NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who wish to rewrite resolutions, the PDS suggests we stop this practice until we get a system in the game that would allow us to replace the resolution, and not have a time gap in which anyone is free to break the previous resolution.

PLEASE end this practice now! it is harmful to the nations that were protected from repealed resolutions awaiting a new resolution.

In most cases, the rewrite of the resolution is a necessity. I bring your attention to the following rewrites:
1) Prostitution - the original was downright distasteful and offered no protections to those who ended up in the industry.
2) Global Library - the first one was monetarily impossible for many nations, technologically possible for MOST nations (actually, in RL, the US is the only nation that would've had a prayer to be able to implement - and even then I'm sceptical), and just wasn't set up appropriately. In similar regards, we have the basic health care policies back from pre-repeal process
3) Bio-weapons (not yet replaced) original didn't do dip squat (in fact, it pretty much only (arguably) removed bio-weapons on the day of its passing, and then created a false impression that they were still gone the next morning. It did nothing from preventing people from using or proliferating bio-weapons of any form. Pretty much, the repeal removed the wool over our eyes and now he's putting an actual restriction for bio-weapons.

Your still putting at risk the possibility that a neccisary, and protective resolution will be repealed, and not replaced. It is a dangerous, and immoral practice that we feel must be stopped.

In any case if the PDS feels it cannot curb this practice through diplomacy, we will be forced to seek other measures.

Don't give me the slippery slope argument. I don't think any of the resolutions on the major issues of the day are well done and many of them are so poor that they don't even do ANYTHING.

Besides - it may be several years before a "Repeal and replace" system is put in place (there's no guarantee of it from the admins - unless I missed something), so I would rather have good resolutions now (with the risk of what happens in between) than to completely go with these crappy and (in many cases) mostly useless resolutions until we see it.

In most cases, the rewrite of the resolution is a necessity. I bring your attention to the following rewrites:
1) Prostitution - the original was downright distasteful and offered no protections to those who ended up in the industry.
2) Global Library - the first one was monetarily impossible for many nations, technologically possible for MOST nations (actually, in RL, the US is the only nation that would've had a prayer to be able to implement - and even then I'm sceptical), and just wasn't set up appropriately. In similar regards, we have the basic health care policies back from pre-repeal process
3) Bio-weapons (not yet replaced) original didn't do dip squat (in fact, it pretty much only (arguably) removed bio-weapons on the day of its passing, and then created a false impression that they were still gone the next morning. It did nothing from preventing people from using or proliferating bio-weapons of any form. Pretty much, the repeal removed the wool over our eyes and now he's putting an actual restriction for bio-weapons.


:)

Excellent! Those are three good examples of using a repeal, and my government is pleased to see that other nations are following UN history making.

Your still putting at risk the possibility that a neccisary, and protective resolution will be repealed, and not replaced. It is a dangerous, and immoral practice that we feel must be stopped.


Immoral? I think that is a bit of a stretch there to claim that there is some sort of morality involved in using the UN's legal system in order to improve resolutions.

While I do honestly understand some of your concern, I would not call this a dangerous practice. Here is why ... draft proposals are often ignored. It isn't until a resolution comes to the UN floor that many nations will offer their opinions on the text.

Resolution authors who are looking out for the best interests of their original idea, may be presented with ideas that were never brought up during the draft proposal stage and may have a sincere desire to improve upon their idea (often closing loopholes).

Don't give me the slippery slope argument. I don't think any of the resolutions on the major issues of the day are well done and many of them are so poor that they don't even do ANYTHING.

It is this blatant refusal to look at the issue at hand is what troubles the PDS the most. regardless of how you percieve the argument that repealing a law in order to try and replace it with something better is a big gamble, that some might be unwilling to accept! Is there a guarantee that a resolution that is more strict would be passed? If it doesn't we are left with the consequences of our actions. We MUST be careful with how we go about doing this. If it were possible, I would say that we pass a stronger resolution, FOLLOWED by the repeal of the resolution it seeks to replace. Unfortunately thats not possible.

Besides - it may be several years before a "Repeal and replace" system is put in place (there's no guarantee of it from the admins - unless I missed something), so I would rather have good resolutions now (with the risk of what happens in between) than to completely go with these crappy and (in many cases) mostly useless resolutions until we see it.

