Ficticious Proportions
29-09-2005, 18:13
Before I commence, this thread is NOT calling for any technical modifications NOR is it criticising any of the efforts done in the forming of the NSUN rules which I acknowledge exist for good reason. I'm merely voicing a concern.
If you asked the average "man on the street" what course of action would be best to improve a UN resolution, most aware of the logicistics would suggest an amendment - HOWEVER, in the NSUN, the facility doesn't exist, and will never exist due to technical limitations and other reasons besides:
Amendments
You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit.
This leaves only one logical course of action to prevent dual standards in resolutions, and as the rules then state, you have to remove to replace:
If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.
To those of us who are aware of the procedures, this poses no problem. We remove the old resolution that we don't feel fulfills its purpose and then propose a replacement for it:
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.
As most of us are aware, the Repeal function is found as a link under each current resolution (that isn't a repeal itself). With the resolution repealed, we propose the replacement and hope it succeeds using the usual channels.
HOWEVER, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in recent weeks, this chain of thought is meeting problems.
The Problem Mindset: Afraid of the Void
Of course those who disapprove of a repeal will vote against it, but there are those who block any repeal of a resolution with intent to revise it for fear of a replacement not being approved leaving a gap in UN legislation on it. This hinders progress on the side of caution and may leave some of the very vague earlier resolutions in place despite the obvious loopholes.
The logical solution to this would be to bridge the void by getting the replacement in place first, including a clause in it that renders the previous resolution invalid to prevent dual standards, so that the older one can be repealed later to cut back on red tape. As much as this happened with resolution #17 being replaced by #20 (and subsequently repealed by #102), it would violate an NSUN rule on Duplication (clarified after resolution #20 was passed, prior to the Enodian Protocols which form the backbone of the present rules):
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)
I could claim that if the resolution being improved was small and it's replacement covered more than twice the areas it did, it would technically not be in violation, as the original would cover a minority of the replacement - however, this might be viewed as pedantry. Nowadays, most resolutions aren't as thin on the ground as the earliest ones, and so few replacements for modern resolutions could actually claim this.
Nonetheless, as much as the need to point out that two resolutions covering the same thing is still pointless when both are still in effect, posting a replacement to cover the void and then repealing it later would seem the course of action to remedy this. It would be valid to think that some would question the need of the subsequent repeal of the original, although a sizable faction would agree with the repeal for the sake of clarity and the cutting down on red tape.
Obviously, this course of action would have to comply with:
House of Cards
"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."
This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.
Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.
A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)
In other words, one resolution should never invalidate more than one resolution at a time in the name of replacing it.
As much as I am personally more than prepared to repeal a resolution and leave a void for it's replacement to fill (more often than not), it seems to me that the cautious mindset is making it harder and harder to make progress in the NSUN as we cover more and more areas, and thus have fewer and fewer ideas. It's not as if my personal example should affect a balanced judgement anyway.
Even though I accept that there are several areas in which we... at least attempt to point out to the newcomers that amendments cannot, and will not ever be conducted on Nationstates, can I respectfully recommend that we make a concession in general policy to allow this course of action as a "pseudo-amendment"? As much as I appreciate we're still covering some pretty open areas in the NSUN, the effect is manifesting itself on discussion threads for resolutions with increasing frequency - when we approach the bottleneck of having little left but refining very specific, and thus very controversial and finnicky issues, under the current concensus, I'm concerned that caution may be a significant barrier to UN progress.
I'd appreciate any comments with reasoning about this line of thought.
If you asked the average "man on the street" what course of action would be best to improve a UN resolution, most aware of the logicistics would suggest an amendment - HOWEVER, in the NSUN, the facility doesn't exist, and will never exist due to technical limitations and other reasons besides:
Amendments
You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit.
This leaves only one logical course of action to prevent dual standards in resolutions, and as the rules then state, you have to remove to replace:
If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.
To those of us who are aware of the procedures, this poses no problem. We remove the old resolution that we don't feel fulfills its purpose and then propose a replacement for it:
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.
As most of us are aware, the Repeal function is found as a link under each current resolution (that isn't a repeal itself). With the resolution repealed, we propose the replacement and hope it succeeds using the usual channels.
HOWEVER, it is becoming increasingly apparent that in recent weeks, this chain of thought is meeting problems.
The Problem Mindset: Afraid of the Void
Of course those who disapprove of a repeal will vote against it, but there are those who block any repeal of a resolution with intent to revise it for fear of a replacement not being approved leaving a gap in UN legislation on it. This hinders progress on the side of caution and may leave some of the very vague earlier resolutions in place despite the obvious loopholes.
The logical solution to this would be to bridge the void by getting the replacement in place first, including a clause in it that renders the previous resolution invalid to prevent dual standards, so that the older one can be repealed later to cut back on red tape. As much as this happened with resolution #17 being replaced by #20 (and subsequently repealed by #102), it would violate an NSUN rule on Duplication (clarified after resolution #20 was passed, prior to the Enodian Protocols which form the backbone of the present rules):
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)
I could claim that if the resolution being improved was small and it's replacement covered more than twice the areas it did, it would technically not be in violation, as the original would cover a minority of the replacement - however, this might be viewed as pedantry. Nowadays, most resolutions aren't as thin on the ground as the earliest ones, and so few replacements for modern resolutions could actually claim this.
Nonetheless, as much as the need to point out that two resolutions covering the same thing is still pointless when both are still in effect, posting a replacement to cover the void and then repealing it later would seem the course of action to remedy this. It would be valid to think that some would question the need of the subsequent repeal of the original, although a sizable faction would agree with the repeal for the sake of clarity and the cutting down on red tape.
Obviously, this course of action would have to comply with:
House of Cards
"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."
This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.
Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.
A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)
In other words, one resolution should never invalidate more than one resolution at a time in the name of replacing it.
As much as I am personally more than prepared to repeal a resolution and leave a void for it's replacement to fill (more often than not), it seems to me that the cautious mindset is making it harder and harder to make progress in the NSUN as we cover more and more areas, and thus have fewer and fewer ideas. It's not as if my personal example should affect a balanced judgement anyway.
Even though I accept that there are several areas in which we... at least attempt to point out to the newcomers that amendments cannot, and will not ever be conducted on Nationstates, can I respectfully recommend that we make a concession in general policy to allow this course of action as a "pseudo-amendment"? As much as I appreciate we're still covering some pretty open areas in the NSUN, the effect is manifesting itself on discussion threads for resolutions with increasing frequency - when we approach the bottleneck of having little left but refining very specific, and thus very controversial and finnicky issues, under the current concensus, I'm concerned that caution may be a significant barrier to UN progress.
I'd appreciate any comments with reasoning about this line of thought.