NationStates Jolt Archive

All these repeals are getting very repetative. We should put a stop to them. We have better things to do with our time in the UN than try to correct every stupid little bit of legistlation that comes our way.

Instead, try to propose a better law than the one you repeal....


GAWD! :headbang:

Seriously, this is getting stupid. Every vote it seems is a repeal! Enough is enough!

All these repeals are getting very repetative. We should put a stop to them. We have better things to do with our time in the UN than try to correct every stupid little bit of legistlation that comes our way.

Instead, try to propose a better law than the one you repeal....


GAWD! :headbang:

Seriously, this is getting stupid. Every vote it seems is a repeal! Enough is enough!
I've got some news for you, in order to propose a better law than the one you repeal, you have to repeal it first.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Also if everyone took your advice and proposed better laws, you'd be complaining that there are too many laws. If you don't like the amount of repeals, I have some advice for you: don't look at them. Holy mother of Dilbert! There's a grand idea. It's not as though we're forcing repeals down your throat everyday! You are freely viewing them. So, shut your word hole and move on.


NEXT!

Furthermore, repeals only remove a resolution from UN law. You are welcome to keep all of its applicable provisions on your statute books.

Furthermore, repeals only remove a resolution from UN law.

No it does not. There really is no such thing as UN law. There is no mechanism to enforce past UN resolutions on new nations to the UN. That is a matter of Role Play and as we all know, role play is a voluntary thing.

A repeal does the following things: It causes an effect opposite but lesser than the effect of the original reslution to all member nation states at the moment of the passage of the repeal. It strikes out the resolution from the UN history log and prevents the option of repealing the resoltuon. That in effect is all that a repeal does. The notion that a repeal "removes" a resolution from UN law is actually role play fluff and nothing more.

To pass a resolution only to repeal it the next week is in effect taking two steps backward and one step forward. The net effect is still worse than simply not having te resolution approved in the first place. Likewise the thought that anyone would approve a resolution one week and in the next approve it's removal simply indicates the lemming nature of most UN representatives, most of whom have probably never been to the UN forum. It also says a wole lot of bad things for UN deligates, who let trash resolutions get through in the first place.

As long as the repeal option exists and as long as there is enough nations opposing any paticular resolution, old or new, to get one to the floor, then repeal attempts will continue to happen. You have the choice of accepting that, or just ignoring repeal attempts and abstaining (not voting either way) on them.

Begging for repeals to stop won't make them stop I'm sorry to say. Just telling UN members to accept legislation they don't like and just accept it so it won't "bother" nations sick of repeals make them stop either.

Repeals are part of the game now and all UN nations are fully entitled to attempt to pass them if they want to. Just as all UN nations are fully entitled to attempt to pass new legislation.

To pass a resolution only to repeal it the next week is in effect taking two steps backward and one step forward. The net effect is still worse than simply not having te resolution approved in the first place. Likewise the thought that anyone would approve a resolution one week and in the next approve it's removal simply indicates the lemming nature of most UN representatives, most of whom have probably never been to the UN forum. It also says a wole lot of bad things for UN deligates, who let trash resolutions get through in the first place.

So, if we understand the representative from Tzorsland correctly, a person shouldn't try to wipe up spilled milk. Why? Because he shouldn't have spilled it in the first place.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

So, if we understand the representative from Tzorsland correctly, a person shouldn't try to wipe up spilled milk. Why? Because he shouldn't have spilled it in the first place.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Pretty much, except that while you can spill milk by accident, passing a resolution by accident is a tad less likely :}

Interesting...but what you don't account for is that the NS-UN is a constantly evolving entity. What was deemed "good" legislation a year ago wouldn't pass today.

The Wolfish Convention on POW - and virtually all the earlier resolutions wouldn't get out of this forum if proposed now.

I see the repeal feature as a welcome addition to the tool box of the NS-UN. It allows the organization to continue and expand on earlier debates and keep the organization fresh.

W.

