NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm realatively new to this game, and I've just recently submitted a proposal which is similar to Jey's repeal of Scientific Freedom, which is currently being voted for in the UN. I was wondering if any of you could help me in making this repeal better, and thus getting enough approvals for the repeal.
Any comments?

Repeal "Sexual Freedom"

UNDERSTANDING that what goes on in the privacy of one's home should, in most circumstances, remain private,

COMMENDING Armstrongonia’s attempt at creating a resolution to prevent serious infringement of privacy rights by governments,

AWARE that “medical reasons” are not the only reason why the state should legitimately inquire into “what goes on” in one’s home,

NOTING that Resolution #7 fails to allow judicial courts to enquire into the activities undertaken in one's home in order to further the promotion of justice,

CONCERNED that the alibis of persons in criminal cases could be undermined if they included a sexual act within “the privacy of their homes” and are deemed to be “not the concern of the state,”

OBSERVING that although Resolution #7 is entitled "Sexual Freedom", it fails to define the phrase "what goes on… in the privacy of their homes", and therefore could be used to protect persons not undertaking acts of a sexual nature,

ALARMED that Resolution #7 could be used to prevent investigations into criminal acts within the home, such as murder, when one of the participants is no longer around to say whether or not they consented to this, or child abuse, when two or more “consenting” adults abuse a child,

DISTURBED that when “two (or more) consenting adults” hold a terrorist meeting, or some other similar meeting that violates the laws of the country it is held in, and this meeting takes place “in the privacy of their homes,” police officers and keepers of the peace will not be able to prevent these meetings,

REQUESTS that Resolution #7 be repealed.

That proposal was removed from the floor for excessive nitpicking. It's obvious what 'what goes on in the privacy of one's own home' is supposed to mean in the context of the resolution's title.

Resubmitting a deleted proposal unaltered would normally earn you an instant kick from the UN. Don't do it again.

First, we'd like to welcome the representative of Ternovia to the Assembly. And we have a suggestion. When you draft a proposal, post the draft here. Don't submit it yet. Wait and see what sort of comments and suggestions you get. Then you'll be able to incorporate the good ones into the proposal you submit.

"Sexual Freedom" is, as you state, far too vague. It seems ludicrous that a proposal titled "Sexual Freedom" doesn't even mention sex in the body of the text. We would certainly support a repeal.

We'll try to provide some specific comments on your draft as time permits.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

That proposal was removed from the floor for excessive nitpicking. It's obvious what 'what goes on in the privacy of one's own home' is supposed to mean in the context of the resolution's title.

Resubmitting a deleted proposal unaltered would normally earn you an instant kick from the UN. Don't do it again.

May I ask when "excessive nitpicking" was introduced to the proposal rules?

Yeah. What Fonzo said.

More to the point, what does "excessive nitpicking" entail? I can't imagine many repeals making it to the floor, let alone repeal-and-replace efforts, if pointing out vague language in the original resolution is going to be a rules violation.

I would just like to point out that, although I have submitted this proposal twice, they were in different forms, and the second repeal was significantly revised and extented.
Thanks to Ausserland for the advice.

More to the point, what does "excessive nitpicking" entail?

Generally, if your whole repeal is based on hair-splitting, such as ignoring that a resolution called 'sexual freedom' is probably talking about sex when it says 'what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home.' The entire argument was based on that failure to connect the title of the resolution to the rest of the resolution and thus implying the scope of #7 was so broad it would be illegal anyway under 'stupid' as it would basically ban NSUN nations from investigating all domestic crimes. It also gets it a strike for 'misleading title' since it should be called something like 'absolute privacy act' with this interpretation.

[Precident that you can't deliberately read a UN resolution in an illegal way is the 'Rights and duties of UN states' debate, where it was argued that UN optionality was laid down by #49's Section I article 1. It was ruled it in fact didn't and you could not claim it did in further proposals.]

More to the point, the resolution speaks about 'the afore mentioned activities' [sic]. Now, the only mention of any specific kind of activity is in the title, so we should assume #7 only has to do with sexual activities, not all activities.

CONCERNED that the alibis of persons in criminal cases could be undermined if they included a sexual act within “the privacy of their homes” and are deemed to be “not the concern of the state,”.


Why would any court have to know I was having perverted sex with say a minor child or married woman not my wife instead of out blowing up a bank or kicking dogs in the city park? All they need to know it that I was with certain people in my home at the time of said crime. Then those with me say this in court. As what we were doing there is not relevent to the crime so no need to bring it out in a trial... Thus it will not undermine any alibi of anyone..


Then if the poor jerk happens to only have a minor child (your daughter) to bare witness or your wife. Then they have a problem of telling the truth about who they were with or hang for their other crimes because of lack of proof they didn't do it. As the courts should only deal with the crime the person is charged with not what he might be doing instead of the crime. Thus since alibi deals with one proving their inocence of a certain crime then can't see how this would stop them for that...

As it only means they need to choose wisely what they say in their alibi. Then how they explain (to you not some judge) why that minor child or your wife was with them at that time for that time period. Thus all they would have to do is say they were with them at home from time to time to clear them of the crimal charges and then deal with you about the other issues that might come up. Thus the state is now out of this since person has been cleared of the other crimes....

GMC, you keep saying that it's "obvious" what the resolution is talking about and that it's "probably" talking about sex. If it's that obvious then you won't mind drafting a new resolution and voting for the repeal. At least you'll be a bit more sure than "probably".

Also, "afore mentioned activities" probably refers to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes". Not the title. See, now I'm using probably. That's how vague this resolution is.

Generally, if your whole repeal is based on hair-splitting, such as ignoring that a resolution called 'sexual freedom' is probably talking about sex when it says 'what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home.' The entire argument was based on that failure to connect the title of the resolution to the rest of the resolution and thus implying the scope of #7 was so broad it would be illegal anyway under 'stupid' as it would basically ban NSUN nations from investigating all domestic crimes. It also gets it a strike for 'misleading title' since it should be called something like 'absolute privacy act' with this interpretation.

[Precident that you can't deliberately read a UN resolution in an illegal way is the 'Rights and duties of UN states' debate, where it was argued that UN optionality was laid down by #49's Section I article 1. It was ruled it in fact didn't and you could not claim it did in further proposals.]

More to the point, the resolution speaks about 'the afore mentioned activities' [sic]. Now, the only mention of any specific kind of activity is in the title, so we should assume #7 only has to do with sexual activities, not all activities.

1. #7 was not illegal at the time of submission. Furthermore, once a resolution becomes law, its legality/illegality under proposal rules become a metagaming issue. There is plenty of precedent for that.

2. The title of a law has absolutely no legal value. The word "sexual" in the title does zilch in defining what activities the legislator is referring to in the text.

3. You seem to have misunderstood my question. I asked for a reference to the proposal rules where such reasoning is presented. If you say "nitpicking is wrong," or if you say "I do not agree with this repeal," it is your judgement, but it does not warrant deletion. If you say "nitpicking is illegal," you need to show us the law that makes it so.

Also, "afore mentioned activities" probably refers to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes". Not the title. See, now I'm using probably. That's how vague this resolution is.

And what activities are those? Well, we've nowhere else to look, so how about the resolution's title? 'Sexual Freedom.' Not 'freedom to assemble bombs,' not 'freedom to launder money,' not 'freedom to do whatever the hell you like in your home.'

1. #7 was not illegal at the time of submission. Furthermore, once a resolution becomes law, its legality/illegality under proposal rules become a metagaming issue. There is plenty of precedent for that.

Correct. This means if there is a way to read it that would make it illegal [i]you should not read it that way unless that is the only way it can possibly be read.

2. The title of a law has absolutely no legal value. The word "sexual" in the title does zilch in defining what activities the legislator is referring to in the text.

Incorrect. Misleading or irrelevant titles are illegal. A Resolution called 'sexual freedom' can only give people sexual freedom. It can't give people freedom to do anything else or it's illegal for title / content contradiction, much like a proposal called 'gun control' with the text 'let's give everyone guns' is illegal, or a proposal called 'human rights' in the 'international security' category is illegal. Title does matter.

And what activities are those? Well, we've nowhere else to look, so how about the resolution's title? 'Sexual Freedom.' Not 'freedom to assemble bombs,' not 'freedom to launder money,' not 'freedom to do whatever the hell you like in your home.

Well, the fact that the only reference we have is the title is a testament that this resolution needs to be reworded, at the least. We shouldn't have to bounce back and forth across the text to gather the meaning of it.

Meh, this is teetering on the brink of "more trouble than it's worth", I will agree with you on that. I don't know...

Well, the fact that the only reference we have is the title is a testament that this resolution needs to be reworded, at the least. We shouldn't have to bounce back and forth across the text to gather the meaning of it.

Indeed. However, it should be repealed on that basis [along its failure to define key terms like 'home' and 'consenting adult,' the fact that it doesn't technically protect a sexual act between the home-owner and their next-door neighbour because only one of them can claim it's 'their home,' and generally being too damn short], not on the basis it does things it can't actually do.

Agreed, agreed.

Incorrect. Misleading or irrelevant titles are illegal. A Resolution called 'sexual freedom' can only give people sexual freedom. It can't give people freedom to do anything else or it's illegal for title / content contradiction, much like a proposal called 'gun control' with the text 'let's give everyone guns' is illegal, or a proposal called 'human rights' in the 'international security' category is illegal. Title does matter.

The title has to match the content, not the other way around. I believe that rule is in place for delegates not to be mislead by the title. Title does matter. However, a title has no legal value. It does not mandate, urge, invite, or define anything. If a title has the word 'sexual', but a reference to sexual activities does not show up anywhere in the operative section of a legal document, that document does not legislate on sexual activities. Unless the legislative format in NS is different from the widely accepted RL standard.

EDIT: And I am still waiting for the rule on "excessive nitpicking" being illegal.

The title has to match the content, not the other way around. I believe that rule is in place for delegates not to be mislead by the title. Title does matter. However, a title has no legal value. It does not mandate, urge, invite, or define anything. If a title has the word 'sexual', but a reference to sexual activities does not show up anywhere in the operative section of a legal document, that document does not legislate on sexual activities. Unless the legislative format in NS is different from the widely accepted RL standard.

EDIT: And I am still waiting for the rule on "excessive nitpicking" being illegal.

Right on, my friend.

The title has to match the content, not the other way around.

If the content doesn't match the title then the title doesn't match the content either. You can't claim a rule only works in one direction.

Unless the legislative format in NS is different from the widely accepted RL standard.

Did anyone ever say it wasn't?

EDIT: And I am still waiting for the rule on "excessive nitpicking" being illegal.

I've pointed it out. At a very basic level, trying to make a resolution say new and illegal things in a repeal isn't legal and qualifies as 'excessive nitpicking,' in this case because the interpretation causes a title / content contradiction. If your whole repeal is based on something the resolution obviously isn't about, you're onto a loser with it.

OOC:

I'm also waiting for an answer to the question of where in the Rules for UN Proposals I'd find the one prohibiting "excessive nitpicking".

The proposer of the repeal quite rightly pointed out the nebulous and vague nature of Resolution #7. The idea that it could only be read as pertaining strictly to sexual activity is not correct. GMC Military Arms stated that "the resolution speaks about 'the afore mentioned activities' [sic]. Now, the only mention of any specific kind of activity is in the title, so we should assume #7 only has to do with sexual activities, not all activities." Not true.

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

The "aforementioned activities" would be properly read as referring to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes", rather than to the title.

And I am still waiting for the rule on "excessive nitpicking" being illegal.Format. Bloody Stupid. Metagaming. Take your pick, just enough with the rules lawyering already. GMC already answered this question, I don't see why you need to keep bringing it up.

Incorrect. Misleading or irrelevant titles are illegal. A Resolution called 'sexual freedom' can only give people sexual freedom.Umm, was that rule in effect when Sexual Freedom was passed? Or are rules retroactive now? Either way, something's out of joint.

I've pointed it out. At a very basic level, trying to make a resolution say new and illegal things in a repeal isn't legal and qualifies as 'excessive nitpicking,' in this case because the interpretation causes a title / content contradiction. If your whole repeal is based on something the resolution obviously isn't about, you're onto a loser with it.Good. Now show us the rule that outlaws it.

Umm, was that rule in effect when Sexual Freedom was passed? Or are rules retroactive now?

Last I checked, if there's a way to read a resolution legally under the current rules and a way not to, pick the one that makes it legal. 'Sexual freedom' is either a title / content contradiction and stupid [deleted twice over] or it's legal and refers to sexual activities as the title says it does.

If you're trying to repeal it, bearing in mind a repeal can't imply a resolution has illegal effects [metagaming], you can pick number two or...Number two.

Good. Now show us the rule that outlaws it.

Right...I pointed out the metagaming rules outlaw nitpicking a resolution to make it illegal and trying to repeal the resulting illegal strawman version of the resolution, and you want me to...Point out that the metagaming rules outlaw nitpicking a resolution to make it illegal and trying to repeal the resulting illegal strawman version of the resolution?

Right...I pointed out the metagaming rules outlaw nitpicking a resolution to make it illegal and trying to repeal the resulting illegal strawman version of the resolution, and you want me to...Point out that the metagaming rules outlaw nitpicking a resolution to make it illegal and trying to repeal the resulting illegal strawman version of the resolution?Not seein' it ...

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Maybe you're just not looking.

Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall"

Ah, there we are. Defining parts of the resolution in terms that make the resolution itself illegal is stepping outside the game; remember, all passed UN resolutions are legal from the point of view of the UN. You can't say 'if I do this this and this then the resolution says this and even though this isn't legal I'll write the repeal as if that's what it means.'

About a half hour ago, I posted a message in this forum disagreeing with the deletion of this proposal and stating my reasons for doing so. I called no one names; I flamed no one. I stated my concerns. Now I come back to find that this post was deleted by GMC Military Arms.

I object most strongly to this. It was completely uncalled for and a flagrant abuse of Moderator powers. I'm going to stop writing now because, frankly, I'm too angry to continue in a polite way.

About a half hour ago, I posted a message in this forum disagreeing with the deletion of this proposal and stating my reasons for doing so. I called no one names; I flamed no one. I stated my concerns. Now I come back to find that this post was deleted by GMC Military Arms.

Read the 'deleted by' message and you'll see why. You were repeating a point that had already been addressed earlier in the thread.

Alright, let's look at precedent. Reformentia's repeal (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=107) of "Elimination of Bio Weapons" did, it seems to me, exactly what you're railing against. It said:

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings it is currently possible for any nation to do ALL of the following without EVER being in breach of resolution 16:

--Produce biological weapons.
--Stockpile biological weapons.
--Trade in biological weapons.
--Actually USE biological weapons.

Now, the way this repeal argues, the resolution clearly does not "eliminat[e]...bio weapons".

As such, even if it is decided that the rules have changed, I would hope the author in this case would not be warned, given the clear precedence for such repeals.

If the content doesn't match the title then the title doesn't match the content either. You can't claim a rule only works in one direction.
Yes I can. The rules imply that the title has to adequately describe the text, otherwise it can be deleted for contradiction. However, if the text (unintentionally or otherwise) has effects that are not summarised by the title, I argue that the text always takes precedence of the title.

Did anyone ever say it wasn't?
Example:
Title: Ban nuclear weapons
Description: The UN bans the construction of any device that relies on nuclear fission and fusion.

Under my reasoning above, and under RL legislative practice, this text would effectively ban nuclear weapons, but also nuclear power plants. If this was in place as a resolution, I would point out that major flaw in a repeal.
You, however, are claiming that the mention of 'nuclear weapons' in the title means that this proposal can only be interpreted as banning nuclear weapons, and never as banning nuclear power. As such, you are saying that the title of the proposal has a legally binding effect of restricting its scope. So, yes, you are suggesting RL legislative standards do not exist in NS.

I've pointed it out. At a very basic level, trying to make a resolution say new and illegal things in a repeal isn't legal and qualifies as 'excessive nitpicking,' in this case because the interpretation causes a title / content contradiction. If your whole repeal is based on something the resolution obviously isn't about, you're onto a loser with it.

You haven't. I asked you for a rule. The binding rules for proposal submission are stickied in this forum. Please go there and quote the appropriate section.

In case there is no rule, we have to rely on precedent (can't be bothered to search, welcome back Gruen).

Format. Bloody Stupid. Metagaming.

Thanks, we are getting somewhere. Now please tell me if the official moderation position is that the format of this repeal is anyhow wrong, and which specific clauses are stupid or metagaming.

I would really appreciate knowing that, because the whole text seems well formatted, the author's intentions are quite serious and sensible, and I always assumed a repeal (whose only effect is striking something from the records) would have a hard time including a metagaming violation.

Take your pick, just enough with the rules lawyering already. GMC already answered this question, I don't see why you need to keep bringing it up.

Because I do not agree with the ruling, I do not see the quoted rule for deletion in the proposal rules, I don't know any precedent against repealing something for having serious unintended consequences, I believe interpreting "what goes on in the privacy of one's home" as meaning activities other than "sex" to be quite reasonable. Take your pick.

EDIT: Can we now assume that deleting a post asks a previously answered question is now general policy in this forum? Since the post is not there, I don't know what the question was. However, Auss has never made a stupid post in his life, as opposed to the stuff that happens in many debates around here without being deleted.

I am sorry, but I have to come out with this. I believe we witnessed a serious abuse of mod powers. And I wonder if this post will be deleted as well, so I will copy it somewhere.

Now, the way this repeal argues, the resolution clearly does not "eliminat[e]...bio weapons".

Elimination of Bio Weapons is one of the rare cases of a resolution so staggeringly useless that there's no way to read it as being legal under the UN rules at all, and it can therefore be legitimately described as having no effect; there's no legal way for it to have one. 'Sexual Freedom' does have a way to be read legally and actually do something, so it must be addressed as if that's what it does.

Elimination of Bio Weapons is one of the rare cases of a resolution so staggeringly useless that there's no way to read it as being legal under the UN rules at all, and it can therefore be legitimately described as having no effect; there's no legal way for it to have one. 'Sexual Freedom' does have a way to be read legally and actually do something, so it must be addressed as if that's what it does.
Sorry, but that is such bullshit. You can't have rules that say:

"You can't write repeals like this. Except if the resolutions are really bad. Then it's ok."

Furthermore, Sexual Freedom is a staggeringly useless resolution anyway. It has always been a tenet of UN play that players can interpret resolutions as they wish. You moderate the game, you don't moderate roleplay - and the implementation of Resolution #7 is roleplay. You're now allowed to tell us how we are to interpret resolutions too?

Elimination of Bio Weapons is one of the rare cases of a resolution so staggeringly useless that there's no way to read it as being legal under the UN rules at all, and it can therefore be legitimately described as having no effect; there's no legal way for it to have one. 'Sexual Freedom' does have a way to be read legally and actually do something, so it must be addressed as if that's what it does.

I admit that I can misread things from time to time, but what I see here is that the "bloody stupid" (or "excessive nitpicking") rule can be invoked to clear a resolution based on extremely subjective grounds (as in the thread originator's proposal). However, the quoted material above seems to imply that "excessive nitpicking" is not quite so "excessive" when the original resolution is deemed "staggeringly useless".

If nothing else, could we players have a list of which resolutions are "staggeringly useless" so that we know that attempts to repeal those resolutions won't be deleted for "excessive nitpicking", and which resolutions are to be protected from repeals based on alternative interpretation? I would rather not lose my UN membership (nation: Neo Tyros) because I made an "obvious" mistake.

Thank you.

Under my reasoning above, and under RL legislative practice, this text would effectively ban nuclear weapons, but also nuclear power plants. If this was in place as a resolution, I would point out that major flaw in a repeal.

The proposal you quote would be removed as illegal for title / content contradiction. You can't read a passed resolution to make it illegal, so you must rely on the only available legal reading, which is to assume the 'afore mentioned activities' [sic] refers to sexual activities only and not all activities.

If the above was a passed resolution you would have to read the body to reflect the title, since that's easier than trying to fit the title to the body which doesn't even mention nuclear weapons. You also couldn't, for example, read it as affecting non-UN nations because it doesn't mention the ban being limited to UN nations.

Sorry, but that is such bullshit. You can't have rules that say:

"You can't write repeals like this. Except if the resolutions are really bad. Then it's ok."

Wrong. If there is a legal way to read a resolution you must read it that way. If there is no legal way then you cannot do so and repeals citing the uselessness of the resolution can be legitimately allowed, since an existing resolution with no legal effect defaults to 'useless.'

Considering just about every regular has come to the same conclusion that Sexual Freedom has the problem, I find it shocking that the moderators decided to break the fourth wall by saying "this is now true"

I'll get a bit more explanatory in a bit, but the arguments presented bring a question of intent of the law vs letter of the law. The understanding has always been that the letter of the law is what matters. GMC, your claims revolve entirely around the intent of the law. The entire basis of loopholes and thus how we've rped the Gnomes is the letter of the law must be followed.

While I disagree with the ruling for dozens of reasons listed already, I dislike it because it sets a much different precedent - it sets the intent of the law as the basis, not the letter.

Read the 'deleted by' message and you'll see why. You were repeating a point that had already been addressed earlier in the thread.

I certainly read the "deleted by" message and the post to which it referred.

The point had been addressed. That does not mean it had been addressed adequately or satisfactorily. You have repeatedly stated that the phrase "afore mentioned activities" could only refer to the title of the resolution. I pointed out that it would properly be read as a reference to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes" earlier in the sentence.

You chose not to respond to that. Instead, you deleted the message. This, I contend, is an abuse of your authority as a Moderator. An honest, respectfully stated disagreement with the opinion of a Moderator does not call for deletion of a post.

It goes on to list examples of what Metagaming is, and "nitpicking" ain't one of 'em.

Yes, but forth wall violations are and nitpicking to make a fourth wall violation [by claiming a passed resolution has an illegal effect when there's a legal way to read it] is therefore metagaming. The fact that it isn't in the examples is completely irrelevant.

I certainly read the "deleted by" message and the post to which it referred.

The point had been addressed. That does not mean it had been addressed adequately or satisfactorily. You have repeatedly stated that the phrase "afore mentioned activities" could only refer to the title of the resolution. I pointed out that it would properly be read as a reference to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes" earlier in the sentence.

You chose not to respond to that. Instead, you deleted the message. This, I contend, is an abuse of your authority as a Moderator. An honest, respectfully stated disagreement with the opinion of a Moderator does not call for deletion of a post.

I have posted this incident in moderation. GMC is free to go there and delete it as irrelevant. However, for the benefit of this game, I sincerely hope the other mods can give it pause for thought before dismissing it. (Yes, I have no doubt it will be dismissed in the end.)

You chose not to respond to that. Instead, you deleted the message.

No, I chose to point to where I had already responded to the exact same point earlier in the page. You quoted my first statement, but I had made a second reply to a question identical to your own further down the page.

Do not confuse pointing to a response to the same question with refusing to respond.

I would like to request that the warning given to Tarnovia be overruled as nearly every UN regular had the same opinions about UNR #7 as Tarnovia did. I will need to collect my thoughts before I actually discuss the ruling on the proposal.

I would like to request that the warning given to Tarnovia be overruled as nearly every UN regular had the same opinions about UNR #7 as Tarnovia did.

Ternovia doesn't have a warning.

Tarnovia doesn't have a warning.

Ok, thank you.

Today, 9:23 AM
Ausserland
This message has been deleted by GMC Military Arms. Reason: See post #12
Could a mod please restore this post? I'd very much like to read what Ausserland had to say.

Apparently deleted as spam.
Very spammish indeed! All it's lacking is a platoon of sniper smilies.

Can I suggest some of this is added to the rules - whatever the exact rule being invoked in this case is? After all, even if it can be abstracted from existing rules, Ternovia was clearly in the dark, and a number of other UN forum regulars and rules lawyers failed to pick up on this distinction. We wouldn't want people falling foul of the rules unnecessarily.

EDIT: I am also very keen to read the reply to Krioval's post.

Actually.....the rule does somewhat exist.....

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (UN Taxation Ban comes to mind...)

The problem was we disagree on whether it was actually an honest mistake....and what #7 actually does.

Actually.....the rule does somewhat exist.....

The problem was we disagree on whether it was actually an honest mistake....and what #7 actually does.
That's my point. If it does exist somewhat, then I don't see how a little clarification would hurt. We all misinterpreted the rule because we're stupid - what if others do the same?

Yey for deletion sprees. <------- Spam as well, feel free to delete.

Yey for deletion sprees. <------- Spam as well, feel free to delete.
Spammer.

For the record, my deleted post contained:

1. A relevant link to the moderation thread that dealt with the previous deletion, which cannot be found anywhere else in this thread.

2. A reposting of Auss' previously deleted message. This one has been reintroduced, and as such became redundant.

3. The statement that the first post was "apparently deleted as spam," which cannot be found anywhere else in this thread.

I would ask for the reason for deleting points 1 and 3. But then this post would probably be deleted for being off-topic. Or flame-baiting. Or spam. Or whatever. In fact, I am not sure it is legal right now, we will see.

Ausserland's post was restored.

You are all being silly.

You are all being silly.
¡SILLY!?

I have a gorilla in my sig, how can you accuse me of being silly?

There was a good reason to delete the proposal - namely metagaming violation. However, the problem of the wording of the resolution is still an issue, and I do not think that nitpicking is a reason to delete it - a lot of repeals are based on nitpicking. Thus, the problem of the original resolution still stands. Just because the spirit of the law is to do with sexual freedom doesn't mean that the actual law has anything to do with sexual freedom. The UN is a statute (and, if you include mod rulings and rules, common) law system, not a Napoleon code. The spirit means naff all, the wording is key. The wording of sexual freedom means that two people can build a small atomic devise/large jellyfish in their bedroom - even if the title is of relevence (which I don't believe it is), they could just be incredibly kinky!

Plus, there are also problems that mean that a nation could illegalise hardcore bum sex/sadomasachism/goat pornography in hotels, garages, second houses, etc, as it is not the consenting adults' home...

Cobdenia, I assume that by metagaming you mean the branding with the author of #7. If so, this is indeed a valid reason to delete the proposal, but as you say, it was not the reason quoted and repeatedly defended by GMC.

Cobdenia, I assume that by metagaming you mean the branding with the author of #7.
I don't think that's MetaGaming - Repeal "Promotion of Solar Panels" mentioned Starcra II in its text.

Unless that resolution was officially "staggeringly useless" too?

Yep; anyway, I'm off to abuse my latest resolution...

Yep; anyway, I'm off to abuse my latest resolution...

Your latest resolution? Is that what you're calling your naughty bits these days? ;)

Ok, back to the actual issue. Resolution 7 is a very vague resolution, and open to alot of (mis)interpretation. We of Dancing Bananaland support this repeal on the grounds the to-be-repealed resolution is both needlessly vague, and unhelpful in actually forwarding human rights, I primary goal of this delegation. We commend the spirit in which the resolution was written, but beleive in it's repeal.

First of all, I'd like to indicate my disgust with the term "excessive nitpicking". I know that a lot of non-UN regulars (including moderators) are getting sick of the legalistic side of the UN, but I truly fail to see how that is even remotely relevant to what determines legality or illegality of a post. That alone makes this entire claim worthy of dispute. Yes there is argument for honest mistake, and GMC has made a case for such (one that I will be spending the majority of this post refuting), but that wasn't what was said.

While I wasn't here to watch it, I've been reminded a few times that the current UN proposal rules weren't tossed together overnight, but through an extensive discussions with the UN community and moderators alike. Considering that included in the debate was DLE, the worst nitpicker to have ever stepped onto the face of the UN, and considering the rule was still not added back then, I think the suggestion that such a rule should exist is rather......ludicrous.

I suppose the amazing thing is no one has yet posted the entirity of the text.

Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003

Now that it's here, let's begin....from the beginning. Yes we are going over old ground, I apologize, but there's a lot to discuss.

It's obvious what 'what goes on in the privacy of one's own home' is supposed to mean in the context of the resolution's title.

As I said before, this brings up question of intent. The UN has always functioned on the guideline of letter of the law is what must be followed, not the intent. This has been the entire basis of loophole abuse and has prompted many NatSov proposals in the past. Yes it is obvious, but that's not what it actually says.

Generally, if your whole repeal is based on hair-splitting, such as ignoring that a resolution called 'sexual freedom' is probably talking about sex when it says 'what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home.' The entire argument was based on that failure to connect the title of the resolution to the rest of the resolution and thus implying the scope of #7 was so broad it would be illegal anyway under 'stupid' as it would basically ban NSUN nations from investigating all domestic crimes.

Stupid, failure to connect the title with the body, etc. Yes, it should be illegal. However, indicating flaws in what its effect is isn't akin to saying it's illegal, nor does the author say it's the problem with the resolution, he's saying the author's intent was to connect the two but the author failed to. It's not a legality issue, it's a drafting issue. On a similar note, Texan Hotrodders has mused about the possibility of repealing his own UNSA. The reason is because of the loophole of declaring a weapon unnecessary for defense means that while he intended to ensure the UN couldn't tell nations what weapons they could and could not possess, he failed to do so. Again, it's a drafting issue.

It also gets it a strike for 'misleading title' since it should be called something like 'absolute privacy act' with this interpretation.

I fail to see how pursuing discussions about the legality of the original resolution or further analyzing it is relevant to the debate.

[Precident that you can't deliberately read a UN resolution in an illegal way is the 'Rights and duties of UN states' debate, where it was argued that UN optionality was laid down by #49's Section I article 1. It was ruled it in fact didn't and you could not claim it did in further proposals.]

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

1) My understanding on the ruling was that the UN body is not a NationState and therefore Article 1 doesn't apply. By the same token, many nations believe that each citizen has the right to independence and to exercise it freely without dictation from other people, but that doesn't supercede the government's right to impose laws.

2) Further articles within the resolution make a much more clear distinction between national and international. Specifically the continual use of the term "subject to the immunities recognized by international law".

3) To say that you are wrong about your comment, however, would be equally foolish. However, the precedent would come from the rules regarding metagaming and how they apply to repeals. As Hack and Fris have ruled several times, a resolution is legal simply because it was passed. Yes it may violate moderator rules and whatnot, but it's legal because it was passed so repeals may not say its illegal.

4) That ruling does not prevent resolutions from attacking the failings of the declared-legal resolution - no matter how bad it is. Not once does the author indicate that it fails the current rule set, any old rule set, or is illegal in any way, shape or form. He merely says it doesn't do what the author meant to do. Again, a legality issue, not a drafting one.

More to the point, the resolution speaks about 'the afore mentioned activities' [sic]. Now, the only mention of any specific kind of activity is in the title, so we should assume #7 only has to do with sexual activities, not all activities.

Aside from the various later comments (and subsequent moderation uproar), I have a lot to say on this.

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

While Ausserland is quite correct in stating that this refers to the first half of the line, not the title, I would also like to note something else that was likewise overlooked. Even if we were to claim that it referred to the title, the unless there splits the sentence in such a way that it is only the latter half of the sentence that refers back. As such, it still has no ability to protect privacy for solely sexual activities.

And what activities are those?

This is where Ausserland's post comes into play and shows that you misread the resolution. The activities mentioned are displayed in the first half of the sentence

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state

"What" indicates that we are selecting from all activites. We removed only the activites where consent is not present between all adults involved. As such, these are the selection of activities we have to work with, and no qualification for sexual activities is made whatsoever.

Well, we've nowhere else to look, so how about the resolution's title? 'Sexual Freedom.' Not 'freedom to assemble bombs,' not 'freedom to launder money,' not 'freedom to do whatever the hell you like in your home.'

Sexual Freedom actually implies a right to be free about your sexual preference, not what sexual activities you conduct in your own home. Yes, coupled with the rest of it, it might be easier to take your own interpretation, but if we're making a broad base of activities without qualfications, it's sexual preference.

Correct. This means if there is a way to read it that would make it illegal [including by giving it title / content contradiction] you should not read it that way unless that is the only way it can possibly be read.

Bull. You merely overlook the fact that it's illegal and follow it. Further, you presented bloody stupid as its main issue of illegality - well if we read it our way, we can just say that it's an absolute anarchist that believed it and then all logic falls into place. We might disagree with it, but that's an issue of personal beliefs.

Incorrect. Misleading or irrelevant titles are illegal.

Because many don't read past the title before they vote.

A Resolution called 'sexual freedom' can only give people sexual freedom. It can't give people freedom to do anything else or it's illegal for title / content contradiction, much like a proposal called 'gun control' with the text 'let's give everyone guns' is illegal, or a proposal called 'human rights' in the 'international security' category is illegal. Title does matter.

Just because it would be deleted today doesn't mean the reality of what it does changes. If we put in a resolution saying you can't pass resolutions that have the only major effect of limiting the UN's power, it's not going to change the effect that ALC or UNSA or Nuclear Armaments have, it just means that they won't be getting to the floor next time 'round.

Indeed. However, it should be repealed on that basis [along its failure to define key terms like 'home' and 'consenting adult,' the fact that it doesn't technically protect a sexual act between the home-owner and their next-door neighbour because only one of them can claim it's 'their home,' and generally being too damn short], not on the basis it does things it can't actually do.

Dictating your preference of what the repeal should be based upon stinks of mod bias. I'm not claiming that's what you intended, but saying "it should be repealed on this basis, not this" is something for debates to address, not the deciding factor on a deletion.

I don't think it was so I won't continue on this train of thought.

If the content doesn't match the title then the title doesn't match the content either. You can't claim a rule only works in one direction.

That wasn't the claim. The claim was that the title doesn't restrict the resolution, the resolution restricts the title. That one normally does work one way as I understand it.

I've pointed it out. At a very basic level, trying to make a resolution say new and illegal things in a repeal isn't legal and qualifies as 'excessive nitpicking,' in this case because the interpretation causes a title / content contradiction. If your whole repeal is based on something the resolution obviously isn't about, you're onto a loser with it.

While I disagree with your reasoning for why it is 'excessive nitpicking', call a spade a spade. We have proposal rules, we have names for just about every reason a proposal is illegal, use them! Excessive nitpicking isn't one of them. Honest mistake is. You could've removed a lot of fuss if you had started there.

Also, considering that you spent a lot of time arguing metagaming, why didn't you start there?

I've addressed everything brought up in post 22

Ah, there we are. Defining parts of the resolution in terms that make the resolution itself illegal is stepping outside the game; remember, all passed UN resolutions are legal from the point of view of the UN. You can't say 'if I do this this and this then the resolution says this and even though this isn't legal I'll write the repeal as if that's what it means.'

Huh? So we apply a metagaming rules set to the passed resolutions to limit their scope beyond what they already limited themselves from a basis of what they do so that when we go and repeal them, we don't have a metagaming violation?

WTF?

If the rules are metagaming for repeal texts, why aren't they metagaming if you try to use them as an effect decider?

*scans through*

I don't think anything new really pops up on page 3.

Can I then repeat my suggestion that the rules be augmented? Here's a start. It could be added to the part on not using TMGP to argue against a resolution.

All resolutions are deemed to be legal, by virtue of passing. Repeals cannot argue that they are illegal. This would include questioning the proposal category, referencing proposal submission rules, invoking moderator rulings, or pointing out a contradiction between the resolution's title and its actual effects.

You can ignore this if the resolution is staggeringly useless, however.

Like Gruenberg, I would very much like a response to my inquiry. Namely, I feel it is crucial for would-be repealers to know which resolutions are eligible for targeting with a rules critique and which are not.

In addition (or in contrast), I believe any accusations of metagaming could easily be bypassed with an in-character statement to the effect of "...the UN, having changed its standards for legislation on issue [x]..."

What part of the word "examples" do you people fail to grasp?

The fact that I used the phrase "are examples of..." implies that it is not an exhaustive list. I've had enough of this. Closed, locked, and done with. If you want to file an official complaint, take it to Moderation where it belongs.

You might want to keep in mind that GMC has been pruning the Proposal list longer than most of you have been playing this game. Don't make the mistake of assuming that he doesn't know how the rules work just because he doesn't post endlessly in this forum.

He gave a Moderator ruling. Rulings are not UN Proposals, people. Attempting to find loopholes in Resolutions is old hat. Trying the same with rulings is a good way to get yourself smacked. We're not going to hold your hands on the rules. We're going to assume that you are rational people who are able to think for yourselves and understand the concept of an example. I honestly didn't think you would want to blithely carry on and show that you can't think for yourselves and need every little bit of minutia explained in excrutiating detail. Seems I overestimated.

If you really want to have this battle in Moderation, we can. I do suggest that you consider a couple more phrases first, though: "Moderator descretion" and "rules lawyering". Excess of the later tends to drain away the former.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator