NationStates Jolt Archive

BEING a fact that Resolution 122 will destroy the world economy and end modern civilization as we know it;

AWARE that not all nations are able or willing to comply with Resolution 122;

NOTING that regions of the world have individual needs and sources of fuel that cannot be practically managed or dictated by a world body;

and REALISING that national autonomy is a precious right;

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all its members shall:

1) Be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical.


There. It's that simple.

AK_ID

It's illegal. You can't contradict passed resolutions.

Further, even if we were to say the last one was legal (saying that we're ignoring all fossil fuel sources), all nations would still be required to comply with article 3 and put a solar panel on every roof.

You who went through the entire rules sheet to try and get a moderator to delete the resolution AFTER it had been democratically voted in as a resolution, I would have thought you'd have realized the legality issue of this.

If you want, you can use this proposal as a Repeal to Resolution 122. Perfectly legal to contradict resolutions there. However, you will have to remove your operative clause, and replace it with something like

Declares Resolution 122 repealed

Other concerns:

BEING a fact that Resolution 122 will destroy the world economy and end modern civilization as we know it;

Nice opening. States the problem flat out at the beginning.

AWARE that not all nations are able or willing to comply with Resolution 122;

UN members have to comply with passed resolutions. Almighty Hack Laws say under the Optionality Topic: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465)

UN Proposals are not optional

This line is not needed in the proposal.

NOTING that regions of the world have individual needs and sources of fuel that cannot be practically managed or dictated by a world body;

and REALISING that national autonomy is a precious right;

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all its members shall:

1) Be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical.

Nice resolution. gets to the point, and states it clearly. Good work AK_ID

It's illegal. You can't contradict passed resolutions.

Further, even if we were to say the last one was legal (saying that we're ignoring all fossil fuel sources), all nations would still be required to comply with article 3 and put a solar panel on every roof.Funny. Our own Creative UN Solutions Agency is drafting government protocols for making official end-runs around 122 even as we speak. We are able to do this because the Compliance Ministry gnomes are safely consigned to the "Gameplay" dimension, being by their peculiar nature entirely unable to infiltrate the "Roleplay" dimension, where CUNSA headquarters are. In fact, our Office for Answering Daily Issues has not seen any gnome activity since its creation, even though it resides in "Gameplay."

As for Clause 3, if the private sector in our nation wants to bring us into "compliance," they certainly are free to do so, but since the resolution mandates only government funds "going to the environment" pay for the manufacturing and distribution of solar panels, our government -- which doesn't contribute any funds to the environment -- consequently will not be spending one dime on solar paneling.

Moreover, we agree with Texan Hotrodders (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9658937&postcount=20) and Mikitivity (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9658696&postcount=9) regarding the compliance question on this resolution: players are free to roleplay their nations as they see fit, even if it includes noncompliance, and it is obnoxious for other players to protest, "You can't do that! You cannot not comply!", as it is bad form to assume other nations' actions for them, and even (in Mik's words) a form of God moding (or as I like to say, "Godwanking").

Contradiction of passed resolutions in proposals is governed by the UN Secretariat aka Mods. They don't let those things slide, and they have ejected members for this sort of thing.

Forgottenlands: Will you be more clear as to what is wrong with this proposal, please? I'm relatively new to the game.

Holy 666: Would you be willing to assist me in rewriting this proposal to make it legal?

Thanks to both of you for your comments.

AK_ID

BEING a fact that Resolution 122 will destroy the world economy and end modern civilization as we know it;

AWARE that the UN is losing membership as a result of Resolution 122;

NOTING that regions of the world have individual needs and sources of fuel that cannot be practically managed or dictated by a world body;

and REALISING that national autonomy is a precious right;

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all its members shall:

1) Repeal Resolution 122, and be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical.


There. Is that better, and more legal?

AK_ID

There. Is that better, and more legal?

No, it's not. Any resolution contradicting a previous one is illegal, the only way is for it to be repealed and Fictitious has already proposed a very good repeal.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

As if I would listen to advice from the author of the solar resolution. Sheesh.

AK_ID

As if I would listen to advice from the author of the solar resolution. Sheesh.

AK_ID

You would do good to listen to any advice given to you. This is not my opinion this is the way things work, your resolution is illegal, plain and simple, you have an issue with that - take it to the mods. But please, don't insult me in that way telling me I do not know how this game is played when I have been playing for over a year.

Really? If the mods do not allow RP noncompliance, then why did they sticky this post (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681181&postcount=5)?:

At any rate, even if the mods do not allow RP noncompliance, you are not a mod, so why do you presume to do their job for them?

I'm not claiming the mods don't allow RP noncompliance. The mods don't care about godmodding in RPs, as long as it is civil. They just state that the gnomes deal with everything that's relevant, the rest is up to the players.

However, that doesn't mean they accept non-compliance, nor do they permit contradiction. There are dozens of examples where the mods have deleted proposals because of contradiction. The biggest one in recent history was Reformatia's original draft of Bio-weapons act was deleted because it contradicted UNSA (which was passed while the proposal was in queue). The proposal list is held to a higher standard than the RP is.

That said, it is one thing to optionally RP non-compliance, it is quite another to "force" non-compliance, and that is what this proposal does.

The following is amongst the list of reasons that proposals can be deleted:

#


# Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

# Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

# Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

# Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.

------------------------------

AK_ID, your updated repeal also has a problem. You can only have "Repeals resolution 122" - though you could put "Repeals resolution 122 in the belief that nations should be able to blah blah blah". You can't make any new rules. The original one fell under a contradiction, though Hellboy was right in saying it was a good basis for a repeal.

No, it's not. Any resolution contradicting a previous one is illegal, the only way is for it to be repealed and Fictitious has already proposed a very good repeal.

Cheers ;)
Starcra

The new one is under the intention to be repealed. There is no crime with drafting another repeal - even if FP's is probably going to be the one we run with

As if I would listen to advice from the author of the solar resolution. Sheesh.

AK_ID

There is no reason to be petty. You may disagree with the statement, but one thing you'll find with this forum is even those that oppose you will go to great lengths to help you improve your resolution or note where it is illegal. My policy has always been that if you're going to be level headed enough to listen to me, I will help you get your proposal to quarom and improve its quality, even if I will vote against it on the floor. I'm more interested about the quality of the proposal than whether something I disagree with is passed or not. Starcra II has put forth some excellent assistance in the job of repealing 122. The treatment given here is far from needed

I mixed something up when saying it was completely illegal, I thought this was to be a resolution rather than a repeal. If that is the case, then Ak_Id, you would have to submit this as a repeal not as a resolution titled 'Environmental' - just so we're sure everything is covered.

Also you should know there is a repeal already in queue written by Fictitious which covers all the areas of the resolution so you might want to switch your support to that one, but it's up to you.

The new one is under the intention to be repealed. There is no crime with drafting another repeal - even if FP's is probably going to be the one we run with

Yes, I just noticed the final line, Sorry about that post.

You read AK_ID's original post as an actual draft resolution; I read it as a tongue-in-cheek suggestion for UN nations simply to ignore 122 because it's so ridiculous and can't possibly be (RP) enforced (and I assumed everyone else read it the same way). So I misunderstood what you meant by "illegal" and "contradiction"; of course proposals can't contradict standing resolutions, but I still don't think AK_ID was actually trying to propose a serious draft here.

This IS a serious draft. Let the mods decide whether it stands or not.

GRIN.

AK_ID

Contradicts an existing Resolution. Illegal.

BEING a fact that individual nations have individual energy needs;

AWARE that current UN energy policy is impractical for many nations;

NOTING that regions of the world have individual needs and sources of fuel that cannot be practically managed or dictated by a world body;

and REALISING that national autonomy is a precious right;

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all its members shall:

1) Be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical.

Mods: Is the above acceptable?

AK_ID

You are in a more illegal position than you were with your last draft.

BEING a fact that individual nations have individual energy needs;

AWARE that current UN energy policy is impractical for many nations;

NOTING that regions of the world have individual needs and sources of fuel that cannot be practically managed or dictated by a world body;

and REALISING that national autonomy is a precious right;

Believing that nations should be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical.

Repeal Resolution 122, The Promotion of Solar Panels

Quality not edited.

More illegal in which way? Tutor me.

AK

Umm, you sort of have to repeal the standing resolution first. You were closer with your second draft.

This IS a serious draft. Let the mods decide whether it stands or not.

GRIN.Very well, then. I stand corrected, and note that your first draft was probably illegal, though your second probably was less so, and your third still is, for the reason stated above.

And we intend to follow through with our Emergency Loophole Exploitation Regime re: Resolution #122. :D

More illegal in which way? Tutor me.

AK

There are three cases that you could be submitting it under:

1) Normal proposal. In which case, it contradicts resolution 122....which is, in fact, its intention

2) Repeal, in which case, you can only say that a resolution is repealed. You cannot declare that nations have the right to use whatever energy form they want. That's a proposal. Repeals only do one thing, they repeal

3) Replacement, in which case your first statement is false (as resolution 122 must have already been repealed, which therefore means that there is no energy policy to speak of)

So no matter how you cut it, its illegal.

As such, I rewrote it into that of a legal repeal

So. I introduced a repeal on another thread. Is THAT legal?

Let's try it this way...


BEING a fact that individual nations have individual energy needs;

AWARE that current UN energy policy is impractical for many nations;

NOTING that regions of the world have individual needs and sources of fuel that cannot be practically managed or dictated by a world body;

and REALISING that national autonomy is a precious right;

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all its members shall:

1) Be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical except as restricted by previous resolutions.


Bold part is what I added.

Basically, repeal that retarded solar panel bill and you're in business.

Thank you, Axis Nova. Now can we go about putting this up for debate?

AK_ID

Now it's pointless, does nothing, and has no category that it fits into.

Wouldn't "Environment" still qualify as a category if you consider humanity to be part of the environment?

Now it's pointless, does nothing, and has no category that it fits into.

Furtherment of Democracy, Strength: Strong should do it.

No, because it isn't restricting business.

And how is this increasing democratic freedoms? Furtherment of Democracy makes even less sense.

Thanks, Hack. That helps.

AK_ID

No, because it isn't restricting business.

And how is this increasing democratic freedoms? Furtherment of Democracy makes even less sense.

Furtherment of Democracy in the sense that it gives member nations of the UN more freedom from UN control by making the UN slightly more democratic with regards to energy policy.

Free Trade could theoretically work as well (deregulation stuff) but that's more of a stretch and Furtherment of Democracy is more in line with the aims of the resolution.

Thanks, Nova and Hack, for filling in the blanks for a relatively new UN member. I think we can see this proposal pass as a friendly compromise amongst folks who may not have agreed earlier.

AK_ID

New category needed: Bureaucracy Prevention

New category needed: Bureaucracy Prevention

YES

YES

OH GOD YES

God forbid anyone should propose limiting UN intrusion into national affairs.

AK_ID

BEING a fact that individual nations have individual energy needs;

Very true

AWARE that current UN energy policy is impractical for many nations;

However, they had to make their energy policies pratical to comply with past UN resolutions.

NOTING that regions of the world have individual needs and sources of fuel that cannot be practically managed or dictated by a world body;

Bold statement. I like it.

and REALISING that national autonomy is a precious right;

However, nations can become independent whenever they want. Just leave the UN.

On the passing of this resolution, the UN and all its members shall:

1) Be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical.

Even with the edit by Axis Nova:

1) Be free to use whatever energy source is most practical and economical except as restricted by previous resolutions.

this resolution isn't really needed. Nations are already free to use whatever energy source is most pratical. UN resolutions try to restrict the actions of the UN nations for a greater cause. I suggest changing this resolution to a repeal, and fix it up a bit. Try to find some more arguments for your resolution, like a concern for black-outs, or economy downfalls.

Overall, it has good potential, but it needs some more work. I can't wait to see the end result.

Furtherment of Democracy in the sense that it gives member nations of the UN more freedom from UN control by making the UN slightly more democratic with regards to energy policy."A resolution to increase democratic freedoms."
"Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of UN member nations"

Furtherment of Democracy has nothing to do with a nation's freedom in the UN. It deals with the individual freedom of citizens.

You're grasping at straws.

Free Trade could theoretically work as well (deregulation stuff) but that's more of a stretch and Furtherment of Democracy is more in line with the aims of the resolution.Except that this Proposal doesn't deregulate anything.


God forbid anyone should propose limiting UN intrusion into national affairs.Completely inaccurate:

Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)
United Nations Security Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)

God forbid anyone should propose limiting UN intrusion into national affairs.

Completely inaccurate:

Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)
United Nations Security Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)
Yeah, it's doable you just have to know how to go about doing it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Ficticious Proportions has written a very reasonable repeal -- I support it. Only 45 more approvals needed, by the way.

AK_ID