NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a current proposal which needs votes by May 22;

Laws Dictating Moral Behavior

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Starps

Description: Against Laws Dictating Moral Behavior:

Acknowledging that the peoples of the world have many diverse and unique cultures;

Recognizing that many of these cultures coexist within a single nation and that many of these coexisting cultures have distinctive moral codes;

Observing that the moral codes of minority cultures are often banned by majority cultures with opposing moral standards;

The region of Sardonyx Weld proposes that UN nations refrain from imposition of laws pertaining to moral decisions.

Realizing that certain moral behaviors directly affect other human beings, Moral Laws may be imposed in cases in which:

Certain moral behaviors clearly lowers another human being's standard of living

Violence towards other human beings is acted upon and/or encouraged

Actions based on moral code indirectly or directly inhibit the freedoms of another human being

Desiring to further protect the individual's Freedom of Choice as described in resolution #53, Moral Laws may be made only in cases which clearly affect other human beings in a negative manner. Any law pertaining to individual morality (such as promiscuity, dietary habits, piercing, etc.) is prohibited.


If you like the idea, please go vote for it.
Comments?

Your proposal limits the use of the "Moral Decency" proposal category, and as such is a game mechanics issue and therefore illegal. You can't limit future proposals in a proposal. Sorry.

Now aren't you glad you followed my advice in Moderation and posted it here first?

... you did post it here first, right? Good.

actually its not my proposal, and no I didnt.

What you say is interesting. You say its illegal because it limits the use of the Moral Decency Category. Doesnt any resolution by its nature limit the use of a certain category? I mean, seeing as moral decency and human rights are somewhat opposing categories, how can you make a resolution without inhibiting use of the other or itself? To use a pathetically blatant example of this, Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights" clearly restricts anyone's option to make a proposal on making Abortion illegal. I dont see how restricting the use of a category affects game mechanics, as no actual game script needs to be altered. Just my opinion, feel free to elaborate.

Moral Laws may be made only in cases which clearly affect other human beings in a negative manner.
Which means that a Moderator must view each proposal coded with a Moral Decency header and remove any that don't meet your criteria. Since it mandates an action within-the-game but outside-the-game, that's game mechanics. In the same sense, a proposal which requires setting up a specific forum topic is likewise illegal.

Your point about prior resolutions is well taken, but for now suffice it to say that such proposals have been ruled illegal since proposal rules were implemented.

stupid rules. Well the goal of the proposal was to ensure no minority group with a unique moral code got trampled upon by a majority group with different moral standards. Is there no way to write a proposal like that without changing game mechanics?

hmmmm, I still dont understand how some resolutions which restrict different ideas are legal, while others are not. It seems like pretty much any resolution on civil rights or human rights or moral decency etc. will affect furture proposals. Wouldnt it be pointless to pass a resolution that didnt?

By the way, I really appreciate you helping me with this

Is there no way to write a proposal like that without changing game mechanics?

When "The Nuclear Terrorism Act" was passed it made it illegal to pass a law that said that you could sell nukes to terrorist organizations (since the Nuclear Terrorism Act specifically states that you can't). It didn't explicitly states "no future resolutions may be passed which allow say x". It just said "the UN's position is Y" which, since you can't contradict a standing resolution in a proposal, is interpreted as "you can't submit a proposal that says the UN's position is something other than x".

For example, if you wanted to stop the UN from passing a resolution which kept you citizens from eating macaroni and cheese with ketchup on top, you'd write a proposal which said something like "RESERVES the member nation's individual right to determine the legality of ketchup on macaroni atrocities...etc.". Of course, some on the forum would respond something like “OMG t3h U83R N4+10n4l sovereignty!” and call you names. But, in reality, the forum has little bearing on what happens in the UN. At least, ‘it’ doesn’t have as much influence as ‘it’ imagines itself to have.

Anyway Through the current proposal rules (such as the rule that proposals can’t contradict already passed resolutions) you can manipulate which proposals are allowed in the future. You just can't write a proposal which attempts to change those proposal rules.

so is it mostly just a semantics issue?

so is it mostly just a semantics issue?
Only in the sense that this entire game is made up of words.

All legal proposals must deal with the game world. Your proposal intended to deal with the game itself. That's called "metagaming", and it's one of the illegal actions. You can't make proposals that affect the game, only the world.

You can't decide for future members what they can and can't choose to support or deny. If enough people want a given change to the gameworld (and vote accordingly), it becomes law. The only ones who can restrict the UN are the site owner and his representatives, which in this case means Max, the Admins, and the Mods. That having been done, it is overriding law that must be abided by.