If the single cell orgnanisms that consistently put forth such mindless resolutions would stop doing so.....And the single cell organisms that vote YES on every single mindless resolution that comes across the screen would stop doing so......Why gee, there'd be no need for an appeal now then would there? :headbang:

No it does not. There really is no such thing as UN law. There is no mechanism to enforce past UN resolutions on new nations to the UN. That is a matter of Role Play and as we all know, role play is a voluntary thing.

A repeal does the following things: It causes an effect opposite but lesser than the effect of the original reslution to all member nation states at the moment of the passage of the repeal. It strikes out the resolution from the UN history log and prevents the option of repealing the resoltuon. That in effect is all that a repeal does. The notion that a repeal "removes" a resolution from UN law is actually role play fluff and nothing more.

To pass a resolution only to repeal it the next week is in effect taking two steps backward and one step forward. The net effect is still worse than simply not having te resolution approved in the first place. Likewise the thought that anyone would approve a resolution one week and in the next approve it's removal simply indicates the lemming nature of most UN representatives, most of whom have probably never been to the UN forum. It also says a wole lot of bad things for UN deligates, who let trash resolutions get through in the first place.

I'm sorry, on a forum where we debate the politics and text of resolutions (and therefore, the RP aspect), using stat arguments on why repeals are stupid is pretty ridiculous. Considering that only the headers of any single resolution affect gameplay/stats, while the actual text of the resolution (INCLUDING the title) is roleplay, MOST people vote on the roleplay aspect - perhaps not knowingly, but they do. I think I've seen ONE proposal in my time here that was entirely built around a stat argument in my time here in the UN.

So the concept of repeals is QUITE relevant to all those who do roleplay - which is a large majority of the NSUN

If the single cell orgnanisms that consistently put forth such mindless resolutions would stop doing so.....And the single cell organisms that vote YES on every single mindless resolution that comes across the screen would stop doing so......Why gee, there'd be no need for an appeal now then would there?

If some people who like calling others single celled organisms would start using the correct termonology (it's REPEAL), their insults might be a bit more meaningful. Regardless, there's no reason to begin the namecalling - even if there is an issue of fluffy-voting practices.

:headbang:
Just because someone submits a resolution that upon further examination turns out to be flawed does not make them a "single cell organism". Just because someone votes yes on a flawed resolution does not make them a "single cell organism". It just means that they made a mistake.

If the single cell orgnanisms that consistently put forth such mindless resolutions would stop doing so.....And the single cell organisms that vote YES on every single mindless resolution that comes across the screen would stop doing so......Why gee, there'd be no need for an appeal now then would there? :headbang:

Before calling people single-celled organisms, maybe they should read the previous posts? The nature of the NSUN changes, as Wolfish points out. Legislation that was once good can become less so. The repeal allows for dynamic legislative practice, instead of being mindlessly bound to old, outdated practices. If the Moon were blown up tomorrow, why bother continuing to waste money on the UNSC?

No it does not. There really is no such thing as UN law. There is no mechanism to enforce past UN resolutions on new nations to the UN. That is a matter of Role Play and as we all know, role play is a voluntary thing.

Yes, and I was talking about UN law within an RP context quite clearly.

A repeal does the following things: It causes an effect opposite but lesser than the effect of the original reslution to all member nation states at the moment of the passage of the repeal.

Wrong. If any new players are reading this, Tzorland is wrong, and please ignore his assertion. There is no coded effect for repeals.

Actually...no, I'm wrong, apparently. I did not know this. Thank you for bringing it up. I apologise for my comment. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9867322&postcount=15

It strikes out the resolution from the UN history log and prevents the option of repealing the resoltuon. That in effect is all that a repeal does. The notion that a repeal "removes" a resolution from UN law is actually role play fluff and nothing more.

How is it 'fluff'? It's role play, partly. But furthermore, it is UN law that you cannot ban any weapon until you demonstrate that it is not necessary for self-defence, until we repeal UNSA. What else would you call that other than 'law'?

To pass a resolution only to repeal it the next week is in effect taking two steps backward and one step forward. The net effect is still worse than simply not having te resolution approved in the first place.

Agreed. But if a resolution is passed, I'm not just going to bend over. I intend on fighting to repeal poor legislation, and not simply saying 'a mistake was made, and it's so shit, but I'm not going to do anything about it because that would be too much like not pointlessly whingeing'.

ikewise the thought that anyone would approve a resolution one week and in the next approve it's removal simply indicates the lemming nature of most UN representatives, most of whom have probably never been to the UN forum. It also says a wole lot of bad things for UN deligates, who let trash resolutions get through in the first place.

No, it doesn't indicate the lemming nature. You say 'probably'; quite definitely most UN representatives have been to the UN forum, judging from postcounts and views. That does not negate their contribution; in fact, it implies that you are unable to appraise the merit of a resolution without being told what's what by other forumgoers. You are also forgetting RMB and off-site forum debates.

A repeal does the following things: It causes an effect opposite but lesser than the effect of the original reslution to all member nation states at the moment of the passage of the repeal.

Wrong. If any new players are reading this, Tzorland is wrong, and please ignore his assertion. There is no coded effect for repeals.
Wrong. There is such a mechanism, and Tzorland described it exactly and correctly.

http://www.nationstates.net/news/2004/09/23/index.html#repeals

Well. I never knew that. I'm sure I was told otherwise, once...

Anyway, I do apologise fully Tzorland, and to anyone I have confused.

OOC:

I thought it might be interesting to know just how much of its time the Assembly was spending on repeals. So I took a look at the timeline on NSWiki. The repeal function was enabled in the NSUN late in the 3rd Quarter of 2004. Since that time, 66 proposals have been brought to the floor for a vote. 13 of those (20%) have been repeals.

One more meaningless statistic to add to my collection. ;)

OOC:

I thought it might be interesting to know just how much of its time the Assembly was spending on repeals. So I took a look at the timeline on NSWiki. The repeal function was enabled in the NSUN late in the 3rd Quarter of 2004. Since that time, 66 proposals have been brought to the floor for a vote. 13 of those (20%) have been repeals.

One more meaningless statistic to add to my collection. ;)

(ooc) just cause I am curious - how many of those repeals were for proposals in the other 53?

(ooc) just cause I am curious - how many of those repeals were for proposals in the other 53?

If I understand your question correctly...then "The Global Library", "National Systems of Tax", "Protection of Dolphins Act", "Ban Chemical Weapons" and "Promotion of Solar Panels" were all post-repeal resolutions that were repealed. There was also a failed attempt to repeal PoDA.

Ausserland's figure of 66 comes from the Fourth Quarter onwards, but I think one or two of the last resolutions of the Third Quarter might have passed after repeals were allowed. Nonetheless, if we go with that, it means of the 66, 55 have been successful, and of the 13 repeals, 11 have been successful. (Of the 53 positive proposals, 44 have been successful, meaning that they're almost exactly as likely to succeed, within about a one percent margin.)

Of the 13 repeals, then, 6 have attempted to repeal 'new' resolutions; given the ratio of 74:44 margin of positive resolutions pre- and post-introduction of repeals, the latter are far more likely to be targetted for repeal.

The repeal function's great, though I share the frustration at the UN currently spending so much time on the same topics.

So, when is someone going to tear apart UCPL? I really can't face going through the process of drafting a proposal or repeal again...

So, when is someone going to tear apart UCPL? I really can't face going through the process of drafting a proposal or repeal again...

What's your objection to UCPL? You've mentioned it before. Is it simply the impracticality of having 30,000 chapters of the ICO, plus ones for each language, or is there something more fundamental about copyright law?

The repeal function's great

Love and esterel fully share the thoughts of Ecopoeia. We think repeals are a proof that the UN is a vibrant democracy, and we didn't change our mind on this matter, even after the "protection of Dolphin Act" had been repealed:(

We are just very sad that there are no opportunities to amend or replace proposals other than repeals.

We are just very sad that there are no opportunities to amend or replace proposals other than repeals.

I think this is a good thing, personally. It prevents bad legislation merely being 'touched up'. I agree sometimes it would be nice to have a replacement lined up...but that's more a question of organization than anything else.

I think this is a good thing, personally. It prevents bad legislation merely being 'touched up'. I agree sometimes it would be nice to have a replacement lined up...but that's more a question of organization than anything else.

