NationStates Jolt Archive

I think one resolution , UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers might have broken a resolution rule. This is because of the quoting of the mentioning of a real-life disaster in the text:

''This would prevent environmental disasters like the one caused by the damaged tanker off the coast of Spain in 2002 and help lower the cost of fuel as more would be reliably available to every nation. It would also be a boon to fishing, tourism, and shipbuilding industries.''

Also, there is one spelling mistake. The word boon to fishing should be boom to fishing.

Note the gameplay rules on Resolutions:

4. Real-Life Proposals

''George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.

You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit.''

What do you think?

EDIT: Source of the resolution concerned is accessable here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=10)

Note the gameplay rules on Resolutions:

4. Real-Life Proposals

''George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.

You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit.''

What do you think?

EDIT: Source of the resolution concerned is accessable here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=10)

First, you are right that this is a real-life reference. The current UN rules were not in effect back in 2002 - 2004, so you will find a large number of resolutions with real-life references. A decision was made by the moderators in 2004 to not go back and delete old resolutions based on the current interpetation of the rules.

If the remainder of the resolution is still good, I'd suggest just pretending that a line-item veto exists and ignoring the reference. :)

I'm sure that when the NSWiki project gets to Resoluion #11, that somebody will make a gameplay note that this resolution is technically illegal under the current rules because of the RL reference, but otherwise fine.

Boon is actually the appropriate word to use in the context.

Compare boon and boom. I think you'll find that boon makes more sense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boon

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boom

That said, I favor repealing the damn thing. :D

Boon is actually the appropriate word to use in the context.

Compare boon and boom. I think you'll find that boon makes more sense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boon

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boom

That said, I favor repealing the damn thing. :D

Okay, here's my pre-proposal then;

Repeal 'Ban Single-Hulled Tankers'

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that there is one reference to a real-life disaster.

NOTING that this may have been based on a real-life disaster.

BELIEVING that references to real-life disasters does not exist on NationStates.

NOTING that this resolution may no longer comply with the current gameplay rules.

NOTING one spelling mistake. The word 'boon to fishing' should had been 'boom to fishing'.

UNDERSTANDING that the author of the resolution has ceased to exist.

REPEALS "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers".

A repeal based on punishing, ex post facto, a fairly un-noteworthy resolution? Good luck, you'll need it.

NOTING that there is one reference to a real-life disaster.
NOTING that this may have been based on a real-life disaster.
BELIEVING that references to real-life disasters does not exist on NationStates.
NOTING that this resolution may no longer comply with the current gameplay rules.
As Mikitivity stated, the resolution was passed before the current rules came into existence. Why bother scraping the entire resolution because of that?

NOTING one spelling mistake. The word 'boon to fishing' should had been 'boom to fishing'.
Did you even look at the link Texan Hotrodders provided? There is no spelling mistake or grammatical error.

UNDERSTANDING that the author of the resolution has ceased to exist.
Why should that be a reason for repeal? I believe you have failed to address the core of the resolution here, and need to re-think the purpose of Resolution #11.

A repeal based on punishing, ex post facto, a fairly un-noteworthy resolution? Good luck, you'll need it.

My thoughts as well.

If you want to repeal it because it has a real life justifcation, you can't say it says something that is "real life" it in. Instead just ignore that and focus on some other reason to revisit the issue. Personally, until a better draft replacement comes along, I'll be urging my allies to not repeal this resolution.

Question:

Would mentioning that there's a real life reference in a resolution count as a real life resolution in the repeal?

Argument: The UN is blind to the existance of real life, thus to mention that it exists...

Do not submit a resolution to Repeal this one yet. First lets repeal the disastrous one just passed.

Okay, here's my pre-proposal then;

Repeal 'Ban Single-Hulled Tankers'

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that there is one reference to a real-life disaster.

NOTING that this may have been based on a real-life disaster.

BELIEVING that references to real-life disasters does not exist on NationStates.

NOTING that this resolution may no longer comply with the current gameplay rules.

NOTING one spelling mistake. The word 'boon to fishing' should had been 'boom to fishing'.

UNDERSTANDING that the author of the resolution has ceased to exist.

REPEALS "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers".

Are you deliberately trying to make life difficult for yourself? Getting a repeal of a three year old resolution on, as has been stated, a minor issue, is down-right impossible. Anyway, we had a tanker accident at about the same time as the one mentioned in the resolution, off the coast of Compadria and so we are quite adamant that it's a good resolution and deserves to stay.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live double-hulled tanker Compadria!