The PDS would work with willing nations to implement such a system as quickly as possible, placing pressure on the game developers to include this feature. Why open ourselves to potential risk, when we can keep the benefits that are already given to us, no matter how few those are?

I urge all member nations to at least hear us out:

The People's Dominion of Snoogit are a peace-loving people, and we care deeply about the protection the UN provides. We are also concerned that the members of the UN are hastily trying to undermine a nation's security for the sake of "a hope of a better resolution"

If we wanted to change our laws to better reflect the feelings and emotions of our people, we wouldn't completely eliminate the law, and then hope our congress can pass a better one. We work within the ones we already have, and add stronger language when the current language is inadequate. There are cases of this throughout all of a nation's history, even ours. WHen a law was deemed inadequate we created laws to suppoirt this law. We didnt abandon the law and hope a new one would pass.

:)
Immoral? I think that is a bit of a stretch there to claim that there is some sort of morality involved in using the UN's legal system in order to improve resolutions.

If we had a law on tax fraud for example, instead of rewriting the entire tax law, we would add further definitions to the idea of tax fraud. You don't tear down a house to fix a leaky faucet. Just as you don't tear down a resolution, to fix a minor problem. It would be immoral to wipe the tax law clean, and allow fraud to floursih while we waited for a new tax law to be created.

If we had a law on tax fraud for example, instead of rewriting the entire tax law, we would add further definitions to the idea of tax fraud. You don't tear down a house to fix a leaky faucet. Just as you don't tear down a resolution, to fix a minor problem. It would be immoral to wipe the tax law clean, and allow fraud to floursih while we waited for a new tax law to be created.

First, I'd like to say I personally admire your concern here. :)

Second, I happen to disagree with you. You are right, you don't tear down a house to fix a leaky faucet, but the NS UN is not a house ... it is a legal institution with a set of rigid rules that are enforced by the game moderators.

Let's look at my idea to create a resolution condemning child infanticide (something I'm guessing your government and my government might agree is horrible). :)

Since there is a current resolution that allows abortions, if I were to suggest anything that might seem like it restricts abortions, the game moderators might consider that an "amendment" to a resolution. They've argued that resolutions can not be amended by other resolutions ... and anybody doing so will be warned (three strikes, you're out).

The abortion resolution doesn't say that you have to have a valid reason to get an abortion. But if you were a future parent and found out that the child you or your mate was carrying was a gender you did not like, you could abort the child. Most people would consider that infanticide, not because you are aborting a child, but because the sole reason you are killing a future person was because you didn't like its gender (meaning if the gender were opposite, you'd still have the child).

I have to be very careful how I approach that subject, and I'm certain even a light touch on the subject won't pass the muster of the UN Gnomes (or the NSUN Lawyers).

If you cant amend a resolution, create a proposal that defines what a certain thing is.

in the case of Biological weapons, instead of repealing the resolution, and adding a new one, why couldn't someone have created a proposal that defines biological weapons?

An official definition of what something is does not classify it as an amendment. IF the UN had a propoosal to define just what a biological weapon is, it doesn't directly effect the resolution that was repealed.

Include it in a broad proposal, something dealing with the description of just what a superweapon is.

Call it "The UN Superweapon Classification List" or samething along those lines.

In it include just what each class of super weapon is

THE UN DEFINES: A Nuclear weapon is any device with a radioactive material meant to create an explosion on a massive scale

THE UN DEFINES: A Biological weapon is any device with an organic, viral, or bacterial agent meant to cause damage to its target by means of biological manipulation

THE UN DEFINES: A Chemical weapon is any device meant to cause harm to its target with a chemical compound.

Its not meant to be perfect since it is an example, but you get my point. This proposal would adress any concerns over just what a weapon is without mentioning any specific resolution, and it would also allow any inspectors a chance to classify a weapon and deem it illegal given a set of definitions. Resolution 36 would be propped up with such a resolution, but not be amended. Your not rebanning biological weapons with such a proposal, merely defining what a biological weapon is.

This is how the situation SHOULD have been handled, not with a repeal.

On that note, we still havent had a new proposal come to vote on just how to rewrite resolution #17 "Required Basic Healthcare" This system is not perfect.

