NationStates Jolt Archive

PLEASE READ AND IF YOU AGREE THAT JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE, GIVE YOUR APPROVAL TO THIS WORTHY PROPOSITION.


Court of International Law
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Chris and Ela

Description: WHEREAS it is fully recognized that the purpose of this organization is to promote peace, prosperity and uphold the freedoms and rights of all peoples.

IT IS WITH REGRET that it has been noticed that many nations, UN members and delegates amongst them, blatantly advertise their irresponsible flouting of UN resolutions including, but not restricted to; murder; torture; sexual discrimination and other human rights issues.

IT IS PROPOSED THAT a court be set up on neutral territory (the forum) whereby any single nation may accuse any other nation of violation of a specific UN resolution, solely based upon the accused nation's description.

The court may be presided over by any single UN delegate from The Pacific regions, or if none are available, any UN delegate from a region that has in excess of 200 nations at the start of the trial. No judge may preside over his own trial.

The trial must take place, for all the world to see, by way of argument and counter-argumeent until such time that the judge decides to make a ruling.

Should the judge rule against the accused, the judge will decide upon the amount of time the nation has to reverse the violation.

Failure to comply will result in censure

Illegal, metagaming, game mechanics, giving more moderation workload, giving responsibilities to players that don't even visit the forums (bloody stupid), giving responsibilities to sets of regions that generally lean NatSov (bloody stupid), committee violations, ignoring of the Gnomes, forced RP, godmodding, etc

The first two are definite illegal points.

Translation: the court will have to be staffed by gnomes - you can't specify who will sit on it (although you could say they have to have degrees in law, be fluent in two languages, or something like that...probably).

You can't mention the forums - that would count as metagaming. Better to state they will simply be located at the UN headquarters, or to not even mention that.

Also, the court's powers aren't really defined here.

As a complete newbie, I accept that this draft legislation may need tweaking, however the basic premise that nations should not be allowed to ignore UN legislation stands.

I can understand Gruenbergs concern, in his nation "Its hard-nosed, hard-working, cynical population of 1.621 billion are rabid consumers, partly through choice and partly because the government tells them to and dissenters tend to vanish from their homes at night." which is likely to bring him before the court.

I'm afraid I have no idea who gnomes are, but I attempted to design this legislation to be self-governing so that it would not require any moderation.

I am not quite sure how mentioning the forums is so taboo when beneath each resolution it states "Debate this issue in the UN forum!" I do not understand how legislation me be debated in the forums, but breaking of the legislation may not.

Forgottenlands ( public profile: "children are brainwashed at a young age" )points seem like the rantings of a grumpy old man. He suggests this legislation is illegal because.......it is illegal - hmmm good logic that.

Dealing with his other points:

"metagaming, game mechanics, giving more moderation workload" - I believe I have already addressed these points.

"giving responsibilities to players that don't even visit the forums (bloody stupid)," - I am not suggesting that anyone should be forced to act as judge - merely offering a pool from which judges may be drawn.

"giving responsibilities to sets of regions that generally lean NatSov (bloody stupid)," - hmmm. When was the last time you questioned the politics of a judge. In the country where I was born, judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor - itself a political appointment. Politics should not come into Law.

"committee violations" - I need further explanation on this point

"ignoring of the Gnomes" - who are these people - perhaps they are so small I just don't notice them.

"forced RP" - not really, just making nations accountable for their policies that are in breach of international law.

"godmodding" - eh?

Finally, Gruenberg states "Also, the court's powers aren't really defined here" and I agree. I was attempting to design a piece of legislation that did not require any changes to games mechanics. Remember, the principle purpose of the legislation is to bring nations' policies into line with International law - not to punish them.

However where there are flagrant breaches of International Law, I was hoping that over time the judges would come up with suitable imaginitive rulings within the confines of NS that would do the trick.

As I said at the beginning, I fully accept that this resolution may need a great deal of improvement, but I stand by the fact that it is not only necessary, but vital. There are liteally billions of people suffering out there!!

As a complete newbie, I accept that this draft legislation may need tweaking, however the basic premise that nations should not be allowed to ignore UN legislation stands.
Yes, and this is already the case, by default.

I can understand Gruenbergs concern, in his nation "Its hard-nosed, hard-working, cynical population of 1.621 billion are rabid consumers, partly through choice and partly because the government tells them to and dissenters tend to vanish from their homes at night." which is likely to bring him before the court.
That's a default description for all Compulsory Consumerist States. Would you like to direct me to which resolutions Gruenberg has actually violated?

I am not quite sure how mentioning the forums is so taboo when beneath each resolution it states "Debate this issue in the UN forum!" I do not understand how legislation me be debated in the forums, but breaking of the legislation may not.
It can be. However, you may not mandate or even mention forum activity in proposals. There is a difference between a meta page of the game site, and resolution text.

Forgottenlands ( public profile: "children are brainwashed at a young age" )points seem like the rantings of a grumpy old man. He suggests this legislation is illegal because.......it is illegal - hmmm good logic that.
Well it is illegal. If you'd spent two seconds looking at the rules, you'd have realized that.

"metagaming, game mechanics, giving more moderation workload" - I believe I have already addressed these points.
No, you haven't. You've said they shouldn't exist - well, ok - but for now, they do exist. Go to the Technical forum or the Proposal Rules commentary thread, and argue for them to be changed there. Ignoring them in a proposal is pointless.

"giving responsibilities to players that don't even visit the forums (bloody stupid)," - I am not suggesting that anyone should be forced to act as judge - merely offering a pool from which judges may be drawn.
There is an automatic pool - the "gnomes" who sit on all committees. People can still roleplay being on committees, but proposals can't specify committee members. Furthermore, the Pacific delegates are poor choices. They're far from unbiased, as they have their own interests to protect, they have poor records of UN involvement, and they have many other things to take care of.

"committee violations" - I need further explanation on this point
Read the rules. They make it clear you can't specify who sits on the committees.

"ignoring of the Gnomes" - who are these people - perhaps they are so small I just don't notice them.
They're a manifestation of the idea that compliance is already mandatory.

"forced RP" - not really, just making nations accountable for their policies that are in breach of international law.
Which is forced RP. Not everyone wants to RP on the forums.

As I said at the beginning, I fully accept that this resolution may need a great deal of improvement, but I stand by the fact that it is not only necessary, but vital. There are liteally billions of people suffering out there!!
Who are not protected by the Humanitarian Intervention proposal...why? Why would be protected by a court with no powers whatsoever...why?

This proposal needs massive improving. I suggest you look over the failed ICJ proposal, and work off that.

Quote:
As a complete newbie, I accept that this draft legislation may need tweaking, however the basic premise that nations should not be allowed to ignore UN legislation stands.

Yes, and this is already the case, by default.


I do not agree. For example, the nation, The Nuke Builders of Look at me with a population of 7.282 billion has a stated policy of "poets and writers are regularly rounded up and shot for entertainment" which seems to be in direct contravention to Resolution 26, The Universal Bill of Rights, Articles 4, 5 & 6.

Now this seems to me to be a cause for alarm. Please explain to me how the default is working here.

Quote:
I can understand Gruenbergs concern, in his nation "Its hard-nosed, hard-working, cynical population of 1.621 billion are rabid consumers, partly through choice and partly because the government tells them to and dissenters tend to vanish from their homes at night." which is likely to bring him before the court.

That's a default description for all Compulsory Consumerist States. Would you like to direct me to which resolutions Gruenberg has actually violated?


Well he appears to be violating Resolution 26, Articles 4, 5 & 6 - but I could not pass judgement -- that is for the courts

Quote:
I am not quite sure how mentioning the forums is so taboo when beneath each resolution it states "Debate this issue in the UN forum!" I do not understand how legislation me be debated in the forums, but breaking of the legislation may not.

It can be. However, you may not mandate or even mention forum activity in proposals. There is a difference between a meta page of the game site, and resolution text.


OK - I accept that

I do not agree. For example, the nation, The Nuke Builders of Look at me with a population of 7.282 billion has a stated policy of "poets and writers are regularly rounded up and shot for entertainment" which seems to be in direct contravention to Resolution 26, The Universal Bill of Rights, Articles 4, 5 & 6.

Now this seems to me to be a cause for alarm. Please explain to me how the default is working here.
Right. There's nothing in the game that makes UN nations answer issues in accordance with UN resolutions. Anything to do with that would be a games mechanics issue.

However, in roleplay on the forums, players are generally expected to comply.

Have you read the stickied post on compliance? It might help you understand.

Well he appears to be violating Resolution 26, Articles 4, 5 & 6 - but I could not pass judgement -- that is for the courts
Bear in mind, that description is an automatic function I am powerless to change. If I have low political freedoms, medium personal freedoms, high economic freedoms, then that description appears. And there is nothing in UN law that states I can't have those freedom levels.

What you don't understand is that the creation of an "International Court" has been pushed aside many times. Several groups have tried to put together an independant International Court and they have failed. many UN Nations, as well as non-UN Nations, have stated their intentions that they DO NOT WANT an International Court. It's just something that goes against the very premise of this game.

I'm not saying an International Court is impossible: I'm just saying this one is illegal.

Quote:
Forgottenlands ( public profile: "children are brainwashed at a young age" )points seem like the rantings of a grumpy old man. He suggests this legislation is illegal because.......it is illegal - hmmm good logic that.

Well it is illegal. If you'd spent two seconds looking at the rules, you'd have realized that.

Sheesh! Same logic. It is illegal because it is illegal. This is not useful debate. I disagree. Now persuade me.

I've already pointed out that mandating forum is illegal. You agreed with me. Now you're saying it's not illegal?

Furthermore, having a court to rule on non-compliance is likely to be deemed illegal, because in the game's eyes, compliance is automatic.

Quote:
"metagaming, game mechanics, giving more moderation workload" - I believe I have already addressed these points.

No, you haven't. You've said they shouldn't exist - well, ok - but for now, they do exist. Go to the Technical forum or the Proposal Rules commentary thread, and argue for them to be changed there. Ignoring them in a proposal is pointless.


Pardon me? Where did I say that? I actually said, "I attempted to design this legislation to be self-governing so that it would not require any moderation." and later "I was attempting to design a piece of legislation that did not require any changes to games mechanics."

Pardon me? Where did I say that? I actually said, "I attempted to design this legislation to be self-governing so that it would not require any moderation." and later "I was attempting to design a piece of legislation that did not require any changes to games mechanics."

He already said how it was illegal. It's called "Meta-gaming" and it can be found in the Rules for UN Proposals[Now Binding] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) thread.


MetaGaming

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


Creating Stuff

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


Optionality

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

Quote:
"giving responsibilities to players that don't even visit the forums (bloody stupid)," - I am not suggesting that anyone should be forced to act as judge - merely offering a pool from which judges may be drawn.

There is an automatic pool - the "gnomes" who sit on all committees. People can still roleplay being on committees, but proposals can't specify committee members. Furthermore, the Pacific delegates are poor choices. They're far from unbiased, as they have their own interests to protect, they have poor records of UN involvement, and they have many other things to take care of

If you are saying there is already a pool of right-thinking people who would be willing to act as judges - then fine. I am all for it.

Calling new members (it says that on the left) "bloody stupid" because they are unaware of all the intricacies of this organization will not encourage new members to participate.

oops! Apologies. That last rant should not have been aimed at you, but at forgottenlands

Quote:
"committee violations" - I need further explanation on this point

Read the rules. They make it clear you can't specify who sits on the committees.


What committee? I made no mention of a committee. God forbid that we should judge nations by committee.

Quote:
"ignoring of the Gnomes" - who are these people - perhaps they are so small I just don't notice them.

They're a manifestation of the idea that compliance is already mandatory.


If that was true, then there would be some method of dealing with nations that flout the rules.

Ok, I don't think you understand, so I'm going to tootle off. As I said, if you read the proposal rules and the consolidated UN sticky, especially the post on compliance, you may get a better understanding of what we're talking about.

Quote:
"forced RP" - not really, just making nations accountable for their policies that are in breach of international law.

Which is forced RP. Not everyone wants to RP on the forums.


You are just using semantics to argue against me. At one level the whole game of NS is a role playing game.

If you are saying there is already a pool of right-thinking people who would be willing to act as judges - then fine. I am all for it.

Calling new members (it says that on the left) "bloody stupid" because they are unaware of all the intricacies of this organization will not encourage new members to participate.

I'm not calling your proposal bloody stupid. That's the actual rule violation it would fall under.

I will get to the rest in a second

Chris and Ela,
Please do not take these criticisms personally or think that they are directed at your Proposal specifically. If you look around the forums, you will see innumerable Proposals being given similar treatment. Many new members of this game do not take the time to run them by the Forum before Submitting and they end up being deleted by the Mods for rules violations, so good on you for taking this route.
That being said, the criticisms of your Proposal in this thread are not meant to be challenges to be taken up in a debate. Gruen and others are simply quoting the rules for UN Resolutions in the NationStates game to you. They are not picking on you or your Proposal, just like explaining the no-hands rule in soccer is not picking on a novice soccer player. The proposal you are drafting will not be allowed in its current form. If you Submit it as-is, it will be deleted by the Mods. For a detailed explanation of why it will be deleted, please read the "Rules for UN Proposals[Now Binding]" thread and take the time to understand what is written therein.
Once your Proposal is legal in format, I'm certain that we would all be willing to take a crack at critiquing it on it's in-game merits.

As a complete newbie, I accept that this draft legislation may need tweaking, however the basic premise that nations should not be allowed to ignore UN legislation stands.

The UN Gnomes, which run the compliance ministry, change national legislation automatically so that nations are in complete compliance and not ignoring any UN legislation.

I can understand Gruenbergs concern, in his nation "Its hard-nosed, hard-working, cynical population of 1.621 billion are rabid consumers, partly through choice and partly because the government tells them to and dissenters tend to vanish from their homes at night." which is likely to bring him before the court.

Gruen has, actually, never violated a single resolution. He just "forgets" to prosecute people.

I'm afraid I have no idea who gnomes are, but I attempted to design this legislation to be self-governing so that it would not require any moderation.

Um.....and how would punishment be applied? What was it....censoring them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would either be ejection (Game Mechanics) or forum ban (Metagaming) which, either way, requires Moderator action

I am not quite sure how mentioning the forums is so taboo when beneath each resolution it states "Debate this issue in the UN forum!" I do not understand how legislation me be debated in the forums, but breaking of the legislation may not.

Taboo, no. Illegal, yes. Metagaming violation: any issue where the resolution deals with something that's done on the forums is metagaming

Forgottenlands ( public profile: "children are brainwashed at a young age" )

Heh....I haven't looked at issues in over a year nor do I read my own description (nor, technically, is Forgottenlands strictly a member of the UN.....Forgottenlands UN holds that crown but that's besides the point - in which I note that neither nation have actually openly defied an UN resolution. Now, if you look at my third nation, Angel Fire, which is definitely not under the UN, that's a whole different issue.....

points seem like the rantings of a grumpy old man. He suggests this legislation is illegal because.......it is illegal - hmmm good logic that.

Well....it is. There's a thread on these forums saying "Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]" ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465 ). It has all the regulations regarding resolutions. Your proposal violates several of those rules, I suggest you go over it

Dealing with his other points:

Good to hear

"metagaming, game mechanics, giving more moderation workload" - I believe I have already addressed these points.

And I've responded

"giving responsibilities to players that don't even visit the forums (bloody stupid)," - I am not suggesting that anyone should be forced to act as judge - merely offering a pool from which judges may be drawn.

Find me just ONE from that pool that actually participates in the UN forum.

"giving responsibilities to sets of regions that generally lean NatSov (bloody stupid)," - hmmm. When was the last time you questioned the politics of a judge. In the country where I was born, judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor - itself a political appointment. Politics should not come into Law.

Yes, but he was appointed because he could be fair. Politics shouldn't but so often it is. It is even moreso this way when it is people who are not legal experts doing the job.

"committee violations" - I need further explanation on this point

Simple. You violated the rules of founding a committee (definition of a committee: any body of being that is a part of the UN infrastructure - from the UN Compliance ministry - AKA, Gnome central - to UNCoESB to any bloody court system we set up. They're all considered committees.

"ignoring of the Gnomes" - who are these people - perhaps they are so small I just don't notice them.

Cute

UN Gnomes were the RP incarnation to address the fact that compliance is mandatory but there seems no way to enforce it. Gnomes do enforce those resolutions (yes, they are an admitted and widely accepted form of godmodding because of the necessary task the accomplish) and are the RP embodiment of the UN Compliance ministry - changing your laws automatically and preventing them from contradicting passed UN resolutions.

"forced RP" - not really, just making nations accountable for their policies that are in breach of international law.

You're forcing them to not only recognize but participate in a court with an actual physical existance. That's forced RP

"godmodding" - eh?

Look it up

Finally, Gruenberg states "Also, the court's powers aren't really defined here" and I agree. I was attempting to design a piece of legislation that did not require any changes to games mechanics. Remember, the principle purpose of the legislation is to bring nations' policies into line with International law - not to punish them.

Um......how?

However where there are flagrant breaches of International Law, I was hoping that over time the judges would come up with suitable imaginitive rulings within the confines of NS that would do the trick.

Already done. They're called the UN Gnomes

As I said at the beginning, I fully accept that this resolution may need a great deal of improvement, but I stand by the fact that it is not only necessary, but vital. There are liteally billions of people suffering out there!!

That's nice

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

I do not agree. For example, the nation, The Nuke Builders of Look at me with a population of 7.282 billion has a stated policy of "poets and writers are regularly rounded up and shot for entertainment" which seems to be in direct contravention to Resolution 26, The Universal Bill of Rights, Articles 4, 5 & 6.

Now this seems to me to be a cause for alarm. Please explain to me how the default is working here.

You are confusing the realms of RP and Gameplay. Do you think invasions in an RP environment are done with taking over the delegacy? No. They're done by sending your armies in, crushing the opponent's leadership, executing his slaves, and enslaving his business people, etc. As such, the invasion game is done in the GAMEPLAY environment.

UN Resolutions are a rather humorous position insofar as we can't force people to follow them with their gameplay issues (and gameplay descriptions that you have so far quoted twice). However, we can require them to roleplay compliance.

So, what did we do, we changed how the entire resolution is crafted. The category and strength are gameplay considerations - they actually affect your gameplay stats. The title and body of the resolution are roleplay considerations. Roleplayed compliance is enforced by the Gnomes and claims otherwise are merely considered godmodding.

So yes, it is a default.

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

BTW, before I continue, as you're writing your responses to posts and need to quote several things, if you scroll down the page on the reply page, the most recent 15 posts are displayed.

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

If that was true, then there would be some method of dealing with nations that flout the rules.

The UN Gnomes go in and change the laws of the nation automatically and continuously so they remain in compliance.

Done, dealt with, NEXT!

Sheesh! :rolleyes:

I was brought in on the change program for the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) [many years ago now] and there were these guys we identified as "the men in grey suits" who were the old guard, seen it all before, "you can't tell me you young whippersnapper" who proved a block to all forms of progress.

I'm getting feelings of deja vu.

OK - let me try a different tack. Let me explain the thinking behind the resolution. I know nothing of RP here and am solely talking about gameplay.

I noticed that there are UN members, who from their descriptions appeared to have government policy that contravened UN resolutions.

Now you say, The UN Gnomes, which run the compliance ministry, change national legislation automatically so that nations are in complete compliance and not ignoring any UN legislation.


So I reply, if that is true, how is it that in The Excessively Free Green Lands of Yew Island (a UN member), for example, "leather-clad individuals can be seen walking their slaves in public parks" which appears to be in contravention of Resolution 6?

Now the government policy that led to that must have been as a result of an issue choice and thus this can be undone by making a different choice, which I hope answers your Quote:
Finally, Gruenberg states "Also, the court's powers aren't really defined here" and I agree. I was attempting to design a piece of legislation that did not require any changes to games mechanics. Remember, the principle purpose of the legislation is to bring nations' policies into line with International law - not to punish them.


Um......how?


Now if you are saying that it is not the government policy at fault, but just the public disobeying the laws (as suggested by your Gruen has, actually, never violated a single resolution. He just "forgets" to prosecute people

then I think I have just lost the will to live...........

OK - I give up.

Sheesh! :rolleyes:

I was brought in on the change program for the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) [many years ago now] and there were these guys we identified as "the men in grey suits" who were the old guard, seen it all before, "you can't tell me you young whippersnapper" who proved a block to all forms of progress.

I'm getting feelings of deja vu.

OK - let me try a different tack. Let me explain the thinking behind the resolution. I know nothing of RP here and am solely talking about gameplay.

I noticed that there are UN members, who from their descriptions appeared to have government policy that contravened UN resolutions.

Now you say,

So I reply, if that is true, how is it that in The Excessively Free Green Lands of Yew Island (a UN member), for example, "leather-clad individuals can be seen walking their slaves in public parks" which appears to be in contravention of Resolution 6?

Now the government policy that led to that must have been as a result of an issue choice and thus this can be undone by making a different choice, which I hope answers your

Now if you are saying that it is not the government policy at fault, but just the public disobeying the laws (as suggested by your

then I think I have just lost the will to live...........

OK - I give up.
I think you're misunderstanding the difference between roleplay and gameplay. (At this point, again, reading the stickied post on non-compliance would help.)

In gameplay terms, compliance is half mandatory - once a resolution passes, all UN members receive a stats change - and half non-mandatory - so I can answer daily issues however the hell I like. There is no mechanism for enforcing the latter, nor can there ever be (I assume - the mods have indicated such, at least). Now, you might say that allows nations to non-comply. But, one does not have to roleplay to play NS. So your proposal, which is a roleplay matter necessarily, could never apply to nations whose sole transgressions were in gameplay terms.

Now, roleplay. One could roleplay non-compliance: anything from outright declaring "I'm ignoring this resolution" to simply RPing one's nation as in violation - for example, RPing an absolute autocracy is technically in contravention of Resolution #8. Such proclamations are usually scorned or ignored, because in a sense, "you can't non-comply". If you choose to RP, then you are usually expected to RP with a degree of respect for the rules - which includes compliance. Which is not to say a well-done RP of non-compliance will be ignored - if people choose to recognise, good luck to them. That is the only instance where your proposal would apply. However, such instances are fairly rare.

So, it's a nice idea, but in all honesty, it's already been covered. It is part of the game rules that one cannot non-comply: people still do. As such, you can see that there would be problems with such players in all probability choosing to non-comply with your resolution...


Does this make things any clearer?

RP this kind of thing if you want, but it most certainly does not need a UN resolution. Nations are perfectly capable of responding to violations of UN rules and rulings (an example being the thread about smuggling drugs using hospital boats) on their own.

No.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the Superfluous-Proposal-Ridden United Nations

I was brought in on the change program for the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) [many years ago now] and there were these guys we identified as "the men in grey suits" who were the old guard, seen it all before, "you can't tell me you young whippersnapper"

I'm guessing I'm probably younger than you, so let's not have any of this old geezer crap

who proved a block to all forms of progress.

Um, no. You're thinking of the NSO which keeps reversing all the progress the UN has made in the area of human rights </partisan politics>

I also note that you attempted to show my and Gruen's words as meaningless because we have personal interests at stake, to which you were twice given the links to the rules that confirmed everything we've said about legality and referenced to the stickies that confirmed everything we said about the realm of roleplay. These are the rules that have been built for us. This is the box that we get to look at.

OOC: Seriously though, read the rules. You can't prosecute people for answering their issues counter to the UN. Think it through - there has to be a functional method of employing such rules. It doesn't exist. You'd have to hack their accounts and change it (Game Mechanics), or ban them (metagaming/game mechanics), or eject them (game mechanics). That includes censorship (both game mechanics and metagaming) and requiring them to participate on the forums (metagaming) if they wish to defend themselves (and actually view the forums if they wish to understand what's going on). This is why the UN Gnomes were invented and the seperation of gameplay and roleplay was put in place. Sheer necessity to implement what Max Barry handed us.

So I reply, if that is true, how is it that in The Excessively Free Green Lands of Yew Island (a UN member), for example, "leather-clad individuals can be seen walking their slaves in public parks" which appears to be in contravention of Resolution 6?Um... That's not actual forced-labor-type slavery. That's a reference to BDSM; the kinky-sexual-type slavery. It's most assuredly consenual.

Now that that little misunderstanding is taken care of, let me try to deal with your Proposal and some of your misunderstanding about how the game itself works.

WHEREAS it is fully recognized that the purpose of this organization is to promote peace, prosperity and uphold the freedoms and rights of all peoples.This is either confusion on your part or a Real World Violation. As the NationStates UN has no charter, its only purpose is to do whatever the hell its members want, within certain guidelines (which have been linked to earlier in this thread). Therefore, it is not "fully recognized". You could probably get away with "BELIEVING", though. Or something similarly subjective.

IT IS WITH REGRET that it has been noticed that many nations, UN members and delegates amongst them, blatantly advertise their irresponsible flouting of UN resolutions including, but not restricted to; murder; torture; sexual discrimination and other human rights issues.Metagaming Violation. The descriptions on a nation's National Spotlight created by issues. As issues exist in a separate "world" than the UN, they cannot be referenced by UN Proposals. Since there is no way to prevent UN/issue overlap, it must be ignored. We aren't going to change the issues based on UN Resolutions, and we're not going to delete existing Resolutions just because a new issue comes out (talk about ripe for abuse).

Last year, I brainstormed with the Admins and Sirocco to try and find a way to make it so that UN nations couldn't get issues that would let them violate UN Resolutions, but it was decided that it was just too difficult, time consuming, and impractical to do. There's really no way to do this without a monsterous amount of work (by the admins) every single time an issue is put in the game or a Resolution passes. This is a solid, unchangable limitation of the game itself. Nothing will be done to address this (for the reasons I just listed) and no UN Proposal can try to change that.

IT IS PROPOSED THAT a court be set up on neutral territory (the forum)Metagaming Violation. UN Proposals cannot mandate activity on the forum. Furthermore, this is also a format violation, as you technically aren't doing anything here. You're proposing that something be done, which is the whole point of a Proposal. It's kind of like writting a bill that says "Somebody should write a proposal about penguin abuse". Don't say it should be done; do it.

whereby any single nation may accuse any other nation of violation of a specific UN resolution, solely based upon the accused nation's description.More Metagaming. See reasons above, and the fact that it is entirely possible that someone answered an issue in that fashion before the Resolution passed. This is, essentially, breaking the fourth wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_wall). Think about it in real world terms: "We're going to war with China because their nation description page says they're violating UN Resolution #82."

The court may be presided over by any single UN delegate from The Pacific regions, or if none are available, any UN delegate from a region that has in excess of 200 nations at the start of the trial.More Metagaming. The "game side" portion of the game largely doesn't exist to the UN. Furthermore, nations don't sit on committees, panals, judiciaries, boards, or anything else.

The trial must take place, for all the world to see, by way of argument and counter-argumeent until such time that the judge decides to make a ruling.Not strictly illegal, but this is a terrible way to run a trial. It can end instantly or never, as written.

Should the judge rule against the accused, the judge will decide upon the amount of time the nation has to reverse the violation.Metagaming, Game Mechanics and, well, impossible. Up above, