NationStates Jolt Archive

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.[Emphasis mine]
[...]
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.It is important to notice, however, that proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.I've been thinking about these two passages. There's nothing specific in the Enodian Laws about ideological bans being forbidden, which means it evolved through the case law, or sprang forth from my mind like some kind of mutant Athena.

This has been spawned by a pair of Proposals bouncing around: Assistance to Democracy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470627) and the omnibus... thing... in the National Sovereignty? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476967) thread. I find myself wondering if we need to rethink the current rule set.

The ideological ban always struck me as a dicey situation as they existence of the Furtherment of Democracy category practically mandates such a ban. The difficulties of drafting Assistance is proof of this. I find myself wondering just how in the Hell anybody could possibly create a 'Strong' Proposal under Furtherment without running afoul of the ban. To say nothing of possible difficulties with some of the new categories, or with Social Justice. Indeed, the ideological ban could almost be used to strike out almost any Proposal. This isn't acceptable.

The problem with simply striking out the ideological ban is equally odious. Clearly we don't want to have pissing contests between people trying to ban capitalism or communism, but it's a razor fine line. And I don't much think that Gruen would appreciate someone banning dictatorships.

Thus, Quandary the First: What do we do about the ideological ban? I'm not saying that something will be done, but I'm interested in peoples' views on this. Perhaps there's something I haven't thought of, or have overlooked.


The second part of this, as noted in the old Enodian Laws, is the "problem" of the national sovereignty movement. Or, more accurately, the passage of laws in support of that movement. Until now it's been allowed by some rather dexterous manipulation of the rule set, but I'm not liking the direction this is heading. Things like Nuclear Armaments and ALC are reasonably mild, and do more than just outlaw UN action for NatSov reasons. The storm that's brewing, however, is leading more and more to shopping lists of prohibitions; which, while (are possibly) legal, certainly violate the spirit of the rules as I wrote them. Perhaps this is a case of an actual slippery slope, as much as I loathe that term.

I don't want the Resolution list to become a long list of things the UN can't do; after all, the entire point is to meddle. My current view of the situation is that NatSov should be relegated to methods used to argue in the forum, not a legislative movement.

And so, we have Quandary the Second: in light of reviewing the Enodian laws (which, while not binding, are something like the old Common Law), how legitimate are Resolutions such as NA or ALC. Again, this doesn't represent a definite shift in policy; I'm soliciting opinions here.

I should probably also note that I can't actually delete Resolutions, so if policy does shift to make things like NA or ALC illegal, that alone will not be grounds for Repeal. Just like other Resolutions that were legal at the time, referencing current illegality would certainly be metagaming.


I look forward to your thoughts on these points. There's no time-table here, so if you want to take the time to work out a long, reasoned post with cross-references, please do so. After all, these rules weren't drafted over a weekend, there's no need for a revision to be a slave to alacrity either.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Here's my two cents, for what it's worth. (I'll probably have more to say later, but I'm tired right now.)

Quandary II first:

I feel that the rule about no saying the UN can't do something has become moot. Instead of saying the UN can't do something, just make it a "national right to choose". Since the two do virtually the same thing, I would recommend reworking that clause, as I do believe the UN shouldn't be filled up with "blockers".

I have two ideas for how to solve this, neither of which are that great:

I. Allow resolutions to contradict others, and therefore "override" them. This would make the whole concept of blockers obselete, but still allow declarations of national rights. However, it would require a change in game code for a resolution to have a "flag" that it has been amended by a later resolution. This flag would be specified in the later resolution.

Pros: removes strong blockers, as they would be amendable, also allows amendments which have been asked for
Cons: requires a change in game code, has been said before that it won't happen, hurt natsov movement

II. Restrict blockers to "mild", urging the UN to not legislate on something

Pros: same as first point on [I.]
Cons: also hurts natsov movement, makes the resolutions toothless

I really can't think of anything else, but I'll post again if I think of anything.

Maybe someone else will do a better job of it.

Regarding NatSov in resolutions...

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with this movement as any resolution, in a sense, blocks further legislation on the same matter. I understand that there is a difference with broad issues and I can see where block after block would get old, but I also believe that there's nothing wrong with insuring that certain domestic issues are kept that way. It's just one form of roleplaying a nation's concerns. And after all, if the majority has a problem it it, these resolutions can be repealed like anything else. Basically, I think it should be left to the people/nations to work it out and decide what they want of the NatSov movement. After all, being able to shape this sort of world government in one direction or another is half the fun and what makes this a good simulation imo.

Fact is, some of the subtler violations of Idealogical Bans and NatSov aren't worth the two hours of explanation I'd have to provide when I deleted them, so I sometimes just skip over them in favor of the myriad UN armies and uber-branded stuff.

There are a few UN players who want to argue tiny abtruse points of linguisitic legislation for months on end, but I'd rather have the electorate decide than a mod or mods. Our principal concern is not punishing proposal authors, it's protecting the game. That's why most of the rules ultimately boil down to either 'game mechanics' or 'spam' of one form or another.

All that said, I'd like to leave them on the books, though perhaps in a slightly weakened state. NatSov arguments shouldn't be used to limit entire classes of topics from the UN's consideration, but every successful proposal closes the door on aspects diametrically opposite to its position (classic example being abortion). There's a place for it, but it has to be subtle. The bulldozer approaches that I've mostly seen will continue to get deleted, becaue ultimately nothing should be entirely off limits. You DO have the right to legislate yourselves into stupidity.

I'm having trouble trying to find a legit example of Idealogy ban, but I concede the possibility that they might exist. Most of them do fall under the category of 'spam' (Ban All Commies and Gayz!!1!), and those I have no idealogical problem deleting.

More later in response to comments, most likely.

*snip*Ah, I see. So your solution is to lift the ban on amendments? OK, so you don't want the resolutions list clogged with "blockers," but clogging it with amendments is perfectly fine? Well, the only problem here is that, as far as I can see, this is specifically a "rethinking" on NatSov "blockers" and ideological bans. I really don't think the ban on amendments is on the table.

Re: NatSov "blockers": Simply extending rights to member nations is nothing new; the UN has been extending rights to nations since "Rights and Duties of UN States" and "Right to Refuse Extradition." Both contained "NatSov blockers," but all they essentially did was extend single freedoms and rights to nations. Same with a number of other resolutions and proposals that require this and that, but give nations the right to define this and determine that. All UN resolutions by their very nature block future legislation on a particular issue. Banning handguns blocks the UN from legalizing them. Legalizing drugs blocks the UN from banning them. Extending rights to nations is nothing different, and is I've demonstrated, has been an animal of UN legislation long before Nuclear Armaments was even considered.

And that monstrosity in the "National Sovereignty?" thread? Was plainly illegal, crossed several UN categories, and explicity stated the UN could no longer legislate in several categories. No reason to scrap the extension of rights to UN states, just because one player wants to introduce a fucking idiotic piece of legislation that had no chance of passing anyway.

Re: Ideological bans: I don't care if it perfectly comports with Enodia or not. Banning ideologies is just plain stupid. Do we really want a UN that could effectively block nations from joining based on government ideology? "You wanna join the UN? Sure. Oh, oh. Wait. Sorry. We don't allow felinocracies here. Caninocracies are fine, for now, but we have grave reservations about felinocracies. And don't get us started on rodentocracies. You wanna join? You have to switch to something less offensive. Like a hippocracy. They're fine, you know, 'cause hippos are really quite large ... and dangerous. Unless there's a fire to distract them. No, wait. That's rhinoceroses. Did I mention I wanted one for Christmas? Only a rhinoceros will do. No, wait. I meant 'hippopotamus.' Only a hippopotamus will do. 'No crocodiles or rhinoceroseses; I only like hippopotamuseses. ...' Yeah, I think that's right."

[EDIT: Erm, seems Fris already beat me to expressing a couple of the points stressed here. So, umm, cross of everything that duplicates Fris's post and replace it with an adorable animation of a kitty cat doing the macarena. Meow.]

On the NatSov,

Using my replacement proposal for Scientific Freedom (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469193)) as an example.

Clauses 6 & 7 'reiterate' current governmental rights (as there are no current UN resolutions dealing with these issues). As they only 'reiterate' and not as such grant any new rights would these clauses be an issue for future UN resolutions? And what is your(Hack) opinion on these clauses specifically

My worthless 2 cents is..

Problem 1: Keep the idealogical ban, and get rid of the furtherment of democracy catagory. Perhaps replaceing it with a general idealogicals catagory where authors can pussyfoot around idealogies without outright banning them, such as urging free elections, encouraging capitalism ect.

Problem 2: In my opinion, all resolutions should have to have some effect on nations, not just preserve and protect the status quo, and ask pretty please on a few minor points thrown in like ALC.

I see the pure blockers as metagaming myself because they don't change a darn thing in nations, but do stop writers putting forward anything, in any direction, on that paticular subject. The UN is supposed to be able to legislate on pretty much anything that doesn't go against the rules. These sort of blockers go directly against that. If nat sovers don't think a paticular area should be legislated on, they have the choice to oppose anything put forward on it, whether for or against, but shouldn't be able to close the subject off from any sort of legislation.

I'll have to gather my thoughts about ideological bans (BTW, someone make sure that St Edmund sees this, 'cause I know he's been complaining about that rule for a while), but NatSov I would like to address.

I don't remember if I mentioned this when we were discussing the legality for UNSA, but I was cringing at what I saw as the ability for the UN to legislate itself to a halt. This was actually further compounded by ALC - not because of where it hit or anything along those lines, but the difficulty level associated with it. Gruen said his drafting time on that was under 12 hours. Was he satisfied with the final product - not really. But it sufficed for the project and worked. While I don't see the NSO trying to take this through the paces of the slippery slope, what struck me was that the ability to do it had been proven with relatively low complexity. With perhaps exception to Civilian Casualty whatchamacallit ('cause I don't know what sort of drafting period it went through), the only other resolution in my time here that had that short of a drafting period would be PoSP - and we all know how wonderful that one was. Even the speedy repeals of Right to Divorce and PoSP took several days to work out and the assistance of large portions of the community attacking rather painful flaws in the work.

I honestly was shocked at the ruling on UNSA for exactly the lines quoted above. Yes, it wasn't explicitly blocking, but the intention of a primary purpose being such was evident and its net effect was completely blocking in nature. You look at ALC, at least it promoted positions (even if it's priority and intent were clearly blocking).

Suggestions.....I'll have to think it through. Part of my problem is that I want to see what I can do about trying to remove my bias when I suggest these ideas - probably won't be astoundingly successful, but I can always try.

As the author of the very very very draft National Sovereignity proposal I would like to stress that it was just that, very very very draft. I was aware that I was treading a very fine line, I had the rules open at the same time as I wrote it, but I also had the description of Furtherment of Democracy out, and the ALC resolution too.
It was an idea that I knew might be just legal, or totally illegal - which is why I made sure it was known that it was in such a draft stage and could be beaten to a pulp if necessary.

In the actual list it was originally going to be a list of contentious issues, but as I wrote it I realised I'd never get it to work that way although I never expressed it, and those would need to be battled out, which is why I mentioned striking out the last one. The others are more an affirmation of what most would agree they would not expect the UN to make resolutions on, with expressed exceptions which could and often do get proposals upon.

On the defense of ALC. For every view there is a pro, an anti and then there are drifters. Obviously if there isn't a strong enough pro or anti view automatically there is a NS situation - no resolution and states legislate as they will. However, with simple majorities one vote is enough to force everyone in one group or other. The ALC is a recognition that there will never be enough consensus for the issue and it would keep arising.

Or you get the situation as seen with the Euthanasia Resolution. It is badly worded, but the pro-euthanasian group don't want it repealed in case it gets replaced with an anti or a ALC type, the antis are afraid another pro or NS one gets in, and the NS group just can't drum up enough support for either side to commit to repealing.
Trust me, I've tried, we just start arguing when that should be saved until the badly worded one is withdrawn. It's a stalemate.

Perhaps strong resolutions need a qualified majority vote? If there's that much consensus then I don't think the NSO has anything to complain about. Although I am not actually a member of the NSO, and therefore can not speak on their behalf.

Hack, I suggest you ignore that NatSovs. I respect the opinion, but nobody is forcing you to join the UN. Just resign.

I resent that.

The NSUN is a collection of States agreeing on certain issues. You can also agree to disagree.

To say 'you have to decide because we're forming one large state here' (which is an exaggeration before anyone starts flaming, but a possibility the way NSUN is going.) is hardly its purpose.

You don't quit over one or maybe a handful of issues, I have no problem recommending to my superiors we remain in the UN, but it's just a reminder that the UN need not legislate on every aspect of the state. The State government is there and what the state misses it catches.

I'll start by reflecting on the second point first (becasue I really don't have strong opinions pro or against the ideological bans.

Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation

This has to be taken in the broad context. Every resolution prohibits some type of resolution. A resolution banning chemical weapons, for example, prohibits the UN from passing resolutions on chemical weapons until that resolution is repealed. In this sense passing a resolution to prohibit the UN from making a definitive decision on the matter is no different from passing a law permitting or making illegal that matter. This is because it is a specific issue, not a type. ALC can be repealed just like any other legislation.

Sure I hate the current resolution/repeal - no amendments system, but like democracy, I can't think of a better alternative. Amendments are not the answer, more importantly I do not expect that the average player would be savvy enough to be able to handle the sphagetti resolutions that would result from amendments or to be able to know which parts of whch resolution need to be struck out in order for there not to be a conflict with existing legislation. Even real world legislators have a plethora of aides to do this work.

As much as I would like to see Robert's Rules brought into the NS-UN I believe this would be a coding nightmare that isn't worth the effort. Yes I think that some major problems would be solved by the ability to amend or edit a resolution either submitted, in queue, or under consideration, even if only by the author. Arguments over minor mistakes which no one noticed until the resolution came up for a vote can be avoided.

Actually if there was any meta game portion of the NS-UN that needs addressing it is the semi-written dependency between the UN and the forums. Not every UN deligate comes to these forums. Most simply look at the resolution (and perhaps only glance at the title) and make a vote. I can give examples of cases where a resolution was a lopsided argument in one way on the forum but the vote was the exact opposite. Given this seemingly apparent problem I frankly do not think any solution is going to have the desired effect. Active participation is something that is more important than rule neuances.

As for ideology I personally think it is fine to promote but bad to require or enforce. AIDE does not require mandate or enforce democracy, but provides assistance to those nations that want to do so and encourages them to be "fair."

I haven't properly thought through my views on the general subject at hand but I do have a little comment to contribute now:

Is it actually impossible to have a Strong Furtherment of Democracy resolution? Or have we simply not applied ourselves to finding something that would fit? The category at heart is about the extension of political freedoms - political freedom - despite the category title - isn't simply about democracy or voting rights. It's about participation in political processes - even having the choice to not participate. Dictatorships deny the freedom to select leaders, but this is just one are of political influence. A Strong resolution in this category need not completely overhaul systems of government, just as Strong Human Rights resolutions rarely if ever comprehensively demolish whole national cultures, nor Strong Free Trade resolutions completely liberalise economies.

Strong doesn't have to involve radical changes across several areas of national policy, it can just affect one specific area.

I don't want the Resolution list to become a long list of things the UN can't do; after all, the entire point is to meddle.
I agree with the former; I disagree to an extent with the latter. However, remember resolutions aren't passed in a vacuum. Ultimately, people who play the game vote for or against resolutions. Too many, too broad NatSov proposals would kill the enjoyment of the UN, and they'd be voted down for that reason. If people realized resolutions were going to take out their ability to do anything, then more organized opposition would grow up; more repeal attempts would be forged. It's no accident that the UIC (Internationalist movement) was formed shortly after the ALC. And, over time, that effect is only going to snowball.

Besides, as a member of the NatSov movement, I would say we're not going to try to block everything. That's no fun. The UN is as much about arguing against things as it arguing for them. There are a few controversial issues, like disarmament and capital punishment and abortion, that I can see NatSov proposals being pushed on. There are many, many issues, that we might well expect some bright spark to attempt to legislate on at some stage and then to fully oppose that, but at the same time that we wouldn't really consider "blocking" that.

I agree that if there's only NatSov proposals passing, it'll kill the NSUN game. That's exactly why I don't see that that will happen, though: however snooty we can be, the voters aren't complete mugs, and they will vote against, or vote to repeal, resolutions that would effectively end the game.

The problem with simply striking out the ideological ban is equally odious. Clearly we don't want to have pissing contests between people trying to ban capitalism or communism, but it's a razor fine line. And I don't much think that Gruen would appreciate someone banning dictatorships.
I think the ideological ban clause needs to remain, so long as it is only enforced for more flagrant offences. For example, I intend on arguing vehemently against "Assistance to Democracy". But I wouldn't, in its present state, report it as an ideological ban. Thinking, in-game, the UN shouldn't enforce or promote democracy is very different to thinking, as-a-player, that the UN shouldn't enforce or promote democracy. The former is a point of debate; the latter is something for the mods to rule in.

In the discussion of Repeal "Sexual Freedom", you stressed the importance of Mod Discretion. Couldn't agree more, and I think the ideological ban clause is one of the main areas where it's going to come in.

Having said that, a lot of ideological ban proposals would be illegal anyway. Something that enforced a particular economic system would surely be games mechanics, as players influence the legality of private enterprise through issues, not the UN. Something saying "Die Commies die" would be grossly offensive.

Of course, the two points are linked. Rights & Duties didn't, because of the distinction between "nation" and "United Nations", protect nations from ideological bans; another proposal could.

Hack, I suggest you ignore that NatSovs. I respect the opinion, but nobody is forcing you to join the UN. Just resign.
Grow up, just grow up.

Grow up, just grow up.I agree.

Bloody hell. I really wish people would stop whining about the ALC. It doesn't expressly prohibit anything. It extends a right to nations:

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

No prohibition there whatsoever.

Funny how those who so freely want to hand out their so-called "basic human rights" willy-nilly to individuals get their knickers in a wad when a right is granted to a national government.

Problem 2: In my opinion, all resolutions should have to have some effect on nations, not just preserve and protect the status quo, and ask pretty please on a few minor points thrown in like ALC.

I see the pure blockers as metagaming myself because they don't change a darn thing in nations, but do stop writers putting forward anything, in any direction, on that paticular subject. The UN is supposed to be able to legislate on pretty much anything that doesn't go against the rules. These sort of blockers go directly against that. If nat sovers don't think a paticular area should be legislated on, they have the choice to oppose anything put forward on it, whether for or against, but shouldn't be able to close the subject off from any sort of legislation.That's good, of course, barring the fact that, you know, every UN resolution bars writers from putting forward certain legislation, because future resolutions would not be able to contradict or duplicate it. Therefore, every resolution is Metagaming.

Try again. :rolleyes:

And I agree with Cluich. ALC has passed. Get over it. No reason on Earth to change the rules just because you disagree with it.

Not just passed -- passed resoundingly.

Grow up, just grow up.Just because you don't agree with the stance does not mean it is invalid. It is the only foolproof way to be unaffected by the UN. And if you do not want to be affected by the UN, it does work.Funny how those who so freely want to hand out their so-called "basic human rights" willy-nilly to individuals get their knickers in a wad when a right is granted to a national government.That's probably because it gives national governments the green light to infringe on perceived fundamental human rights. What counts as fundamental is a matter of opinion, of course.

That's good, of course, barring the fact that, you know, every UN resolution bars writers from putting forward certain legislation, because future resolutions would not be able to contradict or duplicate it. Therefore, every resolution is Metagaming.

Try again. :rolleyes:It's true, but most other resolutions normally have a positive slant on them and actually propose legislation. Blockers don't tend to do anything apart from...well, block the UN from doing anything.

Grow up, just grow up.
Tell that to the NatSovs? Can you explain to me what the point of being in the UN if you hate its laws? Tell me that before you insult me.

Tell that to the NatSovs? Can you explain to me what the point of being in the UN if you hate its laws? Tell me that before you insult me.
There's clearly no point being in the UN if you hate all its laws (aside from only being able to repeal them if you're in the UN, of course).

What's that got to do with national sovereignty?

This also looks to be heading in the direction of a hijack.

This also looks to be heading in the direction of a hijack.

*puts a gun to Gruen's head*

Take this thread to Cuba!

It's true, but most other resolutions normally have a positive slant on them and actually propose legislation. Blockers don't tend to do anything apart from...well, block the UN from doing anything.Oh, knock it off. Extending rights to member nations is nothing new. And it didn't start with Nuclear Armaments, either. If you like, I can post all the relevant resolutions containing so-called NatSov "blockers." There are over half a dozen.

That's probably because it gives national governments the green light to infringe on perceived fundamental human rights. What counts as fundamental is a matter of opinion, of course.I thought I just told you to get over it? You guys are really not helping your case here when it's obvious you have an axe to grind with a particular resolution.

There's clearly no point being in the UN if you hate all its laws (aside from only being able to repeal them if you're in the UN, of course).

What's that got to do with national sovereignty?

This also looks to be heading in the direction of a hijack.
I think we've got a misunderstanding here. I am against ideology bans. I meant NatSovs who are POed because of passed resolutions and says it infringes on their right to self rule.

Tell that to the NatSovs? Can you explain to me what the point of being in the UN if you hate its laws? Tell me that before you insult me.

I'm saying this as someone who opposes the NatSov movement.

It is IRRELEVANT why they are in the UN. It is irrelevant why they chose to bring their concepts of NatSov here or any of their other work. It is irrelevant what the point is. Just don't say "ignore them". They have as much right to voice their opinions and have their opinions heard here as you do. You have the right to disagree with them, to no understand their reasoning here, to dislike the entire principles of their work, whatever. You don't have the right to say that they shouldn't be listened to.

So, as Gruen said: grow up. We can have the debate on why they're still here later (for the 100th time). For now, we have a bunch of rules to debate.

Bloody hell. I really wish people would stop whining about the ALC. It doesn't expressly prohibit anything. It extends a right to nations:

Cluich: Aside from the fact that ALC was the biggest blow to the belief of:
1) Human Right should be promoted - a policy that is held by a startling percentage in most first world nations
2) The entire International Federalist movement
3) The feminist movment (RL more than NS)

I'm not shocked at all that ALC is one that people are foaming at the mouth for - nor the fact that they continue to be upset about. Your arrogance that "it doesn't ban anything" should be why we just shrug it off and move on just inflames the situation further, because it shows just how much you DON'T understand about our opinions.

ALC is still a priority "to gun" resolution. It is still the thorn in IntFed's back. This is not the last time you will hear about it so I suggest you get over people's frustration with it and just prepare yourself for the battle when it comes.

For once, I agree. I don't expect people to shut up about ALC; it was presumably people not shutting up about Abortion Rights that led to its repeal. However, in the context of this thread, I think there are bigger fish.

Part of the problem with prohibiting NatSov resolutions is I don't really see the justification. It can't solely be that it would completely prevent all resolutions: not only is that not going to happen, but there are other forms of resolution that could do that anyway. Take UNCoESB - that has effectively ruled out further endangered species resolutions. Fonzoland's queue Waste Disposal Covenant would prevent someone from passing separate resolutions on each form of waste disposal. Just because a resolution makes future proposals obselete is not necessarily a problem.

The point at which it is a problem is if the legislative well of the UN completely dries up. But we've had at least one proposal in queue since December, I believe, we've had proposals passing and failing, plenty of original subjects, not just repeals, and new authors too. I don't see the UN drying up anyway, not just yet.

One of my biggest complaints about "blocker" resolutions is the attitude that follows their passage that the issue is somehow finally settled. That coupled with the potential application for "national sovereignty" to be invoked against any resolution that, well, *does anything* is a big problem with the movement, in my opinion.

The NSUN appears to be modeled after an international federalist organization - even the "blockers" have universal gameplay effects. So it makes little sense that national sovereignty should be invoked on a near-constant basis (granted, a lot of this is by newer nations, who are largely unaware of the NSO) when it is such an easy argument to make. Most resolutions will directly curtail national sovereignty.

As for ideological bans, I agree that egregious ones are silly. At the same time, prostitution is legal by UN resolution. Thus, governments opposed to legal prostitution are effectively screwed if they want to join the UN - either their government's position needs to change or they need to stay out of the UN until the resolution in question is repealed. So there is already a weak form of exclusion ongoing.

Oh, knock it off. Extending rights to member nations is nothing new. And it didn't start with Nuclear Armaments, either. If you like, I can post all the relevant resolutions containing so-called NatSov "blockers." There are over half a dozen.Quantity does equate to quality, regardless of if some of those half dozen I agree with and some I do not. I'm in favour of positive policy making, and I would prefer to keep my own opinions on ALC, Nuclear Armaments etc out of it.

I'm keeping civil - I'd appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy. Don't start telling me what to do, and I'll do the same. Savvy?

Otherwise, I'll just tell you nOObs to STFU ;):p

I thought I just told you to get over it? You guys are really not helping your case here when it's obvious you have an axe to grind with a particular resolution.I'm also trying to remain non-specific, although ALC is the obvious example. I didn't state ALC as a specific example, as I'm aware of the multitude of others.

Personally I'd prefer a rule that said that resolutions must do something (just affirming the current situation and urging a few things doesn't count as doing something). I'm aware that this would make my Female Genital Mutilation resolution illegal - I no longer think that pure statements of principle are of any real value in the NSUN (OOC: particularly as all resolutions have statistical effects).

One of my biggest complaints about "blocker" resolutions is the attitude that follows their passage that the issue is somehow finally settled. That coupled with the potential application for "national sovereignty" to be invoked against any resolution that, well, *does anything* is a big problem with the movement, in my opinion.

The NSUN appears to be modeled after an international federalist organization - even the "blockers" have universal gameplay effects. So it makes little sense that national sovereignty should be invoked on a near-constant basis (granted, a lot of this is by newer nations, who are largely unaware of the NSO) when it is such an easy argument to make. Most resolutions will directly curtail national sovereignty.

As for ideological bans, I agree that egregious ones are silly. At the same time, prostitution is legal by UN resolution. Thus, governments opposed to legal prostitution are effectively screwed if they want to join the UN - either their government's position needs to change or they need to stay out of the UN until the resolution in question is repealed. So there is already a weak form of exclusion ongoing.
I think it is obvious if the so called 'blocker' is repealed then the issue is back in play.

On the federal point...as a non-federal resident I'm not quite sure of this, but it is different in that if we take something like the US there is a central government who make seperate decisions. It can also tell the State to make it's own decision. NSUN is more a collaboration of the same officials, who are therefore rulers/governors of their own state but form a consensus. A small difference and probably unimportant. But I would say the EU would be a better model to use to explain.
The point with an EU model is that the EU produces general rules, but it is the member state that enforces them - and in fact can breach them by legislating in contradiction to the EU. However, they are then held to account for doing so. A MS can play a card saying the EU has no right to legislate on that issue, or give a justification. If it's proved the former is right, the reg/directive is struck out, the middle one they could get off or be made to be more proprtionate or fail entirely and pay a fine. - but you see what I'm trying to get at?

Sorry for the bit of a hijack.

Cluich: Aside from the fact that ALC was the biggest blow to the belief of:
1) Human Right should be promoted - a policy that is held by a startling percentage in most first world nations
2) The entire International Federalist movement
3) The feminist movment (RL more than NS)

I'm not shocked at all that ALC is one that people are foaming at the mouth for - nor the fact that they continue to be upset about. Your arrogance that "it doesn't ban anything" should be why we just shrug it off and move on just inflames the situation further, because it shows just how much you DON'T understand about our opinions.

ALC is still a priority "to gun" resolution. It is still the thorn in IntFed's back. This is not the last time you will hear about it so I suggest you get over people's frustration with it and just prepare yourself for the battle when it comes.

And I'm the arrogant one... :rolleyes:

The ideological ban always struck me as a dicey situation as they existence of the Furtherment of Democracy category practically mandates such a ban. The difficulties of drafting Assistance is proof of this. I find myself wondering just how in the Hell anybody could possibly create a 'Strong' Proposal under Furtherment without running afoul of the ban. To say nothing of possible difficulties with some of the new categories, or with Social Justice. Indeed, the ideological ban could almost be used to strike out almost any Proposal. This isn't acceptable.

Of course the ideological ban could be used against any proposal. Most objections to proposals are ultimately ideological in nature.

The problem with simply striking out the ideological ban is equally odious. Clearly we don't want to have pissing contests between people trying to ban capitalism or communism, but it's a razor fine line. And I don't much think that Gruen would appreciate someone banning dictatorships.

Thus, Quandary the First: What do we do about the ideological ban? I'm not saying that something will be done, but I'm interested in peoples' views on this. Perhaps there's something I haven't thought of, or have overlooked.

Personally, I do agree that it's not the ideal situation, but the changes I've considered lead to just as many problems. Like Gruen, I think we're going to have to leave it up to Moderator discretion, much as we enjoy clear rules that don't require such discretion. ;)

The second part of this, as noted in the old Enodian Laws, is the "problem" of the national sovereignty movement. Or, more accurately, the passage of laws in support of that movement. Until now it's been allowed by some rather dexterous manipulation of the rule set, but I'm not liking the direction this is heading. Things like Nuclear Armaments and ALC are reasonably mild, and do more than just outlaw UN action for NatSov reasons. The storm that's brewing, however, is leading more and more to shopping lists of prohibitions; which, while (are possibly) legal, certainly violate the spirit of the rules as I wrote them. Perhaps this is a case of an actual slippery slope, as much as I loathe that term. I don't want the Resolution list to become a long list of things the UN can't do; after all, the entire point is to meddle. My current view of the situation is that NatSov should be relegated to methods used to argue in the forum, not a legislative movement.

Sigh. How quickly we forget. We discussed this issue before in the UNSA debate, but for simplicity's sake I'll offer a quick explanation.

-Resolution legalizing abortion passes, effect is that no more abortion resolutions can be passed until it's repealed.

-NatSov Blocker on abortion passes, effect is that no more abortion resolutions can be passed until it's repealed.

Let's see...in both cases, there's one resolution in the queue and no more resolutions can be passed on that topic. There is nothing to indicate that NatSov Blockers are somehow more damaging to the UN's ability to legislate than other resolutions. Ultimately, all resolutions are blockers in terms of their effect, and the only difference is the NatSov blockers are intentionally preventing the future legislation in favor of national sovereignty whereas the others do so (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to promote a different ideology. Sometimes even IntFed folks want to use a resolution as a blocker of future legislation (example: preventing a conservative resolution outlawing abortion, gay rights, etc.)

Now let's take a look at broad/omnibus resolutions like UNCoESB and UNSA. UNCoESB took a huge chunk of legislative material out of the hands of the UN, but for the purpose of efficiency and improving UN legislation. UNSA tried to do a similar thing (granted with the addition of a new and apparently fear-inspiring type of clause) with the purpose of protecting national sovereignty to the extent possible. In both cases, the effect was taking a large area of legislative material out of the UN hands. Guess what? Only the one that was known to be doing so for the purposes of national sovereignty got the most intensive and exhaustive legality debate I have ever participated in, was ruled illegal on grounds that were later retracted.

Note: I do appreciate the Moderation Staff being reasonable in that debate.

What this comes down to is a bias against national sovereignty, not a danger to the UN's ability to legislate, not a corruption of its purpose. (Anyone who wants to debate me on the purpose point is free to do so of course, but keep in mind that the only thing that's going to settle the issue once and for all is a ruling on what the purpose of the UN actually is. Quoting the FAQ won't cut it, and most of us know that.)

I don't see that there's any room to create a rule based on intent (unenforceable, IMO), and since there is no difference in overall effect between NatSov and IntFed resolutions aside from stat changes being Mild more often than not, where else can the line be drawn?

Only one place that I can see. Just make pro-sovereignty proposals illegal. Oh, wait. Then you would have to define what such a proposal is. Does it limit future legislation? Yes, but other proposals do that too, so that won't work. What about intent to prevent the UN from legislating on a topic? Damn, that's not really enforceable.

And so, we have Quandary the Second: in light of reviewing the Enodian laws (which, while not binding, are something like the old Common Law), how legitimate are Resolutions such as NA or ALC. Again, this doesn't represent a definite shift in policy; I'm soliciting opinions here.

You have mine. I may add to it later though.

Edit: Keep in mind that, as has been pointed out before, the National Sovereignty proposal cited in the OP is illegal already. It's no threat. And there will never be a resolution that can take a genuinely broad-based approach to ensuring national sovereignty. I might be able to write one in the Political Stability category, but for one it would be easy enough to find a loophole that would allow people to get around it, and for two why would I? I have no interest in destroying the UN's ablility to legislate, or even making a futile attempt to do so. The power of the UN is already secure because of its current nature. We don't need anything more to guarantee that security.

I'm still mulling over the longer posts. I just wanted to respond to a few points that have popped up and won't require all that much time (Kinda sleepy, heh)

Oy... I feel like Ackbar here...

Hack, I suggest you ignore that NatSovs. I respect the opinion, but nobody is forcing you to join the UN. Just resign.Er... I did. About 3 years ago. I'm discussing the rules for Proposals here, so I'm not sure of the relevence of this post. My membership, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Bloody hell. I really wish people would stop whining about the ALC.My intent was not to turn ALC into a whipping-boy, I was simply using it as a handy example of a pro-NatSov Resolution. As a personal political matter, I agree with ALC. Hell, I made a point of logging in my UN puppet to vote for it.

every UN resolution bars writers from putting forward certain legislationYes... that is the difficulty I'm having. Why does one method of barring future legislation seem to violate the spirit of the rule while the other doesn't?

I think it's a matter of how the Proposal goes about doing so. Active vs. Passive. To keep from stepping on toes, I'll use "invisibile pink unicorns".

Active: The right to legislate the hunting of invisible pink unicorns shall fall to individual nations.
Passive: The UN hereby bans the hunting of invisible pink unicorns.

They both prohibit future legislation dealing with invisible pink unicorns, but the second one has the prohibition as a secondary effect. The primary effect is to ban hunting. The first does little more than legislate on the legislation of hunting invisible pink unicorns. I realise this method has been around for quite some time ("Congress shall make no law...") and I also realise that it's a very fine line. And I'm not too comfortable with either side, hence my solicitation.

Am I at least safe in assuming that people get a different "feel" from the two, regardless of the importance, relevence, or appropriateness of that feeling?

Take UNCoESB - that has effectively ruled out further endangered species resolutions.I swear, these acronyms are going to kill me some day. Vive AAAA.

Ahem. Anyway, this takes us into the dangerous shoals of intent. From where I'm sitting, the intent of ALC (or, the first invisible pink unicorn example) is to prohibit the UN from passing a law. A "blocker" if you will. The intent of UNCoESB was to streamline UN legislation. It's not that we think Dolphins are unworthy of having their own Resolution, it's just that it's easier to protect all endangered species in one fell swoop, as opposed to running through a new Resolution for every endangered species out there (and, presumably, Repealing them when said animal is no longer endangered). If invisible pink unicorns are engangered, UNCoESB automatically protects them. No new drafting required.

I realise figuring out intent is usually disasterous, but this goes back to my comment about Resolutions "feeling" different.

As for ideological bans, I agree that egregious ones are silly. At the same time, prostitution is legal by UN resolution. Thus, governments opposed to legal prostitution are effectively screwed if they want to join the UN - either their government's position needs to change or they need to stay out of the UN until the resolution in question is repealed. So there is already a weak form of exclusion ongoing.Hmm. Yes. A stereotypically "religious right" type of nation would be in trouble as is. Perhaps a slight adjustment to the ideological ban should be made to show that it is for severe or gross infractions. Hm.

Of course the ideological ban could be used against any proposal. Most objections to proposals are ultimately ideological in nature.Well, yes, but that wasn't what I meant. I was refering to a legal challenge, not a personal belief challenge.

Personally, I do agree that it's not the ideal situation, but the changes I've considered lead to just as many problems.Heh. The worst rule, except for all the others, huh?

Only the one that was known to be doing so for the purposes of national sovereignty got the most intensive and exhaustive legality debate I have ever participated inWell, what gets challenged isn't exactly under my control, mate. ;)


Hm. Interesting thoughts, and I'm glad this has spurred debate. Obviously, I'm nowhere near making any kind of decision, but I'm thankful for the input so far. And, again, just because I haven't responded to someone's point doesn't mean I haven't read it. I'm just cherry picking right now, but everything is rambling around in my mind.

Take fear or comfort from that as you will.

NatSov is a strange duck because no two nations will share the same definition of the term. Since I find myself somewhere in the middle on the issue I am always troubled by those who take it to either extreme.

My personal answer to the common complaint of "why in hell am I in the UN in the first place" is the simple fact that it's a whole lot easier to get issues through the UN than through the general issue generation system. (Yes I'm one of those old fogies that think my national stats actually mean something.) But in general my reason is that the UN is the perfect game mechanic to address international issues.

In the real world I am a citizen of the United States. It's not too intitutively obvious to non citizens of the United States, but I believe that vertical heirarchy is one of the great founding principles of my country, and it's lack thereof in many other nations is their loss. In the United States we have a number of levels of government; Village/Town, County/Parish, State and finally Federal. County works best when it tackles the common problems of all the towns and villages or when it tackles the issues that cross town/vilage boundaries. State works best with it too tackles the common problems of the countries or inter county problems. Finally the Federal Government works best when it tackles interstate problems or problems that concern all of the states.

This should be the model for the UN but it's not always obvious to the members. Is the issue "international" should be the first question on any member's argument. Does the issue involve the crossing of international borders or does it pose an issue that requires a uniform solution across all member nations. If this question is not positively answered then the default is NatSov. As the US constitution stated any power not specifically mentioned in the document defaults to the state.

It is sort of strange for me to suggest this, but the UN is not a democracy. The largest nation and the smallest nation has the same vote. Regional deligates don't get more votes because of population but because of how fractured the population is. Sure each PLAYER gets a vote, but that's an OCC mechanic ... right?

Therefore any attempt to impose an issue to the members of the UN must have a pretty good percentage of the members behind it or else we will be looking at an endless cycle of resolution/repeal. This is the reason the ALC passed so well, people realized that we could not come up with a repeal proof solution in either direction so we decided to choose not to globally decide. Considering there has been resolutions that were repealed by the very next issue up for vote in the UN within a span of a week or two this compromise is something that had a significant majority of the people approving of.

Is it international, is it global, and is there is good consensus should be the first questions asked for any resolution. Any resolution that fails these questions should default to the decisions of individual nations. This is my view of NatSov which is not shared by everyone.

The final and moral point to this whole arugment. Never, I repeat never, drink a majority of a bottle of white wine for the only meal on a religious fast day. Well you can drink 2/3 of the bottle, but don't then go trying to discuss NatSov after you have done so. Head my example. Just say NO.

It is sort of strange for me to suggest this, but the UN is not a democracy. The largest nation and the smallest nation has the same vote. Regional deligates don't get more votes because of population but because of how fractured the population is. Sure each PLAYER gets a vote, but that's an OCC mechanic ... right?

On a side note, just to answer to your point above:

I absolutly not agree with the statement I post below, as I do think the US is a democracy, it's just for rethoric:p :

"
It is sort of strange for me to suggest this, but the US is not a democracy. States don't have the same ratio elector/population. Candidates don't get more votes because of population but because of how fractured the population is betwen states. Sure each Individual gets a vote, but that's just a mechanic ... right?
"


NB: since I'm in nationstates, only 2 proposal failed despite more than 50% of delegates+members voted for; even if it was not in my favor, this is not significant, it's less sensitive than a president election, lol!

This has a name: this is called indirect democracy

Also, many nations have a elected congress/senate voting laws (this process is also indirect, but it's democratic)

Good arguement, Tzorland. As stated elsewhere and before, I am a bit cynical of the UN (NS or RL) being able to solve all the world's problems. I hold a view closest to the esteemed Dean Acheson(for you young-uns out there, he was Under Sec'y and Sec'y of State During the Truman Presidency, and around at the fonding of the RL UN) In RL, Acheson saw the UN as useful as a forum to confront and keep pressure on the Soviets, but pretty much useless as a place for real solutions to problems. He felt that those who pinned their hopes on the UN as rather soft headed(Adlai Stevenson was a big dissapointment to him in that regard.). Likewise I see the NS UN as a great forum for International Dialogue, and Ideas, but really useless for policy. I will admit it serves a pupose in promoting international cooperation and recognition of certian ideals and practices(ie Bill of Rights). However it should stay out of areas best served on a national level or lower. That, dear gents, are what we should concern ourselves with.

The final and moral point to this whole arugment. Never, I repeat never, drink a majority of a bottle of white wine for the only meal on a religious fast day. Well you can drink 2/3 of the bottle, but don't then go trying to discuss NatSov after you have done so. Head my example. Just say NO
Truly spoken, and I would add the same goes for Old Crow or Wild Turkey.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

AHA! TYPOS! A scribe is being sent screaming to Cleveland!
Is this benighted city the US equivalent of Coventry or something?

It is sort of strange for me to suggest this, but the US is not a democracy.Correct. It's a Republic ;)

Is this benighted city the US equivalent of Coventry or something?


Its a place far worse than Coventry. The Cleveland Browns play there.*SHUDDER!!!*:D

Correct. It's a Republic ;)


It's both, there are no incompatibility:fluffle:
Personnaly I like both, so Am I both republican and democrat?

Ok.....

Ideaological ban: while I've seen some comments about possible strong Freedom of Democracy.....honestly, I'm at the point where questionable usage of the category and strength is irrelevant. Consider we have 3 entire categories that combined have seen one proposal hit the floor and fail miserably, a question of not having the category used just doesn't seem like a relevant justification for altering the rule. Should we rethink it....possibly not. Should we define it more clearly....if someone comes up with a good way to distinguish the line, I'm sure it would be much appreciated.

Towards NatSov positions.....I honestly don't know. The more I walk around it, the harder I have time justifying a ban of something along the lines of ALC. I could argue a ban of resolutions like Nuclear Armaments, but UNSA and even moreso, ALC I have a hard time justifying any claim of "we shouldn't have these types of proposals".

The other thing I have a hard time with is trying to clip the wings of the NatSov movement. There's a lot of reasons behind this, but the #1 is just the political culture that has evolved in the UN from it. We have formed effective political parties. We have formed an entire different level of the game to the UN. Yes we have thinktanks like UNDEFCON or GTT, but they aren't parties, just places where the focus is on a specific area rather than side. The NSO and UIC are looking at all issues across the UN and thinking about them from opposite positions. Is the NSO shutting down the UN? No. Could an extreme form of the NSO shut down its legislative power? Possibly. Just as an anarchist party getting into power in a national legislature could shut down its own government just so they can get their anarchy, we could indeed have our own form of Anarchist party here - just as we could have an extreme version that is (as some NSO's often accuse the UIC of doing) creating a one-world government - creating a centralized body of decision makers (often associated with communism - amongst other systems). Boom, we have our own left and right wings. Hell, we have our own Illumnati or Stonecutters or whatever puppeteer you'd like to claim in the UNOG.

We have created - through design, through fate, or through chance - our own government. A professer could probably get a PhD following the UN and watching as we organized ourselves - and how we continue to organize ourselves as the UN continues to evolve. Certainly it has come with a evolution in the legalistic nature of the UN - and rules lawyering, and loophole abuse, and thousands of other points - but I just find it to be something practical (if nothing else) to watch rather than tamper with.

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

Cluich:
1) How was that post arrogant
2) Regardless of whether it was or wasn't arrogant, you can still learn things from arrogant people and you may still find there are things they say you may wish to take to heart.

Tzorsland: one comment I've heard is that it's difficult to say a government/organization/whatever is democratic or not. Certainly, you have situations where it's clearly not democractic and where it clearly is. However, it's better to say how democratic it is. There is a level of democracy to the UN, and it's a disproportional representation. In many ways, the UN is fairly similar to the senate: you get one seat regardless of how many you represent just as each state gets two seats whether they're the size of Canada (30 million) or population: Fargo. Would you say the Senate does give a level of democracy? I certainly would claim such. Others might disagree. Considering that the secretariat are appointed by Max (all hail the almighty) (ok, fine, the admins), we are probably not the most democratic body alive. However, to say we aren't a democracy would be.....discrediting to how we operate.

We have formed effective political parties. We have formed an entire different level of the game to the UN. Yes we have thinktanks like UNDEFCON or GTT, but they aren't parties, just places where the focus is on a specific area rather than side. The NSO and UIC are looking at all issues across the UN and thinking about them from opposite positions.
I agree completely with you on this. It really is a dimension to the game that developed all on it's own and adds to the experience for me. I think it's very interesting to see how these 'parties' came to be and it's a lot of fun playing up that aspect of the game in roleplaying a nation. Limiting NatSov resolutions too severely would disrupt this as it gives one side of the arguement quite an edge.

Yes... that is the difficulty I'm having. Why does one method of barring future legislation seem to violate the spirit of the rule while the other doesn't?

I think it's a matter of how the Proposal goes about doing so. Active vs. Passive. To keep from stepping on toes, I'll use "invisibile pink unicorns".

Active: The right to legislate the hunting of invisible pink unicorns shall fall to individual nations.
Passive: The UN hereby bans the hunting of invisible pink unicorns.

They both prohibit future legislation dealing with invisible pink unicorns, but the second one has the prohibition as a secondary effect. The primary effect is to ban hunting. The first does little more than legislate on the legislation of hunting invisible pink unicorns. I realise this method has been around for quite some time ("Congress shall make no law...") and I also realise that it's a very fine line. And I'm not too comfortable with either side, hence my solicitation.

Am I at least safe in assuming that people get a different "feel" from the two, regardless of the importance, relevence, or appropriateness of that feeling?

I would argue that you've got it backwards, Hack. In your example, the UN banning the hunting of invisible pink unicorns is active, as it actively legislates a prohibition on said hunting, whereas commuting the right to legislate on the issue is passive, as it passes off a decision on the issue to member nations.

Cluich:
1) How was that post arrogant
2) Regardless of whether it was or wasn't arrogant, you can still learn things from arrogant people and you may still find there are things they say you may wish to take to heart.

Yes, yes, I have much to learn from you. :rolleyes: Just sod off already.

I will try to keep my post as short as possible.

Ideological ban rule: It should be kept, but applied only to blatant violations. Since moderator discretion in this topic can be complicated to understand to newer players who are not familiar with precedent, I suggest altering the rule to state that proposals are deleted on two grounds: making it impossible to accept any of the 27 UN government styles in the UN (game mechanics), or directly imposing a ban on a political/economic/religious ideology (whether those are mentioned by name or not). So that, say, a proposal forbidding the criminalisation of adultery or prostitution would be legal, but a proposal forbidding a certain religious practice or private ownership of companies would not. A FoD proposal would be legal as long as it allowed nations to comply while retaining an autocratic system.

NatSov rule: I would interpret the current ruling against precedent here, and make it clearer that a proposal must have some impact, mandatory or not, on legislation at the national level. A proposal that only redefines the topics on which the UN is allowed to legislate should not be legal. ALC, Rights and Duties, UNSA would be legal under this reading, as they mandate/urge some type of behaviour to member nations. Nuclear Armaments and Taxation Ban would be illegal, as they only impose restrictions on the UN. This would not hamper the writing of "blockers" in any way; the two quoted Resolutions could be easily made legal by adding an appropriate "Encourages" clause to the text.

While we are on the topic, I would also support expanding a bit on this rule:
Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."
It seems obvious to me that this prohibits repeals based exclusively on NatSov, but does not disallow the use of sovereignty arguments if one or more other reasons are given. Still, I believe it has been interpreted differently in the past, and adding one or two clarifying lines could prevent future disagreements.

Ideological ban rule: It should be kept, but applied only to blatant violations. Since moderator discretion in this topic can be complicated to understand to newer players who are not familiar with precedent, I suggest altering the rule to state that proposals are deleted on two grounds: making it impossible to accept any of the 27 UN government styles in the UN (game mechanics), or directly imposing a ban on a political/economic/religious ideology (whether those are mentioned by name or not). So that, say, a proposal forbidding the criminalisation of adultery or prostitution would be legal, but a proposal forbidding a certain religious practice or private ownership of companies would not. A FoD proposal would be legal as long as it allowed nations to comply while retaining an autocratic system.

NatSov rule: I would interpret the current ruling against precedent here, and make it clearer that a proposal must have some impact, mandatory or not, on legislation at the national level. A proposal that only redefines the topics on which the UN is allowed to legislate should not be legal. ALC, Rights and Duties, UNSA would be legal under this reading, as they mandate/urge some type of behaviour to member nations. Nuclear Armaments and Taxation Ban would be illegal, as they only impose restrictions on the UN. This would not hamper the writing of "blockers" in any way; the two quoted Resolutions could be easily made legal by adding an appropriate "Encourages" clause to the text.This is reasonable. Your suggested "clarification" on NatSov-based repeals I'm not sure about.

My intent was not to turn ALC into a whipping-boy, I was simply using it as a handy example of a pro-NatSov Resolution. As a personal political matter, I agree with ALC. Hell, I made a point of logging in my UN puppet to vote for it.
I have no objection to ALC being used as an example. It's exactly the sort of NatSov proposal that's being referred to: seems an obvious fit.

They both prohibit future legislation dealing with invisible pink unicorns, but the second one has the prohibition as a secondary effect. The primary effect is to ban hunting. The first does little more than legislate on the legislation of hunting invisible pink unicorns. I realise this method has been around for quite some time ("Congress shall make no law...") and I also realise that it's a very fine line. And I'm not too comfortable with either side, hence my solicitation.

Am I at least safe in assuming that people get a different "feel" from the two, regardless of the importance, relevence, or appropriateness of that feeling?
Yes, I agree that there is a different "feeling". However, I'm still uneasy about acting on that, because - as you later acknowledge - you still can't judge the intent. For example: a proposal urging nations to ban pink unicorn hunting is passed. A second proposal mandating hunting be banned might well be deleted for duplication, or contradiction. We can't guess that the original proposal author wanted to ban unicorn hunting, or was in fact cleverly setting it up such that unicorn hunting couldn't be banned.

In other words, even if a certain form of proposal - one that declared national rights or immunities - were banned, I don't think that would prevent crafty proposal writers from writing blocking proposals, given the rules on contradiction and duplication. Precisely because all proposals are going to however implicitly limit some form of future action, it's going to be very hard to actually prevent "blocker" proposals - I think they'll just start appearing in another form.

Ahem. Anyway, this takes us into the dangerous shoals of intent. From where I'm sitting, the intent of ALC (or, the first invisible pink unicorn example) is to prohibit the UN from passing a law. A "blocker" if you will. The intent of UNCoESB was to streamline UN legislation. It's not that we think Dolphins are unworthy of having their own Resolution, it's just that it's easier to protect all endangered species in one fell swoop, as opposed to running through a new Resolution for every endangered species out there (and, presumably, Repealing them when said animal is no longer endangered). If invisible pink unicorns are engangered, UNCoESB automatically protects them. No new drafting required.
I think UNCoESB was intended to streamline legislation - to set up repeals of "Banning Whaling" and PoDA - but I do think it was also intended to act as a blocker in much the same manner. If VL is around, maybe he can say one way or the other. But he and Yelda (and others) certainly didn't want the UN clogged with Environmental, All Businesses proposals protecting one animal at a time. It was, as far as I know, specifically designed to block future "protect cats! protect dogs! protect turtles!" proposals.

Hmm. Yes. A stereotypically "religious right" type of nation would be in trouble as is. Perhaps a slight adjustment to the ideological ban should be made to show that it is for severe or gross infractions. Hm.
I thought St Edmund made an interesting point during the drugs debate. A ban on alcohol would essentially ban Christianity. What falls under the ambit of Christian rule is debatable - I wouldn't say gay rights constitute an ideological ban, because it's perfectly possible to be a Christian who supports gay rights, and thus be a Christian government who supports gay rights - but having Mass is obviously fairly central. But I can't believe a ban on alcohol would actually get plucked for being an ideological ban.

So perhaps it needs to be clearer that the ideological ban mainly refers to actively banning particular religions or political systems, but not necessarily to the practices within them.

The other problem is a nation like Gruenberg. I've mentioned before that our religion is Wenaism...and haven't said much more. Because of the nature of NS, anyone can create almost any religion, philosophy, political ideology, or so on, and then claim that pretty much anything is an ideological ban. I mean, it sounds silly, but a proposal to cull all goats really would seem like an ideological ban to Gruenberg. That's not something I would actually send a GHR in about, of course - it's a point of debate for the forums - but at the same time, does there need to be some sort of "recognition" that the ideology being banned actually constitutes a viable ideology?

Well, yes, but that wasn't what I meant. I was refering to a legal challenge, not a personal belief challenge.

I know what you meant. Perhaps I wasn't quite so clear on what I meant.

Free Trade resolutions are an attack on the fair trade ideology. Human Rrights resolutions are an attack on the fascist ideology. And so on...

Heh. The worst rule, except for all the others, huh?

Precisely. It's one of those rules that no matter what you do to it, will always be an exercise in Mod discretion.

Well, what gets challenged isn't exactly under my control, mate. ;)

That it isn't. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

A ban on alcohol would essentially ban Christianity.

On a side note once again, i would like to clarify:

I'am absolutly against any ban on alcohol, and i'm not Christian myself, but to the defense of christianity, i want to say that your statement seems to me very reductive/degradating for christianity.
Christianity is a lot more than the transformation of wine in blood and even for some christian this is really not essantial. For some others christians, it even doesn't happen at all.

On a side note once again, i would like to clarify:

I'am absolutly against any ban on alcohol, and i'm not Christian myself, but to the defense of christianity, i want to say that your statement seems to me very reductive/degradating for christianity.
Christianity is a lot more than the transformation of wine in blood and even for some christian this is really not essantial. For some others christians, it even doesn't happen at all.
Forgive me, then. I had thought that all Christian masses would involve wine. Can I say "Roman Catholic" instead? I'm fairly sure wine is a prerequisite there.

But that's not really my point: my point is $religion for which $substance is sacramental by a ban on $substance.

On a side note once again, i would like to clarify:

I'am absolutly against any ban on alcohol, and i'm not Christian myself, but to the defense of christianity, i want to say that your statement seems to me very reductive/degradating for christianity.
Christianity is a lot more than the transformation of wine in blood and even for some christian this is really not essantial. For some others christians, it even doesn't happen at all.


However for the Devout Roman Catholic, the central part of Mass, nay the entire focus of Mass, is the transubstantation of the Body and Blood of Christ. On another tangent, I believe Wine is a part of the Jewish relegious observances, esp. Passover, So A ban on Alcohol could very well be seen as an attempt to ban all religeons, so Gruen's point is still valid. Of course I'll admit that my argument is a bit tenuous, and approching ridiculous.

Forgive me, then. I had thought that all Christian masses would involve wine. Can I say "Roman Catholic" instead? I'm fairly sure wine is a prerequisite there.

I'm not that much of and expert on the subject, but I believe, the Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, and Lutheran Masses do use wine. So you are correct, Gruen.

Forgive me, then. I had thought that all Christian masses would involve wine. Can I say "Roman Catholic" instead? I'm fairly sure wine is a prerequisite there.

No pb, but you cannot say that either for Roman Catholic, sorry, i'm not an expert on the topic, but I have some Roman Catholic for whom transformation is really not important.
And for some other Roman Catholics, transformation or any other miracle just cannot happen, not for feasibility reasons, but for theological ones; but that's another debate. Christianity seems very diverse.

No pb, but you cannot say that either for Roman Catholic, sorry, i'm not an expert on the topic, but I have some Roman Catholic for whom transformation is really not important.
And for some other Roman Catholics, transformation or any other miracle just cannot happen, not for feasibility reasons, but for theological ones; but that's another debate. Christianity seems very diverse.
Ah, I see. You're saying that individual beliefs may vary. That's fine. I agree with that, completely. But I'm talking about institutions. The sacrament of the Eucharist would be a feature of a Catholic theocracy, even if some citizens of that country weren't too fussed about it.

I don't think the ideological ban clause can cater for individual beliefs - in fact, I don't think an individual belief is an ideology at all, but that's probably a tangential discussion (and potentially a very dull one). I had thought the ideological ban essentially referred to systems - organized religion, schools of political thought, methods of government.

...I wouldn't say gay rights constitute an ideological ban, because it's perfectly possible to be a Christian who supports gay rights, and thus be a Christian government who supports gay rights - but having Mass is obviously fairly central. But I can't believe a ban on alcohol would actually get plucked for being an ideological ban.
I think the more important distinction there is that if gay rights are mandated, Christians (&/or other religions) might feel annoyed, or that the people excercising gay rights were sinful, but there would be nothing keeping them from practicing their religion (unless they had a religion saying that gays must all be killed. However, banning alcohol would ban a central tenet of their religion.

My intent was not to turn ALC into a whipping-boy, I was simply using it as a handy example of a pro-NatSov Resolution. As a personal political matter, I agree with ALC. Hell, I made a point of logging in my UN puppet to vote for it.

Just to clarify, my comment about giving it a rest already was not directed at you, Hack, but rather at those who have used the mere mention of the ALC to continue whining about it. It passed by quite a large majority. Those who opposed it need to get over it and move on.

Ah, I see. You're saying that individual beliefs may vary. That's fine. I agree with that, completely. But I'm talking about institutions. The sacrament of the Eucharist would be a feature of a Catholic theocracy, even if some citizens of that country weren't too fussed about it.

I don't think the ideological ban clause can cater for individual beliefs - in fact, I don't think an individual belief is an ideology at all, but that's probably a tangential discussion (and potentially a very dull one). I had thought the ideological ban essentially referred to systems - organized religion, schools of political thought, methods of government.

Sorry to hijack the debate, I would like to answer the above comment:
The diversity of roman Catholic i was speaking about is not individual beliefs, but some growing movements.
Sorry if this can be seen as spam, but as "diversity" is in question here:

The austrian movement "Wir sind Kirche": (we are church)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wir_sind_Kirche
get more than 500 000 signatures in Austria afor a petition for a different Catholic Church
This movement is now established in many nations,
here is a summary:
http://www.we-are-church.org/imwac/history

Also, thousands of roman catholic Germans are close to priest Eugen Drewermann's theology, in which miracles are impossible among others points (Drewermann had sold more than 1 000 000 books)

[OOC: Actually, the sect to which I subscribe is vehemently anti-alcohol, so much so that we consecrate grape juice upon communion. :p]

NatSov rule: A proposal that only redefines the topics on which the UN is allowed to legislate should not be legal. ALC, Rights and Duties, UNSA would be legal under this reading, as they mandate/urge some type of behaviour to member nations. Nuclear Armaments and Taxation Ban would be illegal, as they only impose restrictions on the UN. This would not hamper the writing of "blockers" in any way; the two quoted Resolutions could be easily made legal by adding an appropriate "Encourages" clause to the text.

I'm not so sure about the conclusions you draw from this rule, or that the distinction you're making really matters.

Nuclear Armaments granted nations a right to engage in a particular act. This had the effect of preventing a full ban on nukes (at least until NA is repealed). But its primary function was granting nations a right.

UN Taxation Ban's primary function was to limit the powers of the UN to tax. This had the effect of preventing the UN from writing a resolution directly taxing the citizens of member nations.

Is, after looking at the text of the resolution, its primary effect to "redefine the topics on which the UN is allowed to legislate"? Or, is the primary effect to make sure that nations have a right?

Ultimately, there is little difference between the two. After all, they do essentially the same thing in the end despite differences in the wording. These resolutions all do two things, regardless of how they're written, whether passively or actively or positively or negatively.

(1)They limit the power of the UN.
(2)They ensure the freedoms of other entities.

So if in essence, the type of resolution embodied by ALC and NA and UN Taxation Ban is identical in the sense that its primary effects are to grant nations or peoples a right while in the same act removing power from the UN, where do we draw the line? In neither case is the resolution's sole effect to redefine the topics the UN can legislate on. They all have dual effects, and there's no way to reliably enforce intent.

----------

There are four basic types of resolutions (listed in order of most common use):

(1)Resolutions that limit the power of the UN and nations and grant rights to individuals and/or groups.

(2)Resolutions that limit the power of the UN and grant rights to nations.

(3)Resolutions that expand the power of the UN and promote international cooperation.

(4)Resolutions that limit the power of the UN by striking out earlier legislation (repeals).

(5)Resolutions that limit the power of the UN and take away the rights of individuals and/or groups.

----------

If our concern is that we could potentially be limiting the power of the UN too much, there are a few possible approaches to de-limiting that might be made.

We can't make types (1), (4), and (5) resolutions illegal for game mechanics reasons because we would either be eliminating a category (or several) or eliminating repeals altogether. There's no point to eliminating type (3) resolutions because that doesn't accomplish our goal of protecting the UN's power from being limited.

Basically, there are two options:

+ Make type (2) resolutions illegal.

+ Maintain the status quo.

So let's do a simple analysis of the consequences of each option.

= If we make type (2) resolutions illegal, all we accomplish is ensuring that limiting the powers of the UN is done by International Federalists rather than National Sovereigntists, because IntFed resolutions block future legislation to the same degree that NatSov resolutions do. The sole net gain is pissing off National Sovereigntists.

= If we maintain the status quo...well...we're in the same place we were before. Everybody can legislate as they like and we get to pretend that we're protecting the power of the UN by making it illegal to say things like "the UN can't do X" when we're really not because every resolution has that effect of keeping the UN from future action on the topic.

Which brings me to my next point. If there really is no difference between a resolution that says, "nations have the right to do this," and one that says "the UN can't do this," while there is no real benefit to making such resolutions illegal, then why is the latter illegal right now?

Let's start re-thinking the ruleset indeed.

Which brings me to my next point. If there really is no difference between a resolution that says, "nations have the right to do this," and one that says "the UN can't do this," while there is no real benefit to making such resolutions illegal, then why is the latter illegal right now?

Apparently, you have misunderstood my statement. Neither of those statements alone would be legal under my reading. Whether you say "nations have this right," "the UN cannot remove this right," "the UN cannot do this," or something similar, semantics are unimportant here. None of these wordings allows the gnomes to rewrite something on national legislation, or directs national leaders to behave in a certain manner. You can see it another way: national leaders need not be told the contents of the legislation, as it has no relevant impact on any decision within their power. You can see it in yet another way: the world before the law is exactly the same as the world after the law, so strictly speaking it would be a category violation.

If on the other hand you write (too lazy to look it up):
DECLARES blah blah blah national defense;
URGES countries to defend themselves.
... then the proposal would again be legal. The second clause has the effect of suggesting that countries increase military spending. Many nations will ignore this optional effect, but as long as one of the 30,000 follows your advice, this does lead to a "boosting [of] police and military budgets," as required by its category.

Nothing here prevents blockers; I am not attacking NatSov legislation; but granting a national right by the UN is not enough. The only way such a proposal can pass contradiction is if the right already exists in every single member nation, meaning the resolution has no impact except on the UN itself.

I am saying nothing new, though I am aware that NA provides precedent against my reading. I repost the rule for reference.
Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't [...] prohibit types of legislation.

Apparently, you have misunderstood my statement.

I didn't misunderstand. I just took off on a series of general musings. Sorry about that. :(

Neither of those statements alone would be legal under my reading. Whether you say "nations have this right," "the UN cannot remove this right," "the UN cannot do this," or something similar, semantics are unimportant here. None of these wordings allows the gnomes to rewrite something on national legislation, or directs national leaders to behave in a certain manner. You can see it another way: national leaders need not be told the contents of the legislation, as it has no relevant impact on any decision within their power.

I'm curious. If you were in a nation (or any other political entity) that allowed certain rights for its citizens, would you object to it making a law to the effect that they have said rights? After all, what is the point of having a law that says you have the freedom of speech in nation X when everyone already has that freedom?

You can see it in yet another way: the world before the law is exactly the same as the world after the law, so strictly speaking it would be a category violation.

Precisely. As Cog told me long ago when I checked with him on the legality of my first death penalty proposal, there is no "the UN should stay out of this" category. Any attempt to write a proposal that says, "the UN cannot do X" is an automatic category violation, simply because there's no such category. So why have a rule to prevent something that we already have a rule operating quite effectively to prevent?

I didn't misunderstand. I just took off on a series of general musings. Sorry about that. :(

That's OK, I am glad I am not that unclear. ;) Still, you are arguing that there is a semantic difference between "limiting the power of the UN" and "ensuring the freedoms of other entities" from the UN. I see no differences between the two, as long as the UN is the only organ which could possibly infringe on such freedoms.

I'm curious. If you were in a nation (or any other political entity) that allowed certain rights for its citizens, would you object to it making a law to the effect that they have said rights? After all, what is the point of having a law that says you have the freedom of speech in nation X when everyone already has that freedom?

First of all, the reason why legislation on freedom of speech, protection of minorities, gender rights, etc. exist is because those rights were clearly not being universally respected at the time of passing (and are arguably not completely respected even after the law passes). But ignoring that for a minute, and concentrating on the freedom of speech example you mentioned, I see two situations where having such a law makes sense:

1. When writing a constitution, or a similar foundation law, the intention is stating the principles under which a nation operates, and describing what each national power can/cannot do. Declaring a bunch of rights there is not only reasonable, but essential. You are saying that the government/senate/parliament/tribunals/police cannot do anything that restricts such rights.

2. Typically, countries have separate organs for legislative and other functions. One of the roles of the legislative branch is to determine others can do. Therefore, the legislative branch has the mandate to legislate on freedom of speech, if ommited in the Constitution, again to specify what the government/tribunals/police can or cannot do.

Now look at the NSUN. It is an international legislative organ, but there are no corresponding powers at the international level. There is no international government, nor an international police/military; those powers are retained by national entities alone. As such, the NSUN has the right to legislate on what national governments/tribunals/police can or cannot do. It makes no sense for the NSUN to legislate on what the NSUN itself can do, other than the duplication/contradiction restrictions imposed by common sense and proposal rules.

If, say, the parliament of a given country passed a simple law saying "This Assembly is forbidden to legislate on this topic," other than in a special setting like a Constitutional revision, I would consider it irrelevant at best, and would probably call it a fillibustering manouver. It is quite different from legislating on freedom of speech, which as I said involves restrictions on other entities.

Precisely. As Cog told me long ago when I checked with him on the legality of my first death penalty proposal, there is no "the UN should stay out of this" category. Any attempt to write a proposal that says, "the UN cannot do X" is an automatic category violation, simply because there's no such category. So why have a rule to prevent something that we already have a rule operating quite effectively to prevent?

Then what you are arguing is that a pure blocker like Nuclear Armaments or Taxation Ban should be deemed illegal in the future, but for category violation rather than game mechanics. If so, it makes perfect sense, and I would be happy to see the "limiting the UN" statement (which is currently not a rule in itself, just an example of a game mechanics violation) moved there.

That's OK, I am glad I am not that unclear. ;) Still, you are arguing that there is a semantic difference between "limiting the power of the UN" and "ensuring the freedoms of other entities" from the UN. I see no differences between the two, as long as the UN is the only organ which could possibly infringe on such freedoms.

Sure there's a semantic difference. But what seems more significant to me (and apparently you) is whether or not the actual effect is any different, and we seem to agree that the effect is the same.

First of all, the reason why legislation on freedom of speech, protection of minorities, gender rights, etc. exist is because those rights were clearly not being universally respected at the time of passing (and are arguably not completely respected even after the law passes). But ignoring that for a minute, and concentrating on the freedom of speech example you mentioned, I see two situations where having such a law makes sense:

Hmmm. Funny thing. UNSA was written because nation's rights to use various weaponry were not being "universally respected" by the UN.

1. When writing a constitution, or a similar foundation law, the intention is stating the principles under which a nation operates, and describing what each national power can/cannot do. Declaring a bunch of rights there is not only reasonable, but essential. You are saying that the government/senate/parliament/tribunals/police cannot do anything that restricts such rights.

I'm not seeing any disjunt between nations and the UN here. It seems equally essential to go about "declaring a bunch of rights" for nations in relation to the UN.

2. Typically, countries have separate organs for legislative and other functions. One of the roles of the legislative branch is to determine others can do. Therefore, the legislative branch has the mandate to legislate on freedom of speech, if ommited in the Constitution, again to specify what the government/tribunals/police can or cannot do.

Do the legislative organs in such nations not have laws that govern or restrict their own actions? For example, laws that declare that said legislative organ cannot make illegal certain basic freedoms? Granted, the legislative organ can always take the time to repeal the laws, but is having an extra layer of protection on folks' freedom of speech a bad idea?

Now look at the NSUN. It is an international legislative organ, but there are no corresponding powers at the international level. There is no international government, nor an international police/military; those powers are retained by national entities alone.

It is true that there are no international police or military, but there are various international executive bodies. You may have heard them called committees at some point. ;)

As such, the NSUN has the right to legislate on what national governments/tribunals/police can or cannot do. It makes no sense for the NSUN to legislate on what the NSUN itself can do, other than the duplication/contradiction restrictions imposed by common sense and proposal rules.

The duplication and contradiction restrictions are part of the proposal rules, and common sense does not necessarily dictate that contradiction and duplication be eschewed. It would be quite simple to say that common sense dictates that the most recent legislation passed by the UN on a particular topic (eg. abortion) is the binding law, because that is obviously the current will of the majority.

And of course it makes sense for the UN to legislate on what it can do. Self-regulation is something that many bodies engage in for practical reasons. One might, for example, have a firm rule that you shall not interfere with your children's personal choices concerning their hairstyle. My nation has a firm rule that it shall not interfere with a corporation's choice of business practices. The UN has a firm rule that it shall not interfere with a nation's choice of system of taxation. This sort of thing hardly seems useless or dangerous.

If, say, the parliament of a given country passed a simple law saying "This Assembly is forbidden to legislate on this topic," other than in a special setting like a Constitutional revision, I would consider it irrelevant at best, and would probably call it a fillibustering manouver. It is quite different from legislating on freedom of speech, which as I said involves restrictions on other entities.

So if the structure of the UN were changed such that it had a special setting like a Charter revision, you would no longer call it irrelevant?

And I don't see anything wrong with filibustering.

I'll agree that the freedom of speech thing was a poor comparison.

Then what you are arguing is that a pure blocker like Nuclear Armaments or Taxation Ban should be deemed illegal in the future, but for category violation rather than game mechanics. If so, it makes perfect sense, and I would be happy to see the "limiting the UN" statement (which is currently not a rule in itself, just an example of a game mechanics violation) moved there.

Of course. I don't see that we need to change the rules to make sure national sovereignty proposals don't get out of hand. We've already got plenty of restrictions in place. Category violation, the rule about not using NatSov as the sole argument for a repeal, game mechanics...what more is there to be done that has any real benefit?

So basically, we're talking about a change to enforcement of the rules then rather than changing the actual rule.

OW...2am brain hurt.

Ok, let's take a topic that would be a prime candidate to get an ALC type proposal...imagine the Euthansia res. had been repealed and the NatSovs wanted to draft one.

A resolution saying 'The UN would and could not decide this issue, therefore this resolution reserves the right to decide if active or passive euthanasia is permitted to be solely at the disposal of a state's government or delegated further while this resolution is in effect.'
This would be illegal right? Although it is saying it confers the right to the State, in reality it's preventing the UN form legislating.

A resolution saying the above but having this clause: "A state must choose and pass laws on active and passive euthanasia if it has not done so to prevent unlawful and/or unregulated mercy killing."
Does it then become 'active'?
What if it also defines active euthanasia, passive euthanasia and palliative care - ensuring consistency across the UN?

Another rewrite: "Firstly we view the right to refuse treatment a fundamental human right. A doctor may not override this without extreme reason, and never if the refusal is for religious reasons, unless a minor through the courts etc etc etc...Secondly we strongly urge states to allow "passive euthanasia" defined as xyz...Thirdly we define "active euthanasia" as abc. If a State chooses to permit active euthanasia, rules efg must be followed."
I'm presuming this is totally legal - a right conferred, an urging, and the NatSov as a secondary thought.

Yet...the difference is very slight...and it took me half an hour to write this post...

[OOC: Actually, the sect to which I subscribe is vehemently anti-alcohol, so much so that we consecrate grape juice upon communion. :p]

OOC: So does mine. Some of the old time preachers still are against playing cards and dancing as well.(Christian Churches/ Churches of Christ ind.).

[OOC: Actually, the sect to which I subscribe is vehemently anti-alcohol, so much so that we consecrate grape juice upon communion. :p]

Maybe the following is widely known, but I didn't, and I just find it out:

The National Prohibition Act on alcohol in the US (from 1920 to 1933) passed after ratification of the 18th Amendment, exempted wine "for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites";)

A resolution saying 'The UN would and could not decide this issue, therefore this resolution reserves the right to decide if active or passive euthanasia is permitted to be solely at the disposal of a state's government or delegated further while this resolution is in effect.'
This would be illegal right? Although it is saying it confers the right to the State, in reality it's preventing the UN form legislating...

No, because it no more prevents the UN from legislating anymore than the original Euthanasia law prevented the UN from legislating. It could be repealed and then the issue can come up for legislation.

This is not a slippery slope argument this is a "look down you are standing on thin air ... don't you respect the law of gravity" argument. There is no difference between a specific resolution permitting, prohibiting or allowing states to decide for themselves. All three types of resolutions prohibit legislation on that specific issue until repealed.

Frankly, I wonder if this discussion is really necessary. Are we not all MORONS, and have we not proved this again in case history? Did not this august body pass overwhelmingly a resolution one week and overwhelmingly it's repeal on the next week? The whole resolution/repeal process is so broke that this is like turning the fine tuning knob on the old analog TV when you are on the wrong channel!

Let me expand on my previous argument and bring the case for resolutions such as the ALC ... which I personally do not consider a NatSov issue whatsoever. (ALC in my opinion is an agree to disagree resolution.)

In the real world (or indeed any professionally serious body ... try a we might we are not completely professionally serious) deligates tend to have opinions and rarely, if ever, change their minds. In the NSUN there appears to be a significant body that does exactly that. (How else can a resolution be passed one week and repealed the next week.) Consequently it does not take a "majority" that firmly believes in a resolution or a repeal to get the resolution or repeal passed, as long as there is a solid minority and a significant amount of th flip flop vote to approve the passage.

Given this these exists passionate issues that are supported on both sides by a solid minority. Abortion was one such issue. I guarentee that for every resolution and equal but opposite repeal could be generated and both would have equal chances for passage given the flip flop vote. Since these debates cause only hard feelings on either side a significant majority of both minorities realized that "enough was too much" and voted for the ALC. If they change their minds this resolution, like any other resolution can be repealed by a "majority" vote which as I pointed out is a significant minority in favor plus the flip floppers.

There is another problem in that even among those who debate here in the forums there is no official definitive perspective of what legislation actually does. Consider the current debate on the current repeal that basically goes along the lines of "but the resolution's title says" and "but there are no operative clauses in the resolution that states that." There is no "supreme court" of appeal to state what a resolution actually means.

Moreover UN gnomes are rather secret in what "legislation" they write when resolutions or repeals are passed so it's hard to even know what they thought of the resolution.

Ugh I'm tied up at the moment, I'll continue this train of thought later.

I'm back ... did you miss me? ... I guess not. :p

So let's see where I was when I left off. First of all we have a body of deligates who have a significant number of flip floppers. Second we have a significant problem in determining (among the members) what exactly a specific resolution does or does not do in the first place.

Given these two basic problems, the decision not to decide (which is not the same as NatSov) is a letigimate resolution on the part of the majority, subject to repeal by the same or different majority at any time. Moreover, the decision not to decide need to be supported by a super majority or otherwise the same arguments I have been giving before would apply for its repeal.

Note well that this is for specific issues, addressed in specific resolutions. You cannot use this argument to eliminate broad areas from consideration, because you can't make such a resolution without meta-gaming which is illegal. You can't change the rules of the system, so making a repeal-proof resolution is already prohibited by rules and regulations. As long as any resolution is repealable legislation is not technically prohibited.

I'm not that much of and expert on the subject, but I believe, the Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, and Lutheran Masses do use wine. So you are correct, Gruen.

and the 'Godwinnian Catholic' Mass does so, too...

St Edmund, you just deleted your post, and perhaps you're right your point's already been made, but I hadn't noticed before. The rules on blocking future UN action do change in the light of the advent of repeals.

In the real world (or indeed any professionally serious body ... try a we might we are not completely professionally serious) deligates tend to have opinions and rarely, if ever, change their minds. In the NSUN there appears to be a significant body that does exactly that. (How else can a resolution be passed one week and repealed the next week.)

I would not say that delegates change their minds, but that they don't read forum discussions, so they think "oh, this legislation is all nice and fluffy, let's vote for it". The next week, when the repeal comes up, they say "oh, whoops!, looks like there's a big problem with this resolution, let's repeal it".

Tzorsland, I disagree.

When Repeal "Right to Divorce" went to vote, I saw a message on the RMB of a region that said "We should vote for it. It points out lots of things we missed in the original resolution."

A lot of the people in this thread play the UN game a lot. Every day, sometimes posting several times throughout that day. That is in no way representative of the majority of UN voters. Before I made Gruenberg, I had another nation, that sat in a region with my friends. I was busy in school, and I logged onto NS every couple of days, for five minutes at most. Occasionally more, but basically not. We didn't, then, subject resolutions to exhausting legal analysis - we looked at them quickly, and said yay or nay. I think that is much more representative of the majority of UN voters. If you put a repeal up that points out the faults they missed, you expect them to vote against?

I think the fact PoSP and RtD were repealed in a fortnight is healthy. I don't object to people changing their minds, not at all. It's when people stubbornly refuse to change their minds in the face of logic that I think there's a problem.

But none of this really is of import to the rules discussion.

Had some time to mull this over, and give people a chance to post their views. Here's the direction that I'm currently leaning.

Ideological Bans: These are, essentially, a game mechanics violation trying to disguise themselves as metagaming violations. You can't outlaw capitalism because there is no mechanic to force a nation to use a different economic model; the Resolution can't force the Spotlight to add that bit about the lemonade stands. Likewise, you can't ban democracy as there's no mechanic to impose a ban on elections in a nation.

What this means is that severe ideological bans will need to be deleted. Minor ones, however, are allowed. You can ban slavery, because that would have no effect on game coding, it would only affect role-play. Likewise, you could ban prostitution as that isn't a coded "state" for the nation. Same with abortion, alcohol, or... heh... murder. Also, this allows for minor things like Citizen Rule Required, as the UN does have the ability to adjust your Political Freedoms score. Furtherment of Democracy and Political Stability are still tough categories to make work, but they are allowable. Not sure how you'd manage a "Strong" Proposal, but I'm sure someone could manage.

National Sovereignty: Or, blockers, as they're being called. I talked this over with another Mod on IRC, and here's what we came up with:

The default status for the UN is "the nations decide". Witness the Murder thingie being debated. Currently, the UN has no position on murder, so thus it is up to the nations. If you'll allow a touch of Ameri-centrism, the UN is essentially opperating under the assumptions of the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). Therefore, by default, "blocker" resolutions run the risk of bumping into a game mechanics violation, not a metagaming or format one.

Why? Because all Resolutions have an effect. You all know this. While you don't know the exact effects, you know they all have some effect. I can verify this, as I've seen the code. So, now that we all agree that -- on a game mechanics side -- all Resolutions do something, they must therefore actually do something. A Proposal that simply says "The right to hunt invisible pink unicorns shall be at the sole descretion of member nations" and nothing else cannot be legal. If passed, stats will change, but the UN's position will not change as it was always at the sole descretion of member nations. A Proposal must actually change something if it is to be legal. Otherwise, it serves no purpose.

ALC squeezes under the bar by calling for research. Representation in Taxation is pretty iffy, as it doesn't actually change the resting state of the UN. Nuclear Armaments and UNSA probably wouldn't meet this standard either.


Again, none of this is set in stone, but this is where I'm currently leaning. I don't think my thoughts on Ideological Bans will cause much distress, but I'm sure I'll hear about the NatSov section.

I don't think my thoughts on Ideological Bans will cause much distress, but I'm sure I'll hear about the NatSov section.
Yes. Thank you for responding to all this. I agree with the Ideological Ban ruling; I'm less certain about the NatSov one. Here's my problem:
A Proposal must actually change something if it is to be legal. Otherwise, it serves no purpose.
I could count at least 20 passed resolutions this would rule out. Is this to form a new ruling? Because there are plenty of mild resolutions, that don't necessarily change anything. It is perfectly legal not to incorporate one single letter of "IT Education Act" into national law, and still be in compliance. On a nation-by-nation basis, there is no guarantee IT Education Act would register any noticeable effect.

But this goes further. What about nations who no longer use fossil fuels, or who had already given up biological weaponry? If a proposal to legalise pink unicorns passed, then a country who had already legalised would see an increase in Pink Unicorn Freedom levels. But that wouldn't actually make sense, because the freedom levels wouldn't actually be changing: they'd be staying exactly the same.

So I'm not sure how fair it is to base this off stat effects. While I can see some sense in it, it also seems to lead to banning Mild proposals, or proposals of the structure of Microcredit Bazaar, and that's not anything I think would be good for the game, or the UN.

ALC squeezes under the bar by calling for research. Representation in Taxation is pretty iffy, as it doesn't actually change the resting state of the UN. Nuclear Armaments and UNSA probably wouldn't meet this standard either.
I also, I have to say, disagree with your assessment that Representation in Taxation is "iffy". I think it's by some way the most "legal" blocker (much more so than National Systems of Tax was) because it forms a very clear set of recommendations, about political representation influencing tax systems. Nuclear Armaments and UNSA set out national rights, but didn't take a position on what nations should do, but simply on what the UN shouldn't do; Representation in Taxation made very clear what nations were at least expected, if admittedly not obliged, to do. I recall someone (Pallatium, I think) arguing it should have been deleted as an Ideological Ban on dictatorships, amusingly.

or proposals of the structure of Microcredit Bazaar, and that's not anything I think would be good for the game, or the UN.No time for a detailed reply, but Microcredit would be fine. It set up a committee to help run the bazaars. Or an agency to oversee them. I forget which.

I guess that means my proposal is simply and utterly illegal still. Which means that anything to do with a very domestic issue will have to rely on the Nations standing firm. As 'Nat.Sov.' is not an arguable concept in the eyes of many I'm deeply worried, how long before a resolution starts saying 'A nation must put aside x% of their budget for...'?

Are proposals that define concepts 'doing something'?

Such as...*thinks*
'Definition of Dangerous Weapons'
'A weapon is any object that is primarily used to cause damage to another person or object. These can be broken down into firearms, blades, projectiles, bombs and incendary objects, and miscellaneous.' etc
Is it only legal if they then go on to ban or allow something?
i.e. 'Weapons must be transported as cargo or hold luggage, and declared to the customs authorities in both relevant countries.'

how long before a resolution starts saying 'A nation must put aside x% of their budget for...'?
Games Mechanics, surely.

I missed out 'at least'.
Ok, swop 'must' for 'recommends'.

ooc...and I just lost my train of thought.*kicks Fones4U for ringing her and trying to sell her a new phone when she's happy with her old one*

Why? Because all Resolutions have an effect. You all know this. While you don't know the exact effects, you know they all have some effect. I can verify this, as I've seen the code. So, now that we all agree that -- on a game mechanics side -- all Resolutions do something, they must therefore actually do something.

Hack, I really have to object most strongly to your exceptionaly strong interpertation of the NatSov issue. I do agree on principle that ALC is a border condition, but pushing the "must do" something too strongly will have a significant potential to not only break the fourth wall, but suspension of disbelief in the belief of many that NS is actually more than just a numbers crunching game.

Playing "guess the mechanic" is clearly not the pastime of most of the proposers of UN resolutions. So the notion of "doing something" is generally thought of in the abstract. Forming a gnome committee is, in the minds of most, "doing something." Often ironcially the doing something is the last thing on the minds of the proposers. Yes a few people actually propose free trade resolutions (for example) just to see the universal bump or drop in one game stat, but the most common reason is that it just feels like the right thing to do.

Let's face it, there are severe limitations on the exceptionally simplistic nature of the process of resolutions from proposal to vote and the existance of fluff bunnies who will vote for practically anything, and then vote for the repeal of the same thing they voted for the very next week. Frankly, I find that far more disgraceful and threatenting to the system than the mild attempt to address that problem through resolutions like the ALC. Do you realy want the monthly death matches with violent debates in the forum to repeal the abortion resolution du jour followed by the insane attempt to get ASAP by both sides the replacement proposal in first so as to trump the other?

I'm all in favor of a high standard to UN Resolutions. I'm not in favor of trying to ensure that every UN Resolution has a game stat changing effect when most of us don't know the inner workings of UN Resolution to UN Gnome Action and frankly really don't want to know. Tighten the requirements too severely and you will see a number of people vote with their feet.

This game is supposed to be fun. When it's no longer fun I will no longer be in the UN. And I'm sure I am not alone. No FUN, means no UN.

Had some time to mull this over, and give people a chance to post their views. Here's the direction that I'm currently leaning.

Ideological Bans: These are, essentially, a game mechanics violation trying to disguise themselves as metagaming violations. You can't outlaw capitalism because there is no mechanic to force a nation to use a different economic model; the Resolution can't force the Spotlight to add that bit about the lemonade stands. Likewise, you can't ban democracy as there's no mechanic to impose a ban on elections in a nation.

What this means is that severe ideological bans will need to be deleted. Minor ones, however, are allowed. You can ban slavery, because that would have no effect on game coding, it would only affect role-play. Likewise, you could ban prostitution as that isn't a coded "state" for the nation. Same with abortion, alcohol, or... heh... murder. Also, this allows for minor things like Citizen Rule Required, as the UN does have the ability to adjust your Political Freedoms score. Furtherment of Democracy and Political Stability are still tough categories to make work, but they are allowable. Not sure how you'd manage a "Strong" Proposal, but I'm sure someone could manage.

This seems reasonable.

National Sovereignty: Or, blockers, as they're being called. I talked this over with another Mod on IRC, and here's what we came up with:

The default status for the UN is "the nations decide". Witness the Murder thingie being debated. Currently, the UN has no position on murder, so thus it is up to the nations. If you'll allow a touch of Ameri-centrism, the UN is essentially opperating under the assumptions of the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people). Therefore, by default, "blocker" resolutions run the risk of bumping into a game mechanics violation, not a metagaming or format one.

Why? Because all Resolutions have an effect. You all know this. While you don't know the exact effects, you know they all have some effect. I can verify this, as I've seen the code. So, now that we all agree that -- on a game mechanics side -- all Resolutions do something, they must therefore actually do something. A Proposal that simply says "The right to hunt invisible pink unicorns shall be at the sole descretion of member nations" and nothing else cannot be legal. If passed, stats will change, but the UN's position will not change as it was always at the sole descretion of member nations. A Proposal must actually change something if it is to be legal. Otherwise, it serves no purpose.

ALC squeezes under the bar by calling for research. Representation in Taxation is pretty iffy, as it doesn't actually change the resting state of the UN. Nuclear Armaments and UNSA probably wouldn't meet this standard either.

You may want to read UNSA again, Hacky baby. Check out the first active clause.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.


Hey, lookie there. Sounds like doing something besides declaring nations have a particular right. As far as I can tell, Nuclear Armaments is the only "pure" blocker. All the others have a clause that does something to fit with the effects of the category.

[Side Note]Hmmm...what if Nuclear Armaments actually did do something to fit with the effects of the category? If the resolution, by guaranteeing nations a right that was under attack by other proposal writers, did improve international security to some degree, then it would fit with the category. Does a clause need to take away national sovereignty to fit the statistical effect? Precedent says no. Take "Right to Self-Protection" for example; it's a Mild Human Rights resolution that's basically a statement of principle. It urges nations to do something specific, but as we all know the urging isn't a mandatory clause and therefore doesn't really do anything. ;) There are a number of other resolutions that do this. They fit the effects of the category without taking away from national sovereignty. The problem isn't national sovereignty resolutions. The problem is getting roleplay (text of the resolution) and game mechanics (stat changes caused by category and strength) to correlate properly. That has often been a hard line to draw. Lots of gray areas.[/Side Note]

As far as changing the resting state of the UN, I don't see that by itself being a particularly good standard. "Rights and Duties" was not a resolution that really changed anything. As I recall, it just provided a roleplay justification for things necessitated by the nature of game mechanics. And if you don't think "Representation in Taxation" changed anything (and I actually agree with Gruen that it does), so what? We can't directly alter tax rates via UN resolutions anyway (unless y'all start handing out more info on what exactly the stat changes are for each category and strength so we can add the correct tax rate change to the text of the resolution) for game mechanics reasons.

Making sure that the text of the resolution does something to justify the statistical effects of the category...well of course. That's a good standard. It fits nicely with the ruleset already in place and what I was saying earlier about the "problem" already being covered by the rule that resolution texts have to fit with their category.

The only blocker resolution that could be illegal under this rule is Nuclear Armaments, and that is if you take the reasonable interpretation that in every proposal there has to be an active clause or multiple clauses consummate with the statistical effect of the category of the proposal.

Again, none of this is set in stone, but this is where I'm currently leaning. I don't think my thoughts on Ideological Bans will cause much distress, but I'm sure I'll hear about the NatSov section.

Why on earth would you think that? :cool:

I'm cringing a bit at this. It's not that I disagree, it's that I look at some really good non-NatSov resolutions and I wonder. The one that strikes me the most is UNR #49, Rights and Duties, which is one of the (if not the) most referenced resolutions and often noted as being the closest thing we have to a charter. It seems to me that it would probably fall victim to such a rule - not that I'm saying it would be illegal or, really, has a good chance of being repealed, but merely that it could never be duplicated.

I could count at least 20 passed resolutions this would rule out. Is this to form a new ruling?Like I said, this is a brainstorming session here. Nothing's set in stone (although the Ideo ban is getting there).

Because there are plenty of mild resolutions, that don't necessarily change anything. It is perfectly legal not to incorporate one single letter of "IT Education Act" into national law, and still be in compliance.Hm. Hadn't thought of that. I'll have to rethink this. It's certainly not my intention to ban mild Proposals. However, you have to admit that the IT Education Initiative is crap.

Of course, I'm seeing the IT Education Initiative as an argument for this interpretation. I'd far prefer to see Resolutions that do something as opposed to fluff. And it's ramparts.

But this goes further. What about nations who no longer use fossil fuels, or who had already given up biological weaponry?Use, the Hack uses cold microfusion and has flying cars. We've also got massive underground superconductors that are powered by massive fusion plants hundreds of miles away from popuated areas. Those same superconductors also power atto-pulse laser defence grids. Then again, I also used a SaturnV rocket to send up the stuff for my colony on Mercury.

So, yeah, there's some of us who wouldn't be affected by some of these Resolutions. A fantasy-based nation could easily ignore most of the Resolutions as they don't apply. But as I often had to tell DLE, every Proposal doesn't have to apply to every nations; just most.

So I'm not sure how fair it is to base this off stat effects.Again, it's like a court using the "Reasonable Man" theory. Of course a hyperadvanced race that is made up of pure energy isn't going to give a rip about abortion rights, but that doesn't mean I should delete every Proposal dealing with abortion rights.

I also, I have to say, disagree with your assessment that Representation in Taxation is "iffy". I think it's by some way the most "legal" blocker (much more so than National Systems of Tax was) because it forms a very clear set of recommendations, about political representation influencing tax systems.Yes, but it only lays out recommendations. Again, easily ignored and forces nothing.

BELIEVING that chopped up hotdogs taste good when mixed with baked beans

ENCOURAGES people to add chopped up hotdogs to their baked beans

URGES that no more than one (1) hotdog be added per twelve (12) oz. of beans

RECOMMENDS that this dish be referred to in one of the following ways:
1) Beanie Weanies
2) Frank-n-beans
3) The Ole' Scrampton

Idiocy aside, this does about as much as Rep in Tax. It even sets aside recommendations on what it should be called. Don't get me wrong, I like Rep in Tax, but I don't think it actively does anything. Just like there's so many rubbish Environmental Resolutions that are so riddled with loopholes that they're worthless, Rep in Tax is so spineless that it has no teeth. It does nothing.

Except stop anybody from doing anything.

Nuclear Armaments and UNSA set out national rights, but didn't take a position on what nations should do, but simply on what the UN shouldn't doRight. And before NA and UNSA, what was the UN's position on nuclear weapons? That it was for nations to decide. Nothing changed.

I recall someone (Pallatium, I think) arguing it should have been deleted as an Ideological Ban on dictatorships, amusingly.I'd say something like "well, you'll find idiots all over the place", but that would be mean.

I guess that means my proposal is simply and utterly illegal still.Nothing has changed (yet). If it was illegal before, it's still illegal. That's why this got its own thread as opposed to me changing the binding rules.

Which means that anything to do with a very domestic issue will have to rely on the Nations standing firm. As 'Nat.Sov.' is not an arguable concept in the eyes of many I'm deeply worried, how long before a resolution starts saying 'A nation must put aside x% of their budget for...'?Huh? I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here. I don't see how you're going from NatSov to mandating hard percentages. I understand the individual words, but the syntax is... lacking.

Are proposals that define concepts 'doing something'?If they only define, I don't see how they're doing anything. If Websters puts "a really good thing" in their definition to slavery, does that suddenly make slavery good?

'Definition of Dangerous Weapons'
'A weapon is any object that is primarily used to cause damage to another person or object. These can be broken down into firearms, blades, projectiles, bombs and incendary objects, and miscellaneous.' etc
Is it only legal if they then go on to ban or allow something?Why on earth should that be legal? A definition is part of a Proposal, not an entire Proposal. What would that accomplish? What would it do? How is that any different than me submitting a Proposal defining what a coffee mug is?

but pushing the "must do" something too strongly will have a significant potential to not only break the fourth wall, but suspension of disbelief in the belief of many that NS is actually more than just a numbers crunching game.I think you're overreacting here. When was the last time your local council passed a law saying something it couldn't do? Constitutions and Charters list what bodies can't do. Laws list what subjects can't do. This isn't breaking the 4th wall, it's an attempt to make the UN act like a legislative body.

Playing "guess the mechanic" is clearly not the pastime of most of the proposers of UN resolutions. So the notion of "doing something" is generally thought of in the abstract.Really? We've deleted Proposals for not doing anything for quite some time now. The question here is: "Does blocking future law count as 'doing something'?" Save the Forests of the World is a good example of a Resolution that doesn't do anything. If it were submitted today, it would be deleted, and the telegram would read something like this: "UN Proposals require more than just rhetoric," which is a fancy way of saying "Proposals must do something".

Forming a gnome committee is, in the minds of most, "doing something."And the rules already outlaw Proposals that do nothing more than set up committees.

Because forming a committee doesn't do anything.

Often ironcially the doing something is the last thing on the minds of the proposers. Yes a few people actually propose free trade resolutions (for example) just to see the universal bump or drop in one game stat, but the most common reason is that it just feels like the right thing to do.Yeah, and look at what "feels right" has gotten us:

Education for All
DVD region removal
Proposal limits
Search Function
Secretary General
Resolution 245A Proper Grammar
Knowledge of Own Country
Reduction of Needed Approvals
Protect Historical Sites
Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning
World Heritage List
HIPPOS ARE BIG
HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE
Rights of Minorities and Women

And so on. Just because it "feels good" doesn't mean it's good law.

Do you realy want the monthly death matches with violent debates in the forum to repeal the abortion resolution du jour followed by the insane attempt to get ASAP by both sides the replacement proposal in first so as to trump the other?Yes, spirited debate will certainly be the death of this organization. You want to try that argument again?

I might note that ACL hasn't had a repeal attempt even get close. Perhaps your prediction of death matches isn't quite accurate.

I'm all in favor of a high standard to UN Resolutions. I'm not in favor of trying to ensure that every UN Resolution has a game stat changing effectThey already do have a stat chenging effect. That's why I want the text of the Proposal to represent that. I want the to be proactive as opposed to essays about teh fluffy bunniez.

when most of us don't know the inner workings of UN Resolution to UN Gnome Action and frankly really don't want to know.You don't need to know the exact effects, and I never said that you did. Are you sure you're reading the same thread I am?

Tighten the requirements too severely and you will see a number of people vote with their feet. This game is supposed to be fun. When it's no longer fun I will no longer be in the UN. And I'm sure I am not alone. No FUN, means no UN.Yes, yes. You must forgive me here, but I hear people threatening to leave every single time a rule changes or a mechanic changes. Oddly enough, we continue to thrive and grow. If you want to convince me of your standpoint, please leave the threats and hyperbole elsewhere.

You may want to read UNSA again, Hacky baby. Check out the first active clause. ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.Encourages, yes. Mandates, no.

Hey, lookie there. Sounds like doing something besides declaring nations have a particular right. As far as I can tell, Nuclear Armaments is the only "pure" blocker. All the others have a clause that does something to fit with the effects of the category.Yes, NA is a pure blocker, but UNSA isn't actually forcing anything. I'd say it could be ignored, but it's not even trying to force nations to do something; it's forcing the UN to not do something.

[Side Note]Hmmm...what if Nuclear Armaments actually did do something to fit with the effects of the category? If the resolution, by guaranteeing nations a right that was under attack by other proposal writers, did improve international security to some degree, then it would fit with the category.This is pretty shakey ground. Rather like proving something doesn't exist.

Does a clause need to take away national sovereignty to fit the statistical effect?Sort of. This is the UN after all. The FAQ states that the point of the UN is to make other people do what you think they should. All Resolutions therefore infringe upon national sovereignty, it's just that some do so in a way that it acceptable to the NatSov movement. The most recent Enviro Resolution is an example. It forces nations to do something, but most NatSovs don't mind because it forces action that is global in scope. It's still saying that nations can't do certain things though. Blockers are saying the UN can't do something. That's completely different.

It urges nations to do something specific, but as we all know the urging isn't a mandatory clause and therefore doesn't really do anything. There are a number of other resolutions that do this.Yes, and I am torn on this. I don't like cutting so deep, but I also don't like Resolutions that don't do anything.

The problem is getting roleplay (text of the resolution) and game mechanics (stat changes caused by category and strength) to correlate properly. That has often been a hard line to draw. Lots of gray areas.[/Side Note]I'll agree that this is a problem. And while NatSov, in and of itself, isn't a problem, it is the most concrete example of that problem. The people that want the UN to control everything are less likely to write Proposals that block the UN, after all.

As far as changing the resting state of the UN, I don't see that by itself being a particularly good standard. "Rights and Duties" was not a resolution that really changed anything.Fris is gonna kill me, but Rights and Duties isn't really law either. Personally, I think it would be great if that was yanked out and turned into the Charter for the NS UN. Not only would it be something to slap newbies with when they confuse the RL UN with the NS UN, but it would put that where it really belongs. It's a good piece of work, but it's really not law.

And if you don't think "Representation in Taxation" changed anything (and I actually agree with Gruen that it does), so what? We can't directly alter tax rates via UN resolutions anyway (unless y'all start handing out more info on what exactly the stat changes are for each category and strength so we can add the correct tax rate change to the text of the resolution) for game mechanics reasons.So... Rep in Tax should be deleted as a Game Mechanics violation, just like a Proposal called "Preventing The UN From Forming An Army" would be?

I could roll with that.

Making sure that the text of the resolution does something to justify the statistical effects of the category...well of course.So, we're arguing on if blockers actually do something then? Well, that's progress.

It's not that I disagree, it's that I look at some really good non-NatSov resolutions and I wonder. The one that strikes me the most is UNR #49, Rights and Duties, which is one of the (if not the) most referenced resolutions and often noted as being the closest thing we have to a charter. It seems to me that it would probably fall victim to such a rule - not that I'm saying it would be illegal or, really, has a good chance of being repealed, but merely that it could never be duplicated.I agree, and like I said, Rights and Duties should be moved from being a Resolution and turned into a Charter that you could click to see from the UN page.

First, can I just deal with the argument about "the purpose of the UN".

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)
...
UN resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on a particular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, or whatever.[/QUOTE]
These two sections are the ones that are most commonly used to justify the idea that the whole purpose of the UN is to meddle. But I don't see that. My vision of the rest of the world is of strong, diverse nations with plenty of rights to self-government, who agree to disagree on some areas, form common policy on others, and work together towards international aims the rest of the time. Is that vision any less valid than someone who wants to create a UN free market, a UN communist superpower, a UN mutual defence pact? Because I don't see, from the FAQ, why national rights are necessarily excluded. I see how it rules out non-compliance...but not something like Abortion Legality Convention, or UNSA, or Rep in Tax.

I admit the second section (less often quoted) looks more damaging to the sovereigntist argument, but I still don't see it like that. Abortion Legality Convention brought nations into line on abortion: that line was "do what you want and don't bother other nations about it". So I don't see why the purpose of the UN should be presumed to be inherently anti-sovereigntist.

Yes, but [Representation in Taxation] only lays out recommendations. Again, easily ignored and forces nothing.
And I don't have a problem with that. The UN can't decide everything for nations, and I don't have a problem with resolutions that are solely recommendations or encouragements. I'm not sure how that measures up to existing legal examples, but there is nothing wrong with an organization issuing a statement of principle, without any particular force to that.

Why would we want definition only resolutions? To set a UN standard, which could then be used in various other resolutions. Say, I used the weapons example again, and further defined 'dirty', nuclear and biological weapons as opposed to ordinary incendary devices.
These are already defined in the relevant resolutions, but might have left something out...ooc: and I've forgotten where I'm going with this so forget I even exist.

If 'RIghts and Duties' is going to be converted from a resolution into our Charter, how about adding a section on how the UN is funded? I suggest saying that this is just though national dues that get renegotiated annually, plus any charges for specific services that are mentioned in the relevant resolutions, and incorporating the 'UN Taxation Ban' resolution into it as well...

Personally I think that the ideological ban should remain, because there are those who would use it's non-existense to outright ban systems. I know I for one would be first in line with my resignation forms if political and economic systems were banned.

That said, the moderators have done a fine job of screening out bad proposals (at least as far as I know) and so it wouldn't hurt to loosen the restrictions to a point as long as full bans are still illegal. Now I know the problem with this, "what is to be considered to much" or people complaining that the moderators deleted their posts when they weren't in violation of the rules. And yes, it would be a judgement call on their part, but I do trust they will be fair and unbiased (to the point that any human can be).

Perhaps for posts that the moderators are iffy about, they could remove and allow the author to contact them to try and work out what the concerns with it are.

This is of course if you really wish to change the rules, really the other option would be to leave it alone and/or remove the democratic advancemene category.


Peace and Long Life

I think you're overreacting here. When was the last time your local council passed a law saying something it couldn't do? Constitutions and Charters list what bodies can't do. Laws list what subjects can't do. This isn't breaking the 4th wall, it's an attempt to make the UN act like a legislative body.

Really? We've deleted Proposals for not doing anything for quite some time now. The question here is: "Does blocking future law count as 'doing something'?" Save the Forests of the World is a good example of a Resolution that doesn't do anything. If it were submitted today, it would be deleted, and the telegram would read something like this: "UN Proposals require more than just rhetoric," which is a fancy way of saying "Proposals must do something".

Because forming a committee doesn't do anything.

The basic problem is that you want the UN to "do something". More than that, though, you want it to "do something" in the strong sense of the phrase.

Let's take a simple example that's easy to illustrate.

You're taking a walk in the park and you see someone throw their trash on the ground. Some people would just shake their heads or make a comment to themselves and go on. Some people would say something to the person to the effect that they should really use a trash can. Some people would start a community clean-up. Some people would force them to pick it up right then.

Which one is doing something? I'd say they're all doing something. The first group of people are taking a hands-off "it's not my job to tell this guy what to do" approach. The second group is letting him know what the right thing to do is. The third group is taking constructive action to get rid of the person's waste. The fourth group is forcing him to deal with his own waste.

Encourages, yes. Mandates, no.

So? Is encouraging not an action?

Yes, NA is a pure blocker, but UNSA isn't actually forcing anything. I'd say it could be ignored, but it's not even trying to force nations to do something; it's forcing the UN to not do something.

If it's forcing the UN to not do something, I'd say that's definitly doing something, same as if I forced my brother to never drink alcohol.

Sort of. This is the UN after all. The FAQ states that the point of the UN is to make other people do what you think they should.

No it does not. Do I need to quote it for you?

Blockers are saying the UN can't do something. That's completely different.

Blockers don't say that the UN can't do something, as you claim. If you recall, explicit statements in resolutions prohibiting future action by the UN are illegal. What blockers do is take advantage of the rule against contradiction to keep an opposing political position from effecting their changes.

One can write a resolution to make sure gays have the right to marriages to prevent conservatives from making it illegal. One can write a resolution to make the possession of nuclear weapons by nations legal to prevent peacenik folks from making it illegal. It's just using the rules to accomplish a political goal. Sometimes the political goal is to stop people from using the UN to oppress people. Sometimes the political goal is to stop people from interfering with a nation's military capability.

Yes, and I am torn on this. I don't like cutting so deep, but I also don't like Resolutions that don't do anything.

Right. It's not an easy question.

Something you might consider is that in, as the FAQ says, using our "chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision," it's quite possible to use the UN to mold the world to a vision wherein the UN takes a strong and practical stand on international issues and only makes practical recommendations on domestic issues.

I'll agree that this is a problem. And while NatSov, in and of itself, isn't a problem, it is the most concrete example of that problem. The people that want the UN to control everything are less likely to write Proposals that block the UN, after all.

I disagree. The rule against contradiction makes every proposal a block on the UN's future legislative power so long as it has not been repealed. The truth is that people that want the UN to control everything are only less likely to to write proposals with the intent of blocking the UN. There's your real difference. Intent.

Fris is gonna kill me, but Rights and Duties isn't really law either. Personally, I think it would be great if that was yanked out and turned into the Charter for the NS UN. Not only would it be something to slap newbies with when they confuse the RL UN with the NS UN, but it would put that where it really belongs. It's a good piece of work, but it's really not law.

This is interesting. As I recall, 'Rights and Duties of UN States" was made law in all member nations.*

So... Rep in Tax should be deleted as a Game Mechanics violation, just like a Proposal called "Preventing The UN From Forming An Army" would be?

Not at all. RiT didn't try to change anyone's taxes (that I can remember), it just encouraged nations to make sure taxes were decided as representatively as possible. It advocated a kind of political mechanism for addressing taxation, not a change in tax rates themselves. If it had addressed the tax rates themselves it would have run into a game mechanics violation.

So, we're arguing on if blockers actually do something then? Well, that's progress.

I'm arguing that blockers already have to do something unless they want to run into a category violation. What I'm saying, when you get down to it, is that we already have mechanisms in place to ensure that legislation has to actually "do something".

I agree, and like I said, Rights and Duties should be moved from being a Resolution and turned into a Charter that you could click to see from the UN page.

An interesting idea.

I think you're overreacting here. When was the last time your local council passed a law saying something it couldn't do? Constitutions and Charters list what bodies can't do. Laws list what subjects can't do. This isn't breaking the 4th wall, it's an attempt to make the UN act like a legislative body.

Actually they do it all the time. I can give a number of generic examples from the United States, specifically the various states of the United States as an example. Balanced Budget regulations - typically placed as amendments into constitutions and charters only because it makes it harder to repeal - are the best example.

A constitution or charter is really no different than any other legislation with the exception that it is a part of a heirarchical system where some legislation is harder to approve/amend/repeal than others. NSUN has a system where there is only one resolution type, it cannot be amended and only repealed.

You can't make the UN act like a legislative body, because the rules are too simple. Real legislative bodies lay motions on the table, hide motions in committees, make tons of amdendments, filibuster, and above all spend most of their time making resolutions that literally do nothing. (Most are just statements that express a common wish, or proclaim another day in honor of some person or event.)

Let's remember that once we break that fourth wall this game gets resolution wise depressing quick. Consider that there is no cause on heaven or on earth that can decrease a nation's population. Neither war, nor famine, nor disease, nor exploding suns can so much as wound the population growth of all the nations in the UN. From a game mechanic perspective saving lives DOES NOTHING.

So, my argument is that when we mean that a resolution must DO SOMETHING, it must do something from a practical, if not game mechanic perspective. If we create a resolution that prevents deaths due to weather, or weapons of war then the resolution did something even if that something cannot be directly implemented as a game mechanic. We have to assume that the NS game mechanic is the bare minimum of the possible do somethings and not the strict limiter of the possibledo somethings.

Forming a committee for the sake of forming a committee does nothing. Forming a committee for the sake of performing a definite action that forms a clear an obvious good does something even if it doesn't have an obvious in game stat effect. That's my argument. Banning land mines, for example does something. Preventing deaths due to toxic waste does something. Note well that every issue has two sides. Preventing one side is in effect promoting the opposite effect.

Now in the middle of all this is the ALC, which I maintain is an agreement to disagree. That is why it hasn't been repealed because both sides can agree to disagree. No one wants to beat the dead horse again. Pro-choice people are afraid that the UN could easily make any abortion illegal ... consider the murder and manslaughter resolution that has a plethora of pages in the thread, as an example of a example of how such a resolution might be pushed. Pro-life people were afraid that a stronger abortion law would be passed in the wake of the repeal. And most people realize that the happy medium would be shot at from both sides.

Without the ALC I guarentee that the pro-choice resolution next on the queue would have passed only to see a repeal resolution get quorum before the week was out. We would have been debating this issue non stop for at least six months. People would have left the UN simply because of the tone of the debates, because most people feel passionately about this issue in real life, and that can cause problems in any game setting.

Personally I feel that some topics, like abortion, require the same blanket "delete them all" as ideological bans ... but I'm not a mod. Like forcing democrary, forcing abortions should be a no no, but it's not so we made it a ... if you can get the majority to repeal then fine but otherwise ... no no.

Now in the middle of all this is the ALC, which I maintain is an agreement to disagree. That is why it hasn't been repealed because both sides can agree to disagree. No one wants to beat the dead horse again.

Bad assumption, but that's not for this thread

Bad assumption, but that's not for this thread

Then why not start another thread addressing it instead of posting in this one? I have the feeling the discussion in such a thread would be...enlightening.

Then why not start another thread addressing it instead of posting in this one? I have the feeling the discussion in such a thread would be...enlightening.

Because I have other demons that need to be dealt with before I can commit to a campaign.

Blockers are infuriating, cynical and counter to the UN's stated purpose.

We should definitely keep them.

Blockers are infuriating, cynical and counter to the UN's stated purpose.

We should definitely keep them.

What he said. :D

Originally Posted by Krioval, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite posters,
As for ideological bans, I agree that egregious ones are silly. At the same time, prostitution is legal by UN resolution. Thus, governments opposed to legal prostitution are effectively screwed if they want to join the UN - either their government's position needs to change or they need to stay out of the UN until the resolution in question is repealed. So there is already a weak form of exclusion ongoing..This item in post 35 caught my attention as I read over this and see it as a common problem that gives rise to so called blocker resolutions. In that many thing that once something is legal that it means we all have to run out and do it without regards to how we feel about the issue. Here they talk about prostitution bur it might well be abortion or euthanasia or capital punishment or whatever.. IF the resolution only says it lega then and their is no clause in that resolution to define the issue down to exact details then each nation has every right to place limits and restrictions on that issue bases on how they see it.

An example is owning a gun.. As in most nations this is legal but one can't go out and buy one to kill their mother-in-law or wifes lover. As nations still have the right to place limits on even things that are legal.. Trouble is from what have seen in the arguements over euthanasia and abortion and others since have been here many think that simply making it legal means we have to do it and can't control or regulate it. Thus a lot of the trouble comes in folks just not understanding that it may be legal but.... can be regulated.. Also many seek to add things in that others feel don't apply to the issue.. an example is to place age limits on euthanasia in regards to who is is applied to.. while I'd not consider age an issue just the mental and physical health of the patient, thus conflict here comes up..

Also see that most believe the UN needs to take a stand one way of the other on an issue and can not remain neutral on it... this to me only gives rises to splits in the UN and not unity... as some issues are just that strong with neither side willing to bend toward the middle. Thus the UN must remain neutral yet needs to address the issue and let membership know it has debated the issue and is neutral on it not left or right on it.

As have not finished reading this track will try to later and may add some more then.. also forgive me if I'm behind on this as weather prevented the carrier pigions from getting here in a timely manner so just now getting parts of this...

This is my issue with blockers. No one disagrees UN members has a right to legislate for themselves on issues, thus any resolution which comes along to reiterate this belief will no doubt be passed and in itself there is nothing wrong that. However sometimes one needs to look beyond what resolutions say and try to understand its intent or agenda. This type of legislation while speaking of unity and bringing the UN together has at its core its own agenda being the agenda of the authors themselves. In essence blocker legislation is no more pro-sovereignty than any other legislation as our right to disagree or agree on certain topics has been effectively removed. Our sovereignty to exercise our beliefs in international law removed.

Yes we have division on certain topics and yes we may continue to do so. However considering the game is biased towards the belief of the players we will always have division. There simply is no way to bring so many thousands of players together and expect no division on contentious issues. Don’t get me wrong, I share the frustration of seeing the same old arguments over and over again, but since the game is in itself an extension of RL the issues don’t lie with the game, they lie with us. Within the construct of NS players see an opportunity to put right what they find wrong in RL. It is a playground for us to work out RL issues, form opinions and have them challenged. That in my experience is the enduring strength of the game, its ability to empower individuals to do what they feel is right and have an opportunity to influence matters they otherwise feel unable to in RL.