For example Watarena and Groot Gouda wrote some proposition to replace respectively
#61 Abortion Rights
#2 Scientific Freedom
these propositions were in the same spirit than the original resolutions, improving them

In the same way, Powerhungry Chipmunks said in the forum he would be happy to modify his #79 Reformed Literacy Initiative, and personally i have also something to change and something else to add to #121 Adoption and IVF Rights.


but, it's so difficult to repeal + then pass a new proposition

And so it should be. UN laws shouldn't just flicker in and out of existence like moths round a light bulb; they should be hard to get in and get out unless they're extremely good.

Some of the earlier resolutions are terribly vague. Still, definition resolutions like the ones defining Fair Trial and Diplomatic Immunity. And something that's not an amendment, but merely an extension, is perfectly possible.

I don't know everything about the UN - until yesterday, I didn't know repeals had an effect - but I do like, in general, the way the system works. Except when a resolution I dislike passes, of course, when clearly there's a problem with the system.

What's your objection to UCPL? You've mentioned it before. Is it simply the impracticality of having 30,000 chapters of the ICO, plus ones for each language, or is there something more fundamental about copyright law?

We don't know what Ecopoeia's objections to the "UCPL [Universal Copyright/Patent Law]" are. As far as we're concerned, it's unrealistic and a waste of money. The basic idea is a sound one, but the implementation is poor. Uniform copyright/patent law? Excellent! A central data base for patent searches? Great! On-demand translation of patent text? OK. But not what the resolution requires. And when it includes copyright, it goes way beyond the limits of the do-able.

There's another resolution on the same subject, though, which is far worse: #60, "Public Domain". This one was written with no understanding of how copyrights work and is positively damaging in its provisions about shareware and freeware.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

What's your objection to UCPL? You've mentioned it before. Is it simply the impracticality of having 30,000 chapters of the ICO, plus ones for each language, or is there something more fundamental about copyright law?
I wish the original debate thread (from when Ecopoeia was but a wee nipper) was still accessible.

UCPL
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Anward

Description: UCPL- Universal Copyright/Patent Law

In it's current state, copyright law varies from country to country. It makes free trade more difficult, as the laws differ from nation to nation. As a representative of the Dominion of Anward, I realize my nation needs foreign trade to boost our economy. If we made a copyright/patent law that would apply to all countries there would be no 'gray area' and this would hopefully stimulate interest for countries to be more willing to trade between the nations of the United Nations. My proposal asks the following to be implemented:

1. Copyright/Patent Law be the same between all UN members.

2. Copyright/Patent organizations be modified to accommodate the number of requests for copyright. This should be done by establishing a new International Copyright Organization, with chapters in every capital. This agency would receive other chapters' copyrights, and send copyrights established in that country to all other chapters. With the Internet Age, this is a simple process.

3. With many different languages, a sub-agency should be established to correctly translate the copyright/patents, into each chapters native language.

4. An additional sub-agency be created to be informed of, and monitor all copyright/patent infringements. Reducing the need for the government to take the time to investigate the actions. A recommended course of action will then be reported, and a court of the nation of the offender make the ruling.

Votes For: 11,198
Votes Against: 8,149

Implemented: Mon Jan 26 2004
Let's not even start on the poor draftwork.

Ecopoeia objects to this on a fundamental level: we don't like copyright. It's a philosophical thing, y'see. Ecopoeians (for the most part) regard their creations as gifts to their fellows (indeed, much of the nation operates a gift economy) and the consensus on intellectual property is that a creative commons system is most appropriate.

This wouldn't be so bad (though I'd still want to repeal on the grounds that it enshrines a principle I/Ecopoeia doesn't agree with) were it not for the nature of the enforcement in the resolution. Not only does this provide for too much monitoring powers for my liking (ie makes it harder to circumvent), the cost of each chapter and the sub-agencies is somewhat prohibitive for a poor nation (how much useless bureaucracy can one resolution generate? sheesharoonie). This, actually, is the area I'm exploiting. The chapter (and sub-chapters) are housed in a dilapidated lean-to on the outskirts of the capital, Underhill. No funds have been provided for staff, no internet connection exists, the government makes no investigations and even if a recommendation for prosecution was made by the chapter/sub-agency/whatever, no court in the land would give the complaint the slightest credence.

