationstates in the NSUN?

You've said enough about it for me to consider your opinion on prostitution juvenile and immoral. Your conceit that your opinion is more important than everyone else's when you haven't even bothered to read the arguments and don't know the basis for everyone else's opinions... well, that's just mind-boggling.

This is your second flamebait towards me i believe.. Im saving these by the way. Please do not follow my posts attempting to discredit me simply because i do not agree with fascists, and the corrupted abuse of the United Nations. As i said before, further activity in this matter will be reported as abuse to the moderators.
Why are you assuming Asshelmetta is fascist? Stating that you haven't read an argument is hardly the best way of convincing others to your cause.
Indeed, one might think saying something like that to be more of a fascist concept than a socialist one - the whole "I don't care what you say, this is what I say".

Anyways, assuming that you had said this in a more respectable manner i would have answered that regardless of what anyone else had previously stated, it would not have changed teh value of what i had to say, since everyone has their own opinion, and usually doesnt blindly create it because of a post in a forum.
Here i simply state my own opinion, and what i see as the correct way to deal with this issue.

In a final note, if you disagree with my opinion, do not attempt to discredit me because of it. I could just as easily discredit you for your arguements elsewhere, but i dont.
Hang on. You're the one calling people fascists. That's not merely an opinion, it's an accusation. As such, it requires supporting evidence to back it up.

In a final note, if you disagree with my opinion, do not attempt to discredit me because of it. I could just as easily discredit you for your arguements elsewhere, but i dont.
On a point of fact, I didn't know or care about your opinion about legalized prostitution when I said that your initial statement on this national sovereignty thread discredited whatever opinion you posted after it.

I don't need to stoop to discrediting you because it's so easy to discredit your arguments. If you think you can discredit me somehow because of my arguments on another thread, lay on!

I won't go crying to the moderators about it, that's for sure.

It is outside jurisidiction because it is the right of the nation to choose that opinionative topic on its own, and not be forced to choose one side.

To next poster-
This is plain abuse, coming from this guy, i will be reporting these flames, and flamebaits to the moderation team.
Note: I would make a far better moderator than you could ever hope to be with that attitude of yours. You have shown to be childish and ignorant of your abuse. Purposfully abusing another is a shameful act, and shows off a flaw in character. This trait would never allow you to make moderator. However, as i calmly state the facts, and my opinion(However flamed for them by you i am), and as i warned you repeatedly for your actions before reporting you, i show a respectable trait, that makes me far more mature and worthy of being a moderator. Think about what you say and do before you do it.

On a point of fact, I didn't know or care about your opinion about legalized prostitution when I said that your initial statement on this national sovereignty thread discredited whatever opinion you posted after it.

I don't need to stoop to discrediting you because it's so easy to discredit your arguments. If you think you can discredit me somehow because of my arguments on another thread, lay on!

I won't go crying to the moderators about it, that's for sure.

Im reporting you for flaming, not discrediting.

It is outside jurisidiction because it is the right of the nation to choose that opinionative topic on its own, and not be forced to choose one side.

To next poster-
This is plain abuse, coming from this guy, i will be reporting these flames, and flamebaits to the moderation team.
Note: I would make a far better moderator than you could ever hope to be with that attitude of yours. You have shown to be childish and ignorant of your abuse. Purposfully abusing another is a shameful act, and shows off a flaw in character. This trait would never allow you to make moderator. However, as i calmly state the facts, and my opinion(However flamed for them by you i am), and as i warned you repeatedly for your actions before reporting you, i show a respectable trait, that makes me far more mature and worthy of being a moderator. Think about what you say and do before you do it.
As I said before, please ask the moderation team for a review.
I said I wouldn't go complaining to them, and I'm a man of my word.
But if you want to go to them first...

It is outside jurisidiction because it is the right of the nation to choose that opinionative topic on its own, and not be forced to choose one side.
Again, why is it the nation's right? Why shouldn't it be the UN's right? After all, it is something that affects every nation, so goes far beyond national sovereignty.

