NationStates Jolt Archive

Closed

Borderline illegal, and if it isn't can you give an example of a new proposal that could be drafted under this? On any topic, and even if it is only a rough draft I would just like an example, to see how this fits.

I am hearing the voices of George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and that nice Bull Connor again.

Why do say that only a "small minority" of nations belong to the UN? My calculation is that a little more than 1 out of every 3 nations belongs.

What is your basis for assuming that a leading reason why a small portions of NS nations belong to the UN is disillusionment with UN encroachment on national sovereignty?

I have empirical evidence to the contrary. [OCC: A little more than 1 out of NS nations belong to the UN. Many individuals control more than one nation, but we are not allowed to have more than one nation that belongs to the UN. I happen to have 6 nations, but only 1 belongs to UN. If the average player has 3 nations, then every individual could have a nation in the UN.]

What makes you think resolutions are not already tested by their effect on national sovereignty? This appears to be one of the main topics of debate on every resolution.

It appears to me that national sovereignty is often a useful banner when one does not like a resolution.

I like this proposal, as it makes an effort to include those of us who think that the UN tramples on sovereignty, and yet still wish to be part of the UN. Limiting the powers of the UN is a very good idea.

And while I applaud your intention, there are rules about what can and can not be submitted as proposals. And this would appear to be trying to manipulate game mechanics, which is number one on the list of things not permitted.

Observing that a small minority of the world's nations belong to the United Nations,

Just as an english note, it could get confusing to say both "small" and minority. With approximately 35,000+ nations in the UN and 120,000 some nations total, I'm not sure it's a "small" minority at all. I think it'd be best to just say "a minority among nations in the world..." or something like that, or "a small group amongst the nations of the world..."

Anyway, the concept starts the proposal up well.

Noting that the causes for this are many, but that one of the leading factors is disillusionment with UN encroachment on national sovereignty,

There's also a theory that most of the nations outside of the UN are puppets. But anyway, you might want to soften up this language, as it asserts a great deal, and, thus, could alienate a lerger number than you might like.

Calling attention to the need for a much greater participation in the United Nations by all nations of the world,

I like this. You need to always have a reason for proposing things. Whether this is a good enough reason or not (I think it's fairly adequate--perhaps a little more fleshing out), you've set yourself apart from quite a few proposals which just propose things for not reason at all, or becuase "it's bad" or "it's good".

Calling to mind that the United Nations is a community of equal, sovereign nations joined for the purpose of collective security,

Might want to soften up this language, too. Perhaps changing it to something more like "UNHOLDING the UN's role as a community or...collective security, among other things." There are lots of takes on what the UN's role is. While there is no problem with defining one of them in a proposal, the language right now seems to preclude any purposes other than that one. Then again, maybe it’s just interpretation.

1. Sets a standard whereby resolutions shall be tested not only on their efficacy and moral consistency, but also on the basis of effect on national sovereignty.

Well, first, I'll tell you that there aren't allowed to be proposals that change the way mods and proposal writers interact. Take the grammar proposals for example. There was a proposal which stated that proposals needed good grammar or it would be deleted. Instead the proposal for good grammar was deleted. We aren't allowed to change what mods look for in illegal or unlikeable proposals.

Now there's a difference between trying to change the way mods interact with proposals and trying to state purpose and intent in a proposal. If it were stated as something such as "ENCOURAGES delegates to take greater heed of national rights to sovereignty than they have in the past" and were later on in the proposal it would be legal. Yoiu can encourage and define as bad certain ideas, You just can't legal-wise change what the mods or delegates do. Under the clause I wrote, delegates would still be able to approve of proposals which infringe on national sovereignty a lot. what you seem to be proposing would make it so they couldn't (perhaps I'm reading a bit too much into it--but if that's the case, the language needs to be made more specific).

2. Commits this Body to supporting the principle of national sovereignty and the integrity of the nation-state by means of non-intervention in national governmental policy, unless such intervention is expressly authorized by a resolution meeting the new criteria of operative clause one.

I'm not sure what this does. I'm not sure what criteria was set forward in clause one (nice "operative clause one" touch, by the way; that's a good description). Is the criterion that it's pro-national sovereignty? I'm not sure. I think this needs to be clarified. Other than that uncertainty, I think this clause was written fairly well, and fleshes out the exact application of pro-national sovereignty pretty well.

3. Declares that the United Nations must pursue a momentous effort to expand membership and restore international confidence and respect for this august Body.

I like this idea. You re-connect to the reason you're proposing this, good job. However, I question the language and what it actually does. I think you'd be best served by launguage such as "momentous" and "august" and some other subjective terms to the early "non-operative" clauses. That's when you are connecting to supporters and convincing everyone of what you're going to do. Once you're actually getting into what to do, I think it should be a little more objective and easy to define: which is my concern about what it does.