If you cant amend a resolution, create a proposal that defines what a certain thing is.

Well - to take Mikivity's post, the problem wasn't that Abortion was undefined, it's that there was no exceptions to permissability of abortions

in the case of Biological weapons, instead of repealing the resolution, and adding a new one, why couldn't someone have created a proposal that defines biological weapons?

An official definition of what something is does not classify it as an amendment. IF the UN had a propoosal to define just what a biological weapon is, it doesn't directly effect the resolution that was repealed.

Even if Bio-weapons had been defined (and actually, I have thought of doing a few resolutions like that), the resolution was still pointless. It said eliminate Bio-weapons. Ok - we eliminated them - what next? Oh right, there's nothing governing what we do next. So we rebuild our stockpile. Like I said, in the BEST case scenario, you were bio-weapon free for a whole day. After that day was over....the resolution ended and we moved on.

If you look at Reformatia's repeal, it states:

A) None of the following is done by the resolution:

-- Defining a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about
-- Establishing that they actually BE eliminated, rather than just saying it’s important.
-- Specifying how they should be eliminated (such as forbidding their elimination through using them all up on other nations).
-- Accounting for what should be done about the fact that non UN member nations will still have these weapons.
-- Etc…


B) None of the following is banned by the resolution:

--Produce biological weapons.
--Stockpile biological weapons.
--Trade in biological weapons.
--Actually USE biological weapons.


But of the two lists, I'd guess only two items wouldn't be classified as ammendments (trade and definition) - everything else would be questionable at best (and require VERY fancy footwork).

Include it in a broad proposal, something dealing with the description of just what a superweapon is.

Call it "The UN Superweapon Classification List" or samething along those lines.

In it include just what each class of super weapon is

Yep, already considered it. In fact, I wouldn't rule it out as a way to address resolution 107's major shortcoming.... (whereas definition was only a minor shortcoming in resolution 16 compared to the sheer number of errors).

THE UN DEFINES: A Nuclear weapon is any device with a radioactive material meant to create an explosion on a massive scale

THE UN DEFINES: A Biological weapon is any device with an organic, viral, or bacterial agent meant to cause damage to its target by means of biological manipulation

THE UN DEFINES: A Chemical weapon is any device meant to cause harm to its target with a chemical compound.

Gotta go beyond that. If you dig up Reformatia's other two threads on his bio-weapons ban (actually, it might be three by now - plus the one that's roaming around waiting to be put in-queue), you see just how complex that matter is. He had to make exceptions for disease, vaccines, etc. Plus - he got a bit of flak for omitting non-self propogating bio-weapons.

Its not meant to be perfect since it is an example, but you get my point. This proposal would adress any concerns over just what a weapon is without mentioning any specific resolution, and it would also allow any inspectors a chance to classify a weapon and deem it illegal given a set of definitions. Resolution 36 would be propped up with such a resolution, but not be amended. Your not rebanning biological weapons with such a proposal, merely defining what a biological weapon is.

1) Yes, Freedom of Humor would be propped up by this (did you mean 16 - in which case my earlier argument would call BS on that point)

2) You still haven't dealt with the issue that...well....bio weapons hadn't actually been banned.

[QUOTE[This is how the situation SHOULD have been handled, not with a repeal.

On that note, we still havent had a new proposal come to vote on just how to rewrite resolution #17 "Required Basic Healthcare" This system is not perfect.[/QUOTE]

Actually....#20 replaced #17. #20 Was submitted by the author of #17 before the system of repeals and (to the best of his ability) made #17 repealed so that the failures of the resolution could be fixed. Specifically, he made it a feasable resolution. It just wasn't until after we got repeals that the UN was actually able to strike it from it's law books. It took a while probably because most people considered it a non-issue since #20 was already in place.

I beg of you to please do the FULL research. You are missing the point and to me, it feels obvious you have not actually EXAMINED the resolutions in question (or read through all the resolutions). If your going to criticize how we handle dealing with past resolutions, you need to read them thoroughly enough that what you say is actually true statements. Resolution 16 never actually BANNED bio-weapons. Resolution 107 did ban chemical weapons but failed to define them. That is the difference between how we're handling the two resolutions and is one of the reasons why Resolution 107 is not getting as much notice in the attempted repeals (others being that Reformatia did one heck of a TG campaign and voter apathy on the issue of chem weapons so close to passing laws about them through the UN).