To next poster-
This is plain abuse, coming from this guy, i will be reporting these flames, and flamebaits to the moderation team.
Highlight the abuse. I haven't seen any abuse, apart from you flingling fascist labels around without any evidence.
Note: I would make a far better moderator than you could ever hope to be with that attitude of yours. You have shown to be childish and ignorant of your abuse. Purposfully abusing another is a shameful act, and shows off a flaw in character. This trait would never allow you to make moderator. However, as i calmly state the facts, and my opinion(However flamed for them by you i am), and as i warned you repeatedly for your actions before reporting you, i show a respectable trait, that makes me far more mature and worthy of being a moderator. Think about what you say and do before you do it.
For a start, please tell us who you are addressing. Asshelmetta, me, or someone else? Which of us claimed that we would become moderator any time soon?
Saying that you deserve to be moderator is one way of making sure you won't be. Quite frankly, I have yet to see you calmly respond to criticism. Instead, your response seems to be to call 'flamebait' and accuse others of fascism.

Kamuras has made a thread in Moderation, requesting moderation action in regards to Asshelmetta. I have then put in a request for a mod to have a look at all posts in this topic.

The moderation thread is located here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397007)

Let's start out with a basic fact. The UN decides what the UN wants to discuss. Admins and Mods don't decide what can and can't be discussed, as long as the participants follow the rules of the forum and the rules of the UN. As long as it isn't obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
or spamthe UN can discuss it.

Second, Max designed the game so that the nations themselves could self-moderate what was and wasn't passed as a resolution. For the most part, proposals that are widely admired gets passed, and those that are marginal never make it to a vote. We don't need moderators deciding what can and can't be put into play, and we don't decide that "fascists are bad" or "democracy is wonderful". That's your job.

One of the things I've always liked about the UN forum is the way other Ambassadors are willing to step in to calm things down without making a Moderation case out of everything. When someone offers good advice about calming down, consider taking it.

The trick is to attack the position and not the person. Disagreeing with a quoted statement is fine. That's politics, not flamebaiting.

Karamus and Asshelmeta, you are pushing each others buttons a bit too hard. Both of you need to cool down a bit. I haven't seen anything from Asshelmeta that qualifies as actual flamebaiting. Karamus, stating "You have shown to be childish and ignorant of your abuse" is much more of a flame than anything that has come your way. Cut it out.

No warnings issued. No need to lock, unless this picks up again. Let's not escalate, please.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderating Team

This isn't directed at anybody in particular, but I wanted to build upon what Frisbeeteria suggested and pass along some advice that the Powerhungry Chipmunks once gave me:

If you find things tense here, try something else. While at the time he was suggesting I get more active in my regional forum, which I've done ... I have something that is totally neutral but still very visible here in this forum:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344311

This is a thread of UN voting records. Consider adding your nation's record to this thread. :) It will provide a neat distraction.

pah

this is far too much fun to ruin it by cooling down.

except my stalker seems to have left for the night.

pah

this is far too much fun to ruin it by cooling down.

except my stalker seems to have left for the night.

Then do both! :) Continue to debate threads, but give us your votes.

One of my goals is really to have people spend a few hours reading the old resolutions, as I honestly feel the more we know about the old ones, the better advice we'll be able to give others when they repeat or could build upon existing ideas.

I also think it can't hurt to have one's government's position written in a place along side other nation's positions.

Im sorry that you think that i am stalking you. However, the fact of the matter is that you posted after me in each of the three topics involved. Such means that i could not be stalking you, and that "YOU" are stalking "ME".

The flamebaits are in three differant topics, i dont recall if anything serious was posted here. But i assure you, he was attempting to drag me into a flame war in which i would be the one to get in trouble for. I am however much calmer about the situation than most, even with unruly telegrams being sent to me from people who dont even know what is going on...

Im sorry that you think that i am stalking you. However, the fact of the matter is that you posted after me in each of the three topics involved. Such means that i could not be stalking you, and that "YOU" are stalking "ME".

The flamebaits are in three differant topics, i dont recall if anything serious was posted here. But i assure you, he was attempting to drag me into a flame war in which i would be the one to get in trouble for. I am however much calmer about the situation than most, even with unruly telegrams being sent to me from people who dont even know what is going on...
OOC:
a) You post in the same threads that's not stalking just coincidence
b) Report these telegrams (on the getting help page) if they are offensive don't discuss them here.

OOC:
a) You post in the same threads that's not stalking just coincidence
b) Report these telegrams (on the getting help page) if they are offensive don't discuss them here.

a) Exactly, i was stating that i could say the same about him.
b)I have sent him a reply warning him of this. If he sends another, i will report him. Since im a nice guy i try to warn people first. Like Asshelmetta, whom ignored my warning.

Assh. I have no qualms with you, i posted my opinion and you flamebaited me. I warned you, and you ignored me. So i reported you to the mods. Unsuccessfully however, since the mod apparently didnt go to other two topics involved, and apparently didnt actually read your posts that i posted. I have officially lost my confidence in moderation, but am not afraid to try again if the problem persists.
As a request, decist from your actions. Do not flamebait me further, do not have your friends flamebait me. decist from accusing me of stalking you, as i am clearly not.
-DEK

No warnings issued. No need to lock, unless this picks up again. Let's not escalate, please.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderating Team
What part of this was unclear? Drop this now. All of you.

Does anybody remember what this thread was about?

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

National Sovereignty. The right for a nation to control its own issues.
The sex free worker(w/e)resolution was a break of this right. The arguements given were bs, but people bought into it. The resolution denied my right to choose not to legalize prostitutism. It is simply my opinion that the ones who proposed this and argued in its favor, were simply taking the easy route in winning the arguement in its whole.

*sigh*

yes, the Sex Industry Workers act was an infringement of national sovereignty. Pretty much every resolution is an infringement of national sovereignty - there wouldn't be much need for the resolution if it didn't affect nations. The UN Tax Ban is maybe the only one I can think of that isn't an infringement on national sovereignty.

I feel, and many others feel, that criminalization of prostitution is a human rights problem. I feel, and many others feel, that criminalization of prostitution creates global health problems. I feel, and many others feel, that the resolution forcing goverments to recognize that it's happening and to deal with it, is a warranted infringement on national sovereignty, and that the infringement was no onerous.

You have repeatedly said you're not reading the prior discussions in threads. Please read and respond to the prior arguments pro and against legalized prostitution, or stop complaining that the UN passed the resolution.

I read the free trade one from the beginning. I dont need to read the arguements to state my own opinion. I just say that i havent read it, so that people dont think im ignorant.
Yes most are an infringment, however when it becomes a problem is when issues based on individual opinion are brought up. Prositutism, Euthanasia, abortion, these are things that should be up to the nation, not the United Nations.

Prositutism, Euthanasia, abortion, these are things that should be up to the nation, not the United Nations.
Why?

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Why?

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Because its an opinion, some say that abortion is good while other say it is bad. Even if the majority wants it legal, those that dont shouldnt have to legalize it. Therfor it should stay as an issue, and beconsider outside of UN Jurisidiction for the sake of opinion.

Because its an opinion, some say that abortion is good while other say it is bad. Even if the majority wants it legal, those that dont shouldnt have to legalize it. Therfor it should stay as an issue, and beconsider outside of UN Jurisidiction for the sake of opinion.

Some say that gay rights is a matter of opinion. And some say that racism is a matter of opinion. Some say that free speach is a matter of opinion.

Where does the line get drawn? At what point does it stop being a matter of opinion, and start being a matter of international concern?

Some say that gay rights is a matter of opinion. And some say that racism is a matter of opinion. Some say that free speach is a matter of opinion.

Where does the line get drawn? At what point does it stop being a matter of opinion, and start being a matter of international concern?


When every nation benefits from it.

When every nation benefits from it.
That won't happen.

Besides I care more about the rights of the individual than the nation.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

When every nation benefits from it.

So freedom of speech will not benifit dictators - it will almost certainly cause them to be overthrown.

Racism - or more accurately - anti-racism proposals - will not benifit right-wing nations that want to remain "pure".

Gay rights will not benifit religious states who think that homosexuality is an abomination.

Abortion rights will not benifit religous states who think they are morally better than everyone else.

I have a different opinion - I believe that it should be the individuals that benifit, over the nations. Gay rights, Freedom of speach, anti-racism laws, abortion rights - they put the power in the hands of the people - the choice in the hands of the people, and prevent governments from opressing their people.

Freedom of choice - it's what UN resolutions should empower. (And yeah - I know that someone is going to say murder is a choice so why not protect that? Well gay rights, freedom of speach, abortion rights, etc, etc, blah, blah, woof, woof - they have no impact on anyone except those making the choice. Murder clearly doesn't).

So freedom of speech will not benifit dictators - it will almost certainly cause them to be overthrown.

Racism - or more accurately - anti-racism proposals - will not benifit right-wing nations that want to remain "pure".

Gay rights will not benifit religious states who think that homosexuality is an abomination.

Abortion rights will not benifit religous states who think they are morally better than everyone else.

I have a different opinion - I believe that it should be the individuals that benifit, over the nations. Gay rights, Freedom of speach, anti-racism laws, abortion rights - they put the power in the hands of the people - the choice in the hands of the people, and prevent governments from opressing their people.

Freedom of choice - it's what UN resolutions should empower. (And yeah - I know that someone is going to say murder is a choice so why not protect that? Well gay rights, freedom of speach, abortion rights, etc, etc, blah, blah, woof, woof - they have no impact on anyone except those making the choice. Murder clearly doesn't).

First, those examples are not something that should be brought to vote, it is up to the dictator to decide to eliminate free speech. Not the UN to legalize it. Thank you for your support.(Intentional or not :))

The dictators should not have freedom of speech right?, while we should have ours. Therfor the resolution should not be forced by the UN, because it is a matter of opinion by govern.

First, those examples are not something that should be brought to vote, it is up to the dictator to decide to eliminate free speech. Not the UN to legalize it. Thank you for your support.(Intentional or not :))

The dictators should not have freedom of speech right?, while we should have ours. Therfor the resolution should not be forced by the UN, because it is a matter of opinion by govern.

That is your opinion. It's not my opinion.

And - in respect to the rest of them - quite a lot have been brought to vote and suceeded. So it is apparently not the opinion of the UN either.

That is your opinion. It's not my opinion.

And - in respect to the rest of them - quite a lot have been brought to vote and suceeded. So it is apparently not the opinion of the UN either.

Of course they succeeded, just happens that a majority agrees with for example abortion. It would just simply make more sense to leave these decisions up to the nations involved, and not a forced law from the UN.

Of course they succeeded, just happens that a majority agrees with for example abortion. It would just simply make more sense to leave these decisions up to the nations involved, and not a forced law from the UN.

(smile) I have this urge to say "THIRD BASE" right now, but I won't.

They put the choice in the hands of the people - all the people, rather than the few who have been chosen to lead (or who chose to lead) the nation. That is what makes it a good thing.

Of course they succeeded, just happens that a majority agrees with for example abortion. It would just simply make more sense to leave these decisions up to the nations involved, and not a forced law from the UN.

So women everywhere are forced to give birth, or have back ally abortions. Because we need more unwanted children?

Or because we'd get more money from birth control tourism?

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

So women everywhere are forced to give birth, or have back ally abortions. Because we need more unwanted children?

Or because we'd get more money from birth control tourism?

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Aborting a living being is the same as murder. Abortion should only be legal if it is still a fetus. Therfor, if the baby was created, it has to be born after it becomes alive.
Some argue that life begins at birth, but this is untrue.
But this is not the correct place to argue about this, so lets drop it.

Aborting a living being is the same as murder. Abortion should only be legal if it is still a fetus. Therfor, if the baby was created, it has to be born after it becomes alive.
Some argue that life begins at birth, but this is untrue.
But this is not the correct place to argue about this, so lets drop it.

We don't care if it is alive. Like we don't care if cows are alive. Now if it was capable of making rational decisions and self awareness (to simplify the criteria) that would be a different matter.

However, if a citizen happens to disagree they are free not to abort and free not to eat beef.

But, as they say, this is another debate entirely.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

The whole point of the United Nations is to abridge national sovereignty in favor of what most nations consider appropriate, especially in concerns of social and political rights. For example, the Commander of Krioval and the Director of Military Forces are men married to one another. Thus, while Krioval would argue that individual nations have sovereignty, we would have also voted "yes" to the Gay Rights resolution, as it reflects the basis and design of what Kriovalians feel is appropriate for the rest of the world. That's how it's supposed to work. Similarly, Krioval has nuclear weapons, so we'd oppose a ban on those. Ultimately, we'd follow the resolution if it passed, but we'd fight it up to the moment it did pass (and possibly afterward with a repeal resolution).

The will of the international community trumps national sovereignty, and it's up to us, as UN member nations, to approve or oppose resolutions on basis of their eventual impacts, not whether they restrain the actions of various nations.

Uh, hi. Is this thing on? Can the people in the back hear me? Good.

First of all, let me thank you for allowing me to speak in this august assemblage.

My two cents worth:
This thread was started to explore legal ways within the game to prevent undue trampling of national sovereignty in NSUN resolutions. We can have a whole separate thread in General or somewhere about which resolutions were unwarranted in which way, and who is more offended by what.

It is potentially useful to enumerate the ways in which some resolutions are seen as undue, but this is not the place to gripe about resolutions we don't like.

Since this is Max Barry's game, I would suggest we stick to his 3 orthogonal axes: personal, economic, and political. If no one objects I would say stick religious issues in the personal column.

So, can we make a survey of the resolutions we feel are undue impositions on national sovereignty, and categorize them as to which category they fall into, and which category they infringe?

For example: I hate the HIV resolution because of its impact on my economy, but the resolution itself was clearly aimed at personal (health) matters.

Pretty easy - none of them. The only resolution I would see repealed is Rights of Minorities and Women. But not because it impedes my national sovereignty, but because it's crap.

I'm not sure of exactly what you mean, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're wrong.

You can limit what the UN can do. In one way, consider the Taxation Ban, which overtly states limitations on the UN. Also, by passing any resolution you keep future proposals that are contradictory to this proposal off the table--until a repeal arises.

although I can't talk for him, you missed the point. while the UN can limit himself, he can't make rules that consider every national law. any time, any place, the international law is stronger than the national law.
may you read his example? clearified the issue good (but unfortunally you "missed that parts).

Yes, international law supercedes national law, but that wasn't what I was addressing. I don't think I missed the point at all. I feel I was just refusing to give in to over-generalization, which is how I interpret the "because you have to do what the UN says, your nation has no rights" attitude.


And there is no mandate for proposals to decide policy UN-wide. A perfectly legal proposal could say, roughly, "all UN nations can decide upon this issues for themselves without involvement of the UN". Legislating upon an issue in the UN is not necessarily a matter of taking all rights away from countries.
the UN can't do that, because the UN power come from deciding on issues. If some proposal will try to make that, It will deleted (or just will failed).
undecided issues are already up to the countrey, so all the UN resolutions trying to change it (and they always will, despite the repeals who take the opposite way).


Actually, I believe you can write a proposal which does that. If a proposal states something like "DECLARES X as an issue for member states to decide independently", I don't see anything against the rules in that.

Any time an argument includes "never gonna happen" I put it in the FEABLE ARGUMENTS pile. Consider what was said (perhaps by Vastiva itself) about my repeal of "legalize prostitution" in contrast to what actually happened. Don't act like you know what's going to happen in the UN based on your personal conviction, ethos, or sage understanding of goings on here. You don't. Don’t expect absolute statements like that to have any weight.
wrong. I can say you right now that the UN never passed laws that put national sorveignety higher than the UN.
the UN will never establish an army, or legalize jenocide.
and as vastiva said: "the UN will never delete winning resolution because some nations are against it.
see? it could be easy to tell the future.


We already have, in a manner of speaking, passed resolutions to put national sovereignty "higher than the UN"--in specificly qualified areas.

Consider "Reformed Literacty Initiative". In its last statement, it allows for national sovereignty regarding small, implementary measures to the legislation to be valued higher than the resolution itself. In a certain way, it puts national sovereignty "higher" than the UN with regard to that specific issue. Also, consider the oft-referenced resolution, "The UN Taxation Ban", which puts the sovereignty of a nation to decide the amount and application of direct taxation of its citizens above the right of the UN to tax directly--in fact it withholds the UN from taxing UN member nations' citizens directly entirely. Again, a specific action is barred from UN legislation.

Which is my advice to Gflekers, if you plan on securing national sovereignty you need to do so specifically, without trying to change how admin or the mods screen proposals. If I want to keep the UN from legislating on the side of the road my citizens drive on, then I should draft legislation which says that driving polarity is a national concern. If I want to keep my right to de-legalize pornography or lude media, then I'll need to legislate to do so, resolving that the UN support nations in whatever decision they make in the matter.

I think, Gflekers, the end which you want is attainable (the preservation of certain areas of national sovereignty), but trying to change the rubric upon which proposals are judged isn't the right means to that end.

And any repossession of current areas on sovereignty occuppied by the UN (gay rights, freedom of the press, etc.) would need repeal first. Which is a-whole-nother kettle of fish.

Yes, international law supercedes national law, but that wasn't what I was addressing. I don't think I missed the point at all. I feel I was just refusing to give in to over-generalization, which is how I interpret the "because you have to do what the UN says, your nation has no rights" attitude.you can limit the UN actions (as the tax limit).
you can't limit the UN right to decide for the UN members.

Actually, I believe you can write a proposal which does that. If a proposal states something like "DECLARES X as an issue for member states to decide independently", I don't see anything against the rules in that.legally but unworthy the UN time. every subject without clear decision of the UN is for the nation decision.
those proposals could fall into 2 big holes: or they will be only rethoric(saying "you can do what you want to do" is not an action) and therefore vague and illegal, or they will try to limit the UN right to decide in this issue and therefore violation of game mechanics and illegal. the area between those holes is very little, and I can't see someone who could make it happened.
We already have, in a manner of speaking, passed resolutions to put national sovereignty "higher than the UN"--in specificly qualified areas. he talked about limitation of the UN right to decide. nothing specific.

Consider "Reformed Literacty Initiative". In its last statement, it allows for national sovereignty regarding small, implementary measures to the legislation to be valued higher than the resolution itself. In a certain way, it puts national sovereignty "higher" than the UN with regard to that specific issue.I checked it. that still put the UN "higher" than the nation. it make the nation do something for some goal, regardless to the nation goals. maybe it let the nation decide the way (like many resolution put some areas without request from the nations to enforce, and therefore some parts are for the nation decission). it isn't "national sorveignety" (obiously not "putting the nation higher than the UN"). it is just accepting from the UN to let the countries reach the goal in the best way for ther nation (different than the sovergeinitists that asking for choosing their goals and laws, regardless from the UN opinion on the issues).
Also, consider the oft-referenced resolution, "The UN Taxation Ban", which puts the sovereignty of a nation to decide the amount and application of direct taxation of its citizens above the right of the UN to tax directly--in fact it withholds the UN from taxing UN member nations' citizens directly entirely. Again, a specific action is barred from UN legislation.again, there is not "sovereignety" in this case. the UN wasn't talked about the taxation system of the countrey (and therefore wasn't harm in the present situation of issue the UN ignore). the countrey is not higher than the UN, she just take agreement from the UN to not take taxes.
I agree the UN limit himself, but that dosen't connected to sovereignety.
as I say before, the thing you can't do is limit the UN right to decide.

Yes, international law supercedes national law, but that wasn't what I was addressing. I don't think I missed the point at all. I feel I was just refusing to give in to over-generalization, which is how I interpret the "because you have to do what the UN says, your nation has no rights" attitude.
you can limit the UN actions (as the tax limit).
you can't limit the UN right to decide for the UN members.


I believe that in deciding upon limitations for the UN actions it is, in a way, limiting the right of the UN to decide for its members, in a certain field, as long as the resolution stands.

Actually, I believe you can write a proposal which does that. If a proposal states something like "DECLARES X as an issue for member states to decide independently", I don't see anything against the rules in that. legally but unworthy the UN time. every subject without clear decision of the UN is for the nation decision.

It would hardly be unworthy of UN time. Yes, every decision not specifically addressed by the UN is a national decision. But that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit to some nations from trying to keep future UN resolutions from making it a UN decision. For example, if, during, the brief time there wasn't mandatory legalized prostitution (or now, the mandate of allowing 'prosititutes'), there had been a proposal passed which had "DECLARES the legal or illegal status of prostitution as a national issue" or "RECOGNIZES prostitution as a matter of national sovereiegn decision" it would hardly be an unworthy use of UN time.

Proposals which are not worth the UN's time are typically redundant, trivial, or idiotic. Not all proposals ("not any proposal" if they were written well) declaring a certain issue a matter for individual states would fit under that category. If you want an issue to stay a matter for individual states there's nothing stopping you from legislating it.

those proposals could fall into 2 big holes: or they will be only rethoric(saying "you can do what you want to do" is not an action) and therefore vague and illegal, or they will try to limit the UN right to decide in this issue and therefore violation of game mechanics and illegal. the area between those holes is very little, and I can't see someone who could make it happened.

I disagree. I think there are plenty of possible proposals--worthwhile and specific--which could secure national sovereignty in certain issues. They are not illegal.

Consider "Reformed Literacty Initiative". In its last statement, it allows for national sovereignty regarding small, implementary measures to the legislation to be valued higher than the resolution itself. In a certain way, it puts national sovereignty "higher" than the UN with regard to that specific issue.
I checked it. that still put the UN "higher" than the nation. it make the nation do something for some goal, regardless to the nation goals. maybe it let the nation decide the way (like many resolution put some areas without request from the nations to enforce, and therefore some parts are for the nation decission). it isn't "national sorveignety" (obiously not "putting the nation higher than the UN"). it is just accepting from the UN to let the countries reach the goal in the best way for ther nation (different than the sovergeinitists that asking for choosing their goals and laws, regardless from the UN opinion on the issues).
[emphasis added]

Exactly, there are some issues in resolutions which are secured as independent national decisions--decisions which are not determined by the UN. This is what I mean when I say the national choice in this case is secured in that issue. There could not be another resolution after 'Reformed Literacy Initiative' which says "You have to implement the parts of 'Reformed Literacy Initiative' to the letter" because it would contradict the current cluase which makes it a national choice--out of the hands of the UN. That's what I mean by "higher than the UN". If it rights for nations can be secured on those levels then why not on wider issues?

Also, consider the oft-referenced resolution, "The UN Taxation Ban", which puts the sovereignty of a nation to decide the amount and application of direct taxation of its citizens above the right of the UN to tax directly--in fact it withholds the UN from taxing UN member nations' citizens directly entirely. Again, a specific action is barred from UN legislation.
again, there is not "sovereignety" in this case. the UN wasn't talked about the taxation system of the countrey (and therefore wasn't harm in the present situation of issue the UN ignore). the countrey is not higher than the UN, she just take agreement from the UN to not take taxes.
I agree the UN limit himself, but that dosen't connected to sovereignety.
as I say before, the thing you can't do is limit the UN right to decide.

When I think of "limit the UN right to decide" I think of the way the UN decides things: by proposal/resolution. And, in fact, in passing legislation you do control which future proposals/resolutions are viable. In passing "Gay Rights", the UN made all proposals saying "gay rights are national decisions" illegal (unless there were a repeal of "Gay Rights"). No, there is no way to change the game mechanics to say "No one can propose something that's moral". There's no way to change the rubric by which legal and illegal proposals are differentiated. However, you can define certain issues as illegal for legislation by using the current rubric, which is what I'm trying to encourage Gflekers to do.

wow.... well thx for the discussion folks!

National Sovereignty. The right for a nation to control its own issues.

Not entirely correct. More like a test to ensure that resolutions do not UNDULY violate national sovereignty.

This thread was started to explore legal ways within the game to prevent undue trampling of national sovereignty in NSUN resolutions. We can have a whole separate thread in General or somewhere about which resolutions were unwarranted in which way, and who is more offended by what.

Righto! couldn't have said it better myself asshelmetta. Thank you.

OOC: really busy this past weekend with job training and such... but now i got a week break from school, i'll see what i can do about drafting a proposal, and then you guys can discuss something tangible. I'll keep all of your points in mind and hopefully have something posted by Thursday.

Be VERY precise or the number of reports on you for "Illegal UN Proposals" will be skyrocketing.

Be VERY precise or the number of reports on you for "Illegal UN Proposals" will be skyrocketing.

I will keep that in mind.