What would be required of UN members if this passed and we needed made this "momentous effort"? A telegram campaign mandated of every member? This would be illegal as participation in forum or telegramming or much of anything is not allowed to be forced in proposals. I find it admirable to tell UN members they should try to uphold a stronger image on the UN, but requiring it isn't allowed in a proposal.

This needs to be specified. Legally.

4. Recognizes that the standards set by this resolution do not alter any current U.N. activities, but rather serve as a new guide to cement respect for both international and national order.

Good, a lot of national sovereignty proposals try to add "REPEALS all resolutions" on the end. That's just not a functioning mechanic in the game. A repeal has limitation just like a proposal, and one of them is that it can't work for more than one resolution.


Overall, I think this needs to be focused and stated a little more clearly. I like that you've avoided many common pitfalls and I like the appeals you use. I think you just need to augment one idea major-ly (the "standard for future proposals" idea--and that's if I'm reading it correctly). I think as far as support, it'd be better if this proposal were adapted to address one specific topic and deliver it to national sovereignty, such as smoking, or late-term abortion. As Mikitivity will often note, there's nothing wrong with having a proposal which doesn't force nations to do anything. But that doesn't mean proposal like that are met with open arms. Often they'll have more opponents than worse proposal which do force nations to do things. I don't think this is fair, but I find it to be the truth all too often.

Anyway, I'd suggest a reworking of ideas, language, and several more drafts.

And (as I wish all proposal writers) good luck!

How many players (note that word) do not have a UN member nation out of the total number of players? That is the real question.

Players have many reasons for having more than one nation vis-a-vis activity in different reasons, role playing and other concerns.

It isn't useful to measure how many nations per se are UN members.

And as to raising a claim of national sovereignty, sometimes nations take positions on resolutions related to their role playing, so that too can be a factor.

TilEnca, it does not change game mechanics, please consult Operative Clause 4. This serves as an advisory benchmark, a standard for the United Nations to adhere to, it does not impose new methods, and it does not change things

You are requiring resolutions be written to a specific standard. A NEW standard. How is that not a change to the way the game works?

Also - who sets this standard? Someone who is paranoid about national sovereignty, someone who slightly cares, but not a lot, or someone who doesn't give a damn. Cause in each case the standard would be radically different.

I think the way it works now is fine. If enough people feel it tramples all over their rights, it gets voted down. If enough people feel that the action of the resolution is such that it is worth giving up some national sovereignty, then it passes.

(edit)

Also - how is this the furtherment of democracy? As far as I can tell it will stop some proposals being in the approval queue, thus preventing the delegates from voting on them in the first place. If anything this will take the democractic power out of the hands of the UN and put it in to the hands of whoever writes the standard. Which will turn the UN in to more of a dictatorship than a democracy. So how does it further democracy exactly?

But for the most part we are not trying to infringe on national sovereignty just for the fun of it. Rather we are saying that national sovereignty should not conflict with certain basic principles. We are drawing a line in the sand, and saying we expect no less. Genocide will not be tolerated. Neither will prejudice. Or torture. And for the most part, states who disagree with this are not entirely compatible with the UN in the first place.

One of the aims of the UN is to better the world, and not just through collective security- nowadays security encompasses alot more than the military. Peace cannot exist without economic and civil stability. Don't think "let's stop war", think "let's stop the causes of war". But I digress- my point is that although we want to better the world, and by increasing UN members we would increase people subscribing to UN law. But this should not be at the cost of the basic principles that we believe to be bettering the world. Expansion at the cost of lowering standards does nothing but proliferate a meaningless global organisation that does.. not much.

The only concievable way this can be implemented is to change game mechanics. Illegal.

I don't think it does necessarily change game mechanics. It reads to me as a purely advisory roleplaying motion. Because of that I'd suggest changing the strength to mild.

Promoting National Sovereignty

Again? I thought the fumigators were in this week.



A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Potomacia

Boilerplate.



Description: Observing that a small minority of the world's nations belong to the United Nations,

Duh.



Noting that the causes for this are many, but that one of the leading factors is disillusionment with UN encroachment on national sovereignty,

Nope.



Calling attention to the need for a much greater participation in the United Nations by all nations of the world,

Why?



Calling to mind that the United Nations is a community of equal, sovereign nations joined for the purpose of collective security,

No, its not.



The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby:

1. Sets a standard whereby resolutions shall be tested not only on their efficacy and moral consistency, but also on the basis of effect on national sovereignty.

Game Mechanics. Illegal.



2. Commits this Body to supporting the principle of national sovereignty and the integrity of the nation-state by means of non-intervention in national governmental policy, unless such intervention is expressly authorized by a resolution meeting the new criteria of operative clause one.

We don't give a rats ass about your nations soverignty, nor does the FAQ.



3. Declares that the United Nations must pursue a momentous effort to expand membership and restore international confidence and respect for this august Body.

Not interested.



4. Recognizes that the standards set by this resolution do not alter any current U.N. activities, but rather serve as a new guide to cement respect for both international and national order.

Lie, which makes it against Game Mechanics (all resolutions are followed). So twice illegal.

Potomacia, I told you my comments were relatively nice.

Well put, Vastiva.

Again? I thought the fumigators were in this week.Ah, the delegate from Vastiva fancies himself a comedian. Don't give up the dayjob.


Boilerplate.Nice to see your dedication to raising the level of debate in the UN.


Duh.Stating the present situation is standard within the UN.

Nope.Yep.

Why?Democratic legitimacy.

No, its not.
That's reasonable.

Game Mechanics. Illegal.No it isn't. It sets a debating standard. That is entirely seperate from game mechanics. And presenting your arguments in bold doesn't actually add to their validity.

We don't give a rats ass about your nations soverignty, I don't think that the views of a single nation are enough to stop a motion being put forward. :rolleyes:nor does the FAQ.OOC: The FAQ is not a ingame resource. The FAQ is not an ingame resource. The FAQ is not an ingame resource. Is that clear enough?


Not interested.No, we accept that the delegate from Vastiva is quite willing to be a big fish in a small pond. But some nations consider the growth of the UN to be more important then pandering to egos.

Lie, which makes it against Game Mechanics (all resolutions are followed). So twice illegal.
No. If you actually read it (I know that's a tall order) it sets guidelines for debate. So it is quite correct to say it has no bearing on any current resolutions, it doesn't.

Calling to mind that the United Nations is a community of equal, sovereign nations joined for the purpose of collective security,



The UN isn't just for collective security. It is also a system of international governance and law.

Calling attention to the need for a much greater participation in the United Nations by all nations of the world,



Democratic legitimacy.


Huh?

Learn to take a joke.

A number of us have no interest in promoting national sovereignty. To the contrary, we think some others have an over-inflated idea of its importance. This is the nature of many of the comments you have received. Also flaws (in the opinion of the posting nation) in the resolution have been pointed out. That is what happens here. It also happens in any legislative body.

The UN isn't just for collective security. It is also a system of international governance and law.

Why is it just for collective security at all? There is no rule in the UN that requires me to defend my fellow UN members if they get involved in a war.

You want advice? Drop the issue. At best, you'll get nowhere. At worst, you'll either become a laughing stock or be banned. Those seem to be common fates of the arguement.

Well Cat-Tribe,

As you glory in Vastiva's remarkably empty criticism...I have already conceded that the resolution may need tweaked....I have opened my arms to cooperation and negotiation...I have apologized for any rashness....I have recognized that I need to learn some about writing legally undisputable resolutions....continuing to bash it after I have conceded this and asked for CONSTRUCTIVE ideas for new input on the importance of national sovereignty in the UN is not relevant to my request.....

If I were feeling honest I would say that people who are making critisim, constructive or not, are excercising their right of free speech, as is most people's right in a democracy.

]
Again? I thought the fumigators were in this week.

Ah, the delegate from Vastiva fancies himself a comedian. Don't give up the dayjob.

We're too rich to work and too cute to care.


]
Boilerplate.

Nice to see your dedication to raising the level of debate in the UN.

You have absolutely no idea what that means, do you?



]
Duh.

Stating the present situation is standard within the UN.

Duh.


]
Game Mechanics. Illegal.

No it isn't. It sets a debating standard. That is entirely seperate from game mechanics. And presenting your arguments in bold doesn't actually add to their validity.

If it sets a debating standard, it puts a limitation on Role Play, and is illegal. As I read it, it affects Game Mechanics by adding a layer of "proposals must do this as well", which is also illegal. Either way, the proposal is illegal.


]
We don't give a rats ass about your nations soverignty,

I don't think that the views of a single nation are enough to stop a motion being put forward.

And we should care because?


]
nor does the FAQ.

OOC: The FAQ is not a ingame resource. The FAQ is not an ingame resource. The FAQ is not an ingame resource. Is that clear enough?

OOC:
The rule of "THOU SHALT FOLLOW ALL UN RESOLUTIONS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT" and the rest of it, exists in the game, twinkletoes. Like it or not. And repeating yourself just has me laughing more.


]
Not interested.

No, we accept that the delegate from Vastiva is quite willing to be a big fish in a small pond. But some nations consider the growth of the UN to be more important then pandering to egos.

Well, that's nice, but we all don't have to agree - nor will we.

]
Lie, which makes it against Game Mechanics (all resolutions are followed). So twice illegal.

No. If you actually read it (I know that's a tall order) it sets guidelines for debate. So it is quite correct to say it has no bearing on any current resolutions, it doesn't.

*yawn* You're still wrong and you aren't amusing me. Next time wear the funny hat.

The UN isn't just for collective security. It is also a system of international governance and law.

Security???

If I were feeling honest I would say that people who are making critisim, constructive or not, are excercising their right of free speech, as is most people's right in a democracy.

*puts TilEnca on "Most Favored Trade List". Notes TilEnca is already there*

Maybe we'll just send a case of champagne around...