We do respect others' copyright laws but deal with such matters on a bilateral basis.

Dodgy non-compliance? Nope, it's roleplayed. In anyone has a problem, they can embargo Ecopoeia; it wouldn't affect us as we have plenty of sympathetic neighbours taking a similar approach to us.

In addition (and here I defer to others who are more knowledgeable), I understand that the author demonstrates a woeful disregard for the differences between copyrights and patents.

I have a certain fondness for the resloution, in a twisted way: it's where I first cut my teeth in UN debate.

We don't know what Ecopoeia's objections to the "UCPL [Universal Copyright/Patent Law]" are. As far as we're concerned, it's unrealistic and a waste of money. The basic idea is a sound one, but the implementation is poor. Uniform copyright/patent law? Excellent! A central data base for patent searches? Great! On-demand translation of patent text? OK. But not what the resolution requires. And when it includes copyright, it goes way beyond the limits of the do-able.

There's another resolution on the same subject, though, which is far worse: #60, "Public Domain". This one was written with no understanding of how copyrights work and is positively damaging in its provisions about shareware and freeware.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Agreed, and yikes! I'd forgotten about that travesty.

Public Domain
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Our own laziness

Description: UN nations resolve to establish a public domain. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights that apply to a copyrighted work.

Works pass into the public domain when:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired
(2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright
3) it is a work of a UN Government
4) it is deemed "freeware" or "shareware"

Votes For: 8,694
Votes Against: 6,706

Implemented: Mon May 31 2004
Kill it! Kill it!

I generally like repeals. I wish there were lots and lots of them.

Right, I see. While you and Ausserland were responding, I was reading through a number of old threads and I've begun to see the problems, many of which you have now mentioned. Both it and Public Domain are very poor. Now, hate them as I do, I think I need to resort to:

<_<

>_>

So why don't we kill them? (Sorry to be hijacking this thread, but we're talking about 2 repeals, so it's sort of on-topic.)

<_<

>_>

Hurrah, but what do these symbols mean? Is this a smiley thing?

Yes, they're meant to be shifty-eyed, or uncertain, I think. I have to see, I'd never read Public Domain before. Not actually sure about it IC. But OOC, it is enraging.

Hurrah, but what do these symbols mean? Is this a smiley thing?

I thought it was a failed attempt at the British Rail logo...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/405000/images/_405346_br150.jpg

Hurrah, but what do these symbols mean? Is this a smiley thing?

OOC:

Heh heh. My Korean friends use this type of smiley a lot. Examples:

^_^ = Happy smile

^_- = Wink

>_> and <_< = Looks around to see if anyone's listening.

What? Me off-topic? Nah! ;)

Yes, I checked on Wikipedia, and they're 'anime smilies'. Apparently.

Well, we will stop hijacking now. (Gotta love how this thread has potentially spawned two more repeal ideas.)

I have only two real problems with repeals - the first is that there is the potential that it leads to weak resolutions - "It doesn't matter if it's perfect, cause we can repeal it later and then improve it" - and the second is that it is a lot easier to destroy someone elses work than make up something of your own.

The number of repeals that make it to quorum as compared with the number of positive proposals would suggest otherwise.

Repeals based solely on the basis of gramatical error are the ones that trouble me the most.

They assume that everyone uses english as a first language, when infact I am sure this is hardly the case. While the original creator of the resolution may infact use english as their first language, it is not absolute without asking.

Is it right to completely wash away someone's work especially if they don't speak english as a first language? A proposal which can even with gramatical errors, can still be interpreted with the original intent of the proposal without difficulty?

It has always been the position of the PDS that repeals should be few and well thought out before they are proposed. Punishing those who may not speak english as a first language for "Gramatical errors that only apply to the English language" is barbaric, and prejudiced.

If any repeals have been passed based solely on the basis of grammar, then they shouldn't have passed. However, there is nothing wrong with holding a reasonable (not a high, I admit) standard: after all, English as first or tenth language, it is the only language of UN legislation. I don't like mindless nitpicking (after all, even Mikitivity's proposals have grammatical errors, and I'm sure this post does) but I see nothing wrong with getting rid of seriously illegible material.

I have only two real problems with repeals - the first is that there is the potential that it leads to weak resolutions - "It doesn't matter if it's perfect, cause we can repeal it later and then improve it" - and the second is that it is a lot easier to destroy someone elses work than make up something of your own.

We couldn't argue with either of the points the distinguished First Triarch raises. Promoting sloppiness in proposal writing is a potential danger. We haven't seen any evidence of that happening in the NSUN, but there's no way to be sure it didn't.

On the point of repeals being easier than original proposals... That's quite true. The writer of a repeal can focus on one or two flaws in the resolution rather than having to consider all the other aspects of the original.

That being said, while we acknowledge that these points are quite valid and well worth keeping in mind, we don't see them as outweighing the value of the repeal as a means of removing "unfortunate" legislation from the books.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Repeals based solely on the basis of gramatical error are the ones that trouble me the most.

They assume that everyone uses english as a first language, when infact I am sure this is hardly the case. While the original creator of the resolution may infact use english as their first language, it is not absolute without asking.

Is it right to completely wash away someone's work especially if they don't speak english as a first language? A proposal which can even with gramatical errors, can still be interpreted with the original intent of the proposal without difficulty?

It has always been the position of the PDS that repeals should be few and well thought out before they are proposed. Punishing those who may not speak english as a first language for "Gramatical errors that only apply to the English language" is barbaric, and prejudiced.

I have absolutely no issues with these repeals. Love and Esterel who is the author of two resolutions and co-author of a third is ESL, a VERY active member of the community and has an obvious hinderance in the English language. However, his work is practically free of spelling and grammatical errors. Why? Because LAE spends at least A MONTH drafting each proposal, and this forum not only helped with the style, format, and quality of arguments, we helped with the spelling and grammar. Believing fully in an extensive drafting process, I think it is a good thing to remove resolutions that didn't have sufficient editing periods.

That being said, while we acknowledge that these points are quite valid and well worth keeping in mind, we don't see them as outweighing the value of the repeal as a means of removing "unfortunate" legislation from the books.


I entirely agree. I am just somewhat sick of/disturbed by/depressed by the amount we are getting in the list.

Repeals based solely on the basis of gramatical error are the ones that trouble me the most.

They assume that everyone uses english as a first language, when infact I am sure this is hardly the case. While the original creator of the resolution may infact use english as their first language, it is not absolute without asking.

Is it right to completely wash away someone's work especially if they don't speak english as a first language? A proposal which can even with gramatical errors, can still be interpreted with the original intent of the proposal without difficulty?

It has always been the position of the PDS that repeals should be few and well thought out before they are proposed. Punishing those who may not speak english as a first language for "Gramatical errors that only apply to the English language" is barbaric, and prejudiced.

We agree completely with the honorable representative of Snoogit, although we probably wouldn't use the term "barbaric". We would never vote for a repeal which was based solely on the use of "bad grammar" in the resolution. We would, however, vote to repeal a resolution if grammatical errors made the resolution dangerously ambiguous or ineffective.

We would especially agree with the honorable representative that members of the NSUN for whom English is not a first language deserve a lot more respect than they sometimes receive here.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We agree completely with the honorable representative of Snoogit, although we probably wouldn't use the term "barbaric". We would never vote for a repeal which was based solely on the use of "bad grammar" in the resolution. We would, however, vote to repeal a resolution if grammatical errors made the resolution dangerously ambiguous or ineffective.

We would especially agree with the honorable representative that members of the NSUN for whom English is not a first language deserve a lot more respect than they sometimes receive here.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

But, I would argue, there is one reason to ensure grammar is correct - to ensure what you are writing it what you actually want to do. The wrong word, the wrong commar and so forth - can easily alter the entire meaning of the resolution, and it's important that is done right.

I have no desire to say that the language and so forth should be perfect, but there has to be some degree of "correctness" otherwise the entire basis of the resolution can be questioned.

But, I would argue, there is one reason to ensure grammar is correct - to ensure what you are writing it what you actually want to do. The wrong word, the wrong commar and so forth - can easily alter the entire meaning of the resolution, and it's important that is done right.


Agreed. Which is why we said:

We would, however, vote to repeal a resolution if grammatical errors made the resolution dangerously ambiguous or ineffective.

But we like the way you've put it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Agreed. Which is why we said:

We would, however, vote to repeal a resolution if grammatical errors made the resolution dangerously ambiguous or ineffective.

But we like the way you've put it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

(smirk) It's based on a judge in San Fransico who pulled a injunction against gay marriage because it had a semi-colon in the wrong place which could leave the actual aim of the injunction entire unclear. I thought it was one of the funniest things I had ever heard :}

All these repeals are getting very repetative. We should put a stop to them. We have better things to do with our time in the UN than try to correct every stupid little bit of legistlation that comes our way.

Instead, try to propose a better law than the one you repeal....


GAWD! :headbang:

Seriously, this is getting stupid. Every vote it seems is a repeal! Enough is enough!

Not to be crude, but if your dog shits on the floor, do you just leave it there?

Agreed. Which is why we said:

We would, however, vote to repeal a resolution if grammatical errors made the resolution dangerously ambiguous or ineffective.

But we like the way you've put it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Would you mean things like UN Educational Committee (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=53)'s misplaced apostrophy, which no one noticed until it was up for vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Not to be crude, but if your dog shits on the floor, do you just leave it there?

No, but at the same time you don't just clean it up and let it happen again - you try to avoid it happening in the first place.

(smirk) It's based on a judge in San Fransico who pulled a injunction against gay marriage because it had a semi-colon in the wrong place which could leave the actual aim of the injunction entire unclear. I thought it was one of the funniest things I had ever heard :}
Or the mistyped ASBO that resulted in a fella having no choice but to get drunk every night, rather than the intended effect of denying him access to alcohol.

No, but at the same time you don't just clean it up and let it happen again - you try to avoid it happening in the first place.

But the first thing you do is clean it up.

Generally, I dislike the over use of repeals as well.

Sometimes people use them as the first step to write something new ... I like that. But when it is just to pick a fight over something *recently* decided ... nah, give it a 6 months, then revisit the idea when the players here have changed due to turnover. :)

Generally, I dislike the over use of repeals as well.

Sometimes people use them as the first step to write something new ... I like that. But when it is just to pick a fight over something *recently* decided ... nah, give it a 6 months, then revisit the idea when the players here have changed due to turnover. :)

So we should have allowed Promotion of Solar Panels to sit around for longer, for the sake of decorum? No, I'm sorry, but I don't feel there are or should be any unwritten laws when it comes to repeals: if UN members dislike ping-ponging about, they can always vote against.

Well... if people would quit passing stupid Resolutions, there'd be fewer Repeals... I mean, seriously: Solar Panals never should have hit quorum, let alone passed.

I agree, obviously, but once stupid resolutions pass, there's little else we can do. I don't justify PoSP's passing on the basis of its speedy repeal. I'm simply glad we now have the opportunity.

At least we can't repeal repeals. That would be bloody confusing!

Well... if people would quit passing stupid Resolutions, there'd be fewer Repeals... I mean, seriously: Solar Panals never should have hit quorum, let alone passed.
It's too bad that there wasn't anything illegal about it, then it wouldn't have hit quorum.

At least we can't repeal repeals. That would be bloody confusing!

Yeah - but think of THE FUN we could have :}

Overheard in the hall:

"But sir.... The repeal of the repeal of the repeal of the repeal was passed by 9,482 votes!"

"I don't care! Repeal it! It's got a split infinitive!"

:D

Overheard in the hall:

"But sir.... The repeal of the repeal of the repeal of the repeal was passed by 9,482 votes!"

"I don't care! Repeal it! It's got a split infinitive!"

:D
"But, sir... according to the journalist's style guide, split infinitives are perfectly acceptable. The rejection of split infinitives as a legitimate grammatical form derives from a contentious movement in the 1800's, when-"

"Shut up and get drafting!"

I vote to repeal 'Enough Repeals' thread.

Well... if people would quit passing stupid Resolutions, there'd be fewer Repeals... I mean, seriously: Solar Panals never should have hit quorum, let alone passed.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others." Sir Winston Churchill.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others." Sir Winston Churchill.

We concur

Well... if people would quit passing stupid Resolutions, there'd be fewer Repeals... I mean, seriously: Solar Panals never should have hit quorum, let alone passed.

Out of curiousity, care to provide a few examples of non-stupid resolutions? And more importantly, what specifically did you like about them? In Jan. I'll run a poll to help pick the most favorite resolution, and naturally I'd encourage everybody to explain *why* they liked a resolution.

I still believe we see many more repeals as they are easier. It is hard to come up with original idea. It is easy to just make up and argument and say, "Dude, that is dumb". Cleaning it up a bit to make a "Dude, that is dumb" sound a bit nicer isn't that hard. "This resolution will have serious impacts on ..." Same thing, but no new idea has been presented.

While I like seeing repeals used to replace and improve resolutions, I don't like repeals for the sake of repealing.

I still believe we see many more repeals as they are easier. It is hard to come up with original idea. It is easy to just make up and argument and say, "Dude, that is dumb". Cleaning it up a bit to make a "Dude, that is dumb" sound a bit nicer isn't that hard. "This resolution will have serious impacts on ..." Same thing, but no new idea has been presented.

While I like seeing repeals used to replace and improve resolutions, I don't like repeals for the sake of repealing.


I agree with you on this matter

i really think what we need is a amend/replace possibility
i think that even solar panel could have been easily amended to become a good resolution if it was technically possible

i know it's not possible but i tend to think it's the biggest problem the UN face nowadays. For me, this abscence is the cause of most messes and confusions.

Out of curiousity, care to provide a few examples of non-stupid resolutions? And more importantly, what specifically did you like about them?Let's see here...

Scientific Freedom - While weak compared to current standards, it was a good idea.
UN taxation ban - Despite the number of people who don't understand the difference between "citizen" and "government", this was a very good idea.
Stop privacy intrusion - Should be replaced with something better, but not a terrible Resolution.
Child Labor - Good langauge and to the point. One of the better early Resolutions.
Outlaw Pedophilia - No real problems; a little brief, but didn't need to be long.
The Universal Bill of Rights - Not a bad omnibus Resolution.
Common Sense Act II - I like this one, but I'm a tort reform supporter IRL.
Wolfish Convention on POW - Fine and good.
UCPL - Not perfect, but I like the idea of respecting intellectual property rights.
Rights and Duties of UN States - Very nice.
The Eon Convention on Genocide - Like Wolfish, this is a global issue. Somewhat toothless, but not bad.
United Nations Security Act - Amusing.
The Microcredit Bazaar - A very good Free Trade Resolution. I almost campaigned for this one.
Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" - That crap had to go ;)

Let's see here...


Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" - That crap had to go ;)

I couldn't agree more.

Whereas I disagree...

Damn. No Hack seal of approval for li'l ol' me.

Let's see here...


United Nations Security Act - Amusing.


I'm glad someone got something positive out of it.

Damn. No Hack seal of approval for li'l ol' me.
I didn't get one either.

Well, that was a quick skimming of the list of names using Komokom's thread. I didn't take the time to actually reread all of them because... well... I'm not that masochistic.

For what it's worth, the above list isn't to imply that I think every other Resolution should be repealed, although Lord knows there's a lot I'd love to delete.

Well, that was a quick skimming of the list of names using Komokom's thread. I didn't take the time to actually reread all of them because... well... I'm not that masochistic.

For what it's worth, the above list isn't to imply that I think every other Resolution should be repealed, although Lord knows there's a lot I'd love to delete.
Heh. I wasn't being very serious.

I didn't get one either.
Nor me! and ive two in there! :D

(smirk) I got mentioned (hehehehe)

(smirk) I got mentioned (hehehehe)
Teachers Pet! :sniper: :D

For what it's worth, the above list isn't to imply that I think every other Resolution should be repealed, although Lord knows there's a lot I'd love to delete.
I'm kind of afraid to ask this but, any chance of you naming any of them?