NationStates Jolt Archive

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra has compiled the following list of resolutions that may interest the esteemed delegates of the General Assembly:

http://www.safalra.com/special/nationstates/safety/

The greater the majority by which a NationStates UN resolution passes, the safer is the resolution from repealing attempts. The table below is sorted by resolution safety (the percentage of votes supporting the resolution), with repealed resolutions marked as such.

OOC: My resolution is top. :-)

This is interesting and useful: thanks, Safalra. It does seem to 'work' to the extent that the red is clumped near the end, but there's a few that buck the trend.

This should be a very helpful list for aspiring repeal authors. Thanks Safalra.

Wow...that bloody 40-hour workweek looks ripe for repeal...

Wow...that bloody 40-hour workweek looks ripe for repeal...

They tried, and failed. It would be interesting to see how a rerun fared, especially now some of the vocal supporters of the resolution have become less active.

They tried, and failed. It would be interesting to see how a rerun fared, especially now some of the vocal supporters of the resolution have become less active.

Who authored the repeal attempt? My memory fails me.

40-hour workweek is flawed due to the 80 hr. cap and the whole "my planet has 40 hr. days and 10 day weeks" argument. It would be worthwhile to replace it with a more realistic resolution which takes differing national situations into account.

Leg-ends authored the repeal. He's still around, and trying to repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions" at the moment.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22The_40_Hour_Workweek%22_%28failed%29

Leg-ends authored the repeal. He's still around, and trying to repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions" at the moment.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22The_40_Hour_Workweek%22_%28failed%29

Ah, right. Thanks.

While I acknowledge Yelda's point, I sincerely doubt that the naysayers of the resolution are going to be gunning for that section. Unless the repeal only considers the handful of flaws in overprotection and the definition questions, we shall not support it. The 40 hour workweek we feel is a fundamentally important resolution.

If we did want to consider repealing the forty-hour work week, we could always go into percentage amounts. Such as, say there are x hours in a day, you are only allowed to work 30% of those hours...or whatever. That would solve different regions or whatever who have less or more than 24 hours in a day. And then, we could put no limit in the amount that a person can work because a person may need to or may want to work more than 80 hours...though I can't see why.

I might check out that resolution. I haven't actually read it...so that might be a good idea.

I must admit to being in favour of a repeal of 40 hour workweek; not just because of the multiplanetary nature of the NSUN, but also because I feel it is rendered redundent by the Rights to Trades Union legislation; which gives workers the power to negotiate hours (amongst other things), and thus take into account the circumstances that exist at any one place of work; if a nation have a shortage of available labour for example, then the firm may need to have longer hours or fear closure (which would render the employees unemployed). It also fails to take into account circumstances when certain, unmentioned, employees may need to work longer hours (politicians? civil servants? Diplomats?). I don't feel that a blanket set of rules on workers hours is neccessary or, for want of a better word, appropriate

no offence to Safalra, but i am unsure of the accuracy of that. there are some like Gay Rights and Defintion of Marriage (62% and 61% respectivly) that seem to be repealed all the time, yet it doesnt pass, and some of the higher ones could be repealed easily to make way for improved ones. also, you have to go by sentiments at the time, and also how big NS was at the time too.

I don't think Safalra was saying this was a guarantee: just an interesting fact. It is interesting, and of course there will be exceptions, but one can see a very rough correlation in there.

It is an interesting list indeed. It also shows that accusations of fluffyness, so often directed at this august assembly, are arguably deserved.

Wow...that bloody 40-hour workweek looks ripe for repeal...
Over my dead body, honeybunch.

Oh...debate. I love this.

Heh. Debate can wait; I'm happy trading posturings with Clucky.

Over my dead body, honeybunch.

I can only hope it doesn't come to that, snookums.

Woo hoo to Jey! Passing the repeal with the highest Resolution Safety of any resolution repealed so far!

"85. Support Hemp Production 73.5% Active"

I wonder how many of the people who voted 'For' had actually read the proposal, and how many of them just thought that it was to produce more dope instead?

"85. Support Hemp Production 73.5% Active"

I wonder how many of the people who voted 'For' had actually read the proposal, and how many of them just thought that it was to produce more dope instead?

Of the people who voted, in all, I think it's safe to say that only 26.5% actually read the proposal.

Of the people who voted, in all, I think it's safe to say that only 26.5% actually read the proposal.

Come on, for sure loads of them also rejected without reading.

Come on, for sure loads of them also rejected without reading.

Will you puh-lease let me be a smartass once in a while, mate? :p

The greater the majority by which a NationStates UN resolution passes, the safer is the resolution from repealing attempts. I disagree with that. The 'safety' of a resolution is determined by measuring how the current population of UN voters feel about a resolution in light of an argument for repeal. The percentage that voted For a resolution is determined by how the UN voters of a past time felt about a resolution text (with no contrasting text available). Nothing more. Nothing less.

This means that over time a resolution can lose or gain favor and that better repeal arguments will be able to topple more widely supported resolutions. There is a very loose correlation between vote percentages and 'safety' of a resolution, but it must be recognized that over time and under different arguments the 'safety' of a resolution will change. Whereas the vote percentage will never change.


EDIT: I see now that this has been said before (if said a little dfferently). Sorry about not reading first. I should add, too, that I think the page is a good thing, a lovable service, even if there weren't a direct correlation between safety and vote percentage. :)

the whole "my planet has 40 hr. days and 10 day weeks" argument.

Well, more that it doesn't define an 'hour' as 'a period of 60 minutes, defined by one-twenty-fourth of a single rotation of the Earth or approximately one eight-thousand-seven-hundred-sixtieth of the time it takes Earth to orbit its primary' and so you could use a Plutonian 'hour' as the standard [a twenty-fourth of 6 days 9 hours 17 minutes 36 seconds] and claim no 'week' [based on a normal 168 hour Earth week, since there's no section stating that a 'week' need be 168 of the same 'hours' being worked, or even that a week consists of 168 hours or seven days] could possibly be 40 such units long, so any workweek is legal.

You could also reverse that [Plutonian week versus Earth hour] to demand nobody is allowed to work more than 40 hours every 44 days 17 hours 3 minutes 12 seconds.

Though that is being a little perverse.

Will you puh-lease let me be a smartass once in a while, mate? :p

Sure, I am just proving a point. My ass outsmarts yours. :p

Can one be punished for saying that a mod has way too much time on his hands? :D

Can one be punished for saying that a mod has way too much time on his hands? :D

Yes. You will be punished by being owned.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/figj-3.gif

Seriously, not much in those numbers, though. Just slacking off from writing RP posts and felt like making a point. :p

Yes. You will be punished by being owned.

Glad I didn't say it then...

EDIT: I see now that this has been said before (if said a little dfferently). Sorry about not reading first. I should add, too, that I think the page is a good thing, a lovable service, even if there weren't a direct correlation between safety and vote percentage.

S'okay, mate. I appreciate the note being re-emphasized, seeing as it is true.