It is this blatant refusal to look at the issue at hand is what troubles the PDS the most. regardless of how you percieve the argument that repealing a law in order to try and replace it with something better is a big gamble, that some might be unwilling to accept! Is there a guarantee that a resolution that is more strict would be passed? If it doesn't we are left with the consequences of our actions. We MUST be careful with how we go about doing this. If it were possible, I would say that we pass a stronger resolution, FOLLOWED by the repeal of the resolution it seeks to replace. Unfortunately thats not possible.

Actually, it's a response where I instead showed you why the argument was invalid. Flawed laws that only mask the issue rather than addressing it and prevent further legislation that DOES address the issue is the worst plague for this NSUN.

The PDS would work with willing nations to implement such a system as quickly as possible, placing pressure on the game developers to include this feature. Why open ourselves to potential risk, when we can keep the benefits that are already given to us, no matter how few those are?

Alright, let's do some math here:
Max plus two admins are running the game and all its code.

Number of users: 130k++
Number of users that pay a fee for this game: 0
Number of users that donate: the odd person
Major source of income: NOT NS (Max - PROBABLY his books, but I don't know if even that was a side project itself)

I urge all member nations to at least hear us out:

The People's Dominion of Snoogit are a peace-loving people, and we care deeply about the protection the UN provides. We are also concerned that the members of the UN are hastily trying to undermine a nation's security for the sake of "a hope of a better resolution"

Actually, in the case of resolution 16, it was in favor of an ACTUAL resolution.

If we wanted to change our laws to better reflect the feelings and emotions of our people, we wouldn't completely eliminate the law, and then hope our congress can pass a better one. We work within the ones we already have, and add stronger language when the current language is inadequate. There are cases of this throughout all of a nation's history, even ours. WHen a law was deemed inadequate we created laws to suppoirt this law. We didnt abandon the law and hope a new one would pass.

But that isn't how NSUN. Different legislative systems are set up differently.

If we had a law on tax fraud for example, instead of rewriting the entire tax law, we would add further definitions to the idea of tax fraud. You don't tear down a house to fix a leaky faucet. Just as you don't tear down a resolution, to fix a minor problem. It would be immoral to wipe the tax law clean, and allow fraud to floursih while we waited for a new tax law to be created.

But in the UN, you would have to. Welcome to hell

Reason why this happens:
1) It's a side project, so it shouldn't be the moderators jobs to figure out the legality and repair up various resolutions so that an amendment can pass

2) You can't do a pass than replace, because then you have abuse of the other way. I bring your attention to the half a dozen resolutions that give FULL rights to gays, women, minorities, etc - mix and match the groups and you have I believe 5 different resolutions (I'll have to go back and read them). Heck, Definition of Marriage (81) was passed AFTER Same-Sex marriage had been legal for like 2 years within the UN (Gay Rights, #12 - which is actually a minority rights and gay marriage law). I actually want to take a crack at tearing this web of resolutions down and combining them into a single resolution at some point (I'm not quite ready to start making my own resolutions yet....)

Defining something in a previous resolution and passing an amendment is a very fine line.

A year ago, Hersfold and myself wrote a resolution that defined in more detail what the role of the UNEC would be. We mistakenly titled it an amendment ... Hersfold was issued a warning.

It took Hersfold, myself, Cogitiation (a game moderator), and *many* UN players several days to argue with Stephistan that as the original author of the UNEC that Hersfold was really just defining in more detail the earlier resolution and building upon it.

The warning was reversed.

But I think this case is the exception to the rule. The fear is, you can use definitions to amend or repeal. Forgottenlands is right to point to the Required Basic Healthcare and its replacement. Though grandfathered (and eventually repealed by the Power Hungry Chipmunks), the moderators made it clear that resolutions can't "undo" previous resolutions ... instead, since Oct. 2004 they've consistently pointed us to repeals.

The UNEC resolution that Herfold and I worked on was prior to repeals. Had it been around, I am not 100% certain that Cogitation would have sided with us on the appeal.


Summary:
My personal opinion is that while it should be legal to build upon previous resolutions, it is TRICKY. Furthermore, the Most Glorious Hack has several times complained about "House of Cards" and the difficult legal nature of the NSUN. Given that the Most Glorious Hack is a game moderator and I'm not, his opinion on the NSUN always will beat out mine. So I will not fault any player for taking the moderator recommended course of action:

(1) Write draft repeal & draft proposed replacement
(2) Campaign for draft repeal
(3) Debate repeal when it reaches the floor & point to replacement
(4) Campaign for replacement if repeal passes
(5) Debate replacement

There are of course exceptions. And Snoogit, I honestly understand and HIGHLY respect your opinion on this issue. :) I just think we need to be flexible: sometimes your way sounds better, other times not.

Summary:
My personal opinion is that while it should be legal to build upon previous resolutions, it is TRICKY. Furthermore, the Most Glorious Hack has several times complained about "House of Cards" and the difficult legal nature of the NSUN. Given that the Most Glorious Hack is a game moderator and I'm not, his opinion on the NSUN always will beat out mine. So I will not fault any player for taking the moderator recommended course of action:

(1) Write draft repeal & draft proposed replacement
(2) Campaign for draft repeal
(3) Debate repeal when it reaches the floor & point to replacement
(4) Campaign for replacement if repeal passes
(5) Debate replacement

There are of course exceptions. And Snoogit, I honestly understand and HIGHLY respect your opinion on this issue. :) I just think we need to be flexible: sometimes your way sounds better, other times not.

It takes more time to go through the entire repeal and replace process then it would be to run an "expanded definition" proposal by a moderator, get their full blessing, and put it to a vote. As it is, it takes months to go through the entire repeal, rewrite, repropose approach to resolution writing. Whereas the other approach would seem to take less time, and would(should) have a better chance of passing.

It might take a lot of people to get such a proposal on the floor, but it takes just as many people to repeal, and replace if not more. (it could potentially take close to 400 people to do a repeal and replace, given how many people it takes to bring a proposal to the floor, and assuming the same people don't vote for the repeal, and then the replacement.)

What concerns the PDS more then anything are the attempts to take the more controversial issues (such as gay rights) and trying to tear down all the resolutions that protect the issue, to try and bring about a sweeping single resolution, unfortunately while such a resolution might have passed back when it was proposed, but the chances of it succeeding now are less likely then when the proposals were introduced prior. We are above all urging EXTREME caution when dealing with controversial issues that are currentrly protected, but could potentially be lost with someone's idea of a single all encompassing resolution, that never is passed after all the work to create it.

One example, look at the UNSA. With the ban on Bio Weapons, this act would have been illegal under UN law, but with its repeal, it held up the new Bioweapon ban for an elongated period of time, and its still possible that such a resolution wont be passed given the current climate the UN exists in.

Let's look at my idea to create a resolution condemning child infanticide (something I'm guessing your government and my government might agree is horrible). :)


While we agree that child infanticide is most horrible, here in UD we really don't mind the other kind. :)

It takes more time to go through the entire repeal and replace process then it would be to run an "expanded definition" proposal by a moderator, get their full blessing, and put it to a vote. As it is, it takes months to go through the entire repeal, rewrite, repropose approach to resolution writing. Whereas the other approach would seem to take less time, and would(should) have a better chance of passing.

It might take a lot of people to get such a proposal on the floor, but it takes just as many people to repeal, and replace if not more. (it could potentially take close to 400 people to do a repeal and replace, given how many people it takes to bring a proposal to the floor, and assuming the same people don't vote for the repeal, and then the replacement.)

What concerns the PDS more then anything are the attempts to take the more controversial issues (such as gay rights) and trying to tear down all the resolutions that protect the issue, to try and bring about a sweeping single resolution, unfortunately while such a resolution might have passed back when it was proposed, but the chances of it succeeding now are less likely then when the proposals were introduced prior. We are above all urging EXTREME caution when dealing with controversial issues that are currentrly protected, but could potentially be lost with someone's idea of a single all encompassing resolution, that never is passed after all the work to create it.

One example, look at the UNSA. With the ban on Bio Weapons, this act would have been illegal under UN law, but with its repeal, it held up the new Bioweapon ban for an elongated period of time, and its still possible that such a resolution wont be passed given the current climate the UN exists in.

So if the majority opinion of the UN has changed, you think it should remain the way it currently is? (BTW - it hasn't. Soverignty movement might have increased, but that isn't a majority either - not to mention if I lost an initial contest due to soverignty, I'm certain I could make modifications that would tiptoe around issues of soverignty while still doing what is necessary for equality rights).

If you made a repeal on the basis that it no longer would be supported by the majority, is an entirely different matter then if you repeal a resolution on the grounds of "I hope to replace it with another" If the members of the UN were passing laws on the ground of irrelevency to the majority, we wouldn't have had this discussion, instead we'd be having a discussion on the ethics of deconstructing our rights as UN members for some supposed "greater good".

Sometimes the minority has to have a voice too! The rights that were fought hard for are protected by the layered effect of resolutions past! You take one down, you don't neccisarily take down the entire right.

If you build up previous resolutions with stronger rhetoric in other resolutions you loose the risk that the basic idea could be eliminated in one fell swoop. It would at least help to protect the right even if the majority opinion changes, and can be cleaned up when a radical majority takes over.

Can you see where im trying to go here? In this case If you turn something into a single resolution you run the risk of that resolution being repealed, and loosing the entire right with one single action. It would be in the UN's best interest to build resolutions, and not deconstruct ones for the sake of "single unification" some people don't want to make it easier to repeal something if the majoriity potentially moves in a direction the previous majority might disagree with.

If you made a repeal on the basis that it no longer would be supported by the majority, is an entirely different matter then if you repeal a resolution on the grounds of "I hope to replace it with another" If the members of the UN were passing laws on the ground of irrelevency to the majority, we wouldn't have had this discussion, instead we'd be having a discussion on the ethics of deconstructing our rights as UN members for some supposed "greater good".

If I repealed it with the intention to pass an improved or unified resolution, I would garner the support of both those that agree with my intentions and those that opposed the resolutions to begin with. However, if I turn around and try to write a replacement resolution, and it becomes clear that I'm going to lose because quite frankly the majority of the UN falls into the category that opposes that position, I would acknowledge defeat on that matter.

Sometimes the minority has to have a voice too! The rights that were fought hard for are protected by the layered effect of resolutions past! You take one down, you don't neccisarily take down the entire right.

A minority is granted only the rights that the majority is willing to give it. That is important to understand. Every single minority rights issue that has been passed is because the majority felt that they too deserved rights. Other minorities are not granted the rights they want by the majority because the majority disagrees with their policies. Some groups are:
-Religious Extremists
-Pure Capitalists
-Feminist Extremists
-etc

For the most part, these are people who want rights that benefit them while hinder the common man - while minority rights that do pass are ones that benefit the minority in question, but (by and large) do not hinder other groups.

If the majority still felt that these minority groups deserved rights, they will get them.

If you build up previous resolutions with stronger rhetoric in other resolutions you loose the risk that the basic idea could be eliminated in one fell swoop. It would at least help to protect the right even if the majority opinion changes, and can be cleaned up when a radical majority takes over.

Ah ha - so if majority opinion changes, you would like to punish those that do not think like you. The opinions of today are based around a certain belief system - one that many consider fundamental - but it's actually very much a 20th century belief system (well....I suppose it could be argued that it started in the 19th and perhaps the 18th centuries). It is quite possible that given a change in situation, compassion will be replaced by a different core value. While you may see it as evil, I would say that if we punish them for believing in something different, we are just as bad as they are.

Can you see where im trying to go here? In this case If you turn something into a single resolution you run the risk of that resolution being repealed, and loosing the entire right with one single action. It would be in the UN's best interest to build resolutions, and not deconstruct ones for the sake of "single unification" some people don't want to make it easier to repeal something if the majoriity potentially moves in a direction the previous majority might disagree with.

Yeah - you just made an argument that completely counters one of the main reason why we are not allowed to make resolutions that do the same thing as one before - and I, personally, agree with the principle put in by the mods.

It takes more time to go through the entire repeal and replace process then it would be to run an "expanded definition" proposal by a moderator, get their full blessing, and put it to a vote. As it is, it takes months to go through the entire repeal, rewrite, repropose approach to resolution writing. Whereas the other approach would seem to take less time, and would(should) have a better chance of passing.


Though I'm not convinced it takes more or less time, I don't see how that is a bad thing.

I've had my draft proposal "Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants" on the IDU forum since July 2 (two weeks). Early this week I started bring copies of my second draft to regions allied with the IDU. I might submit my draft proposal here tonight, but I've honestly been taking my time with my idea, because while I feel it is important, I feel feedback is more important.

With that in mind, taking a month on a repeal and another month on new legislation makes sense. Many NationStates ambassadors only check in on the UN a few times a week. If we move too quickly in the public feedback phase of drafting legislation, we risk only allowing the few nations (like mine) that devote a great amount of time to the UN forum to have greater influence on the resolutions. The problem is that my government's opinions and views might not necessary represent the ideals of the majority of UN members.

Estemed Deligate from Snoogit,

What you don't understand is that you can't just repeal one resolution and have another in it's place right away. It takes TIME. Sometimes it is a few days, sometimes it is a few weeks. You must realize this. We cannot replace items right away and thats a fact.

In any case if the PDS feels it cannot curb this practice through diplomacy, we will be forced to seek other measures.That sounds suspiciously like a threat...

Estemed Deligate from Snoogit,

What you don't understand is that you can't just repeal one resolution and have another in it's place right away. It takes TIME. Sometimes it is a few days, sometimes it is a few weeks. You must realize this. We cannot replace items right away and thats a fact.

Why let the gap between protections happen? Why open ourselves to potential chaos, when there are other ways around it? I'm not asking for speedy reapprovals, im asking that reapprovals be limited, or stopped al together! When you have a resolution on the books that has accomplished a goal, then you can work to build it up, without amending it. Define the precess of weapons dismantling, define what a certain right is, just do something other then dropping something on the grounds that "I can make it better" If I have a murder law, I dont abolish it and rewrite it if we think the penalties arent specified well enough, we make a law defining what a penalty is for certain crimes.

For example: I might have a murder law, a tax fraud law, a rape law, and another law dealing with some other crime, but then I also have a law that defines prison sentences, and other punishments regarding the other laws. If you repealed the sentencing law, you'd still have laws that say, ok murder is illegal, rape is illegal, tax evasion is illegal, only now the sentencing would be passed onto the lower governments. (Ex: the state government)

If you wanted to create a proposal that would adress just what weapons dismantling is, you create it, and then other resolutions would be affected but not amended. Then when inspectors come in and see that your stockpiling banned weapons, they can come in and say that your not following proper UN weapons dismantling procedures, without specifiying just what weapon it is thats being banned. Its an umbrella clause for all resolutions with weapons bans, without having to make any type of amendment to the proposal.

This is the smart, safe and moral way to handle a weak resolution. You don't have to amend it, since thats not what your doing. Your creating guidelines for what a procedure is. So if I make a resolution saying a certain weapon is banned, and dismantling is required, I can look at the umbrella weapons dismantling resolution and say oh, this is how to do it legally. or Oh, this is how a weapons ban is enforced. To put it in a better way:

Law structure 101:

Offenses: Murder, Rape, Theft, Tax Fraud, etc
Sentencing Definitions: How to define a punishment for a crime
Procedural Definitions: Steps to take to accomplish a goal
Court Definitions: How a court would be setup to handle the situation
Ethical Standards: How to interpret law

In almost all cases there are laws telling us how to interpret, and react to other laws. If you look at a RL murder law, it does not specify the sentencing for murder. instead it details just what is classified as a muder, and the various levels of homocide. The sentencing is handled by another law entirely.

What repealing and replacing is doing is taking a law, and trying to add sentencing guidelines to it. It is not good law. Good law keeps the law in place, and defines sentencing with a different law. I mean, if we have to define just what a weapons ban is, we would have to do it with every single peice of legislation brought to the forum. Instead of having to add that definition each time, why not create a resolution that says, This is what a weapons ban does.

Im afriad some people are taking my examples and using them as my opinion, which isn't true, im using examples to prove a point. The point is, good law is practiced differently then what is being practiced now. I used the analogy earlier, you don't tear down the house to fix the faucet. As such you don't tear down the law, to add a definition.

That sounds suspiciously like a threat...

We worded that wrong, our apologies. we would merely seek ways to handle the situation legally, and diplomatically.

Why let the gap between protections happen? Why open ourselves to potential chaos, when there are other ways around it? I'm not asking for speedy reapprovals, im asking that reapprovals be limited, or stopped al together! When you have a resolution on the books that has accomplished a goal, then you can work to build it up, without amending it. Define the precess of weapons dismantling, define what a certain right is, just do something other then dropping something on the grounds that "I can make it better" If I have a murder law, I dont abolish it and rewrite it if we think the penalties arent specified well enough, we make a law defining what a penalty is for certain crimes.

For example: I might have a murder law, a tax fraud law, a rape law, and another law dealing with some other crime, but then I also have a law that defines prison sentences, and other punishments regarding the other laws. If you repealed the sentencing law, you'd still have laws that say, ok murder is illegal, rape is illegal, tax evasion is illegal, only now the sentencing would be passed onto the lower governments. (Ex: the state government)

If you wanted to create a proposal that would adress just what weapons dismantling is, you create it, and then other resolutions would be affected but not amended. Then when inspectors come in and see that your stockpiling banned weapons, they can come in and say that your not following proper UN weapons dismantling procedures, without specifiying just what weapon it is thats being banned. Its an umbrella clause for all resolutions with weapons bans, without having to make any type of amendment to the proposal.

This is the smart, safe and moral way to handle a weak resolution. You don't have to amend it, since thats not what your doing. Your creating guidelines for what a procedure is. So if I make a resolution saying a certain weapon is banned, and dismantling is required, I can look at the umbrella weapons dismantling resolution and say oh, this is how to do it legally. or Oh, this is how a weapons ban is enforced. To put it in a better way:

Law structure 101:

Offenses: Murder, Rape, Theft, Tax Fraud, etc
Sentencing Definitions: How to define a punishment for a crime
Procedural Definitions: Steps to take to accomplish a goal
Court Definitions: How a court would be setup to handle the situation
Ethical Standards: How to interpret law

In almost all cases there are laws telling us how to interpret, and react to other laws. If you look at a RL murder law, it does not specify the sentencing for murder. instead it details just what is classified as a muder, and the various levels of homocide. The sentencing is handled by another law entirely.

What repealing and replacing is doing is taking a law, and trying to add sentencing guidelines to it. It is not good law. Good law keeps the law in place, and defines sentencing with a different law. I mean, if we have to define just what a weapons ban is, we would have to do it with every single peice of legislation brought to the forum. Instead of having to add that definition each time, why not create a resolution that says, This is what a weapons ban does.

Im afriad some people are taking my examples and using them as my opinion, which isn't true, im using examples to prove a point. The point is, good law is practiced differently then what is being practiced now. I used the analogy earlier, you don't tear down the house to fix the faucet. As such you don't tear down the law, to add a definition.

Are you even listening to our arguments?

But fine, I'll throw down the gauntlet:

There have been 5 repeals plus a 6th one in queue. 2 repeals have been replaced, 2 repeals have been on a resolution that had effectively already been replaced before the repeal system went into place, 1 is in queue and the other one has been drafted.

Considering my arguments before, show me ANY of those 6 that could have been fixed using an "adendum" style (which should not be confused with a repeal style) that would allow it to become a better resolution.

BTW - if you DARE say "define Bio-weapons" - I would like to direct you to 4 of my posts ago (post #8 on this thread).

Sorry, I made a mistake - I forgot about the repeal for resolution 1.

For those who wish to rewrite resolutions, the PDS suggests we stop this practice until we get a system in the game that would allow us to replace the resolution, and not have a time gap in which anyone is free to break the previous resolution.

PLEASE end this practice now! it is harmful to the nations that were protected from repealed resolutions awaiting a new resolution.

Ahem. I'll have you know that many nations find loopholes in even good resolutions that allow them to break the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter of it. The time delay between the repeal and the replacement only makes it easier for those nations who abused the original resolution to continue what they were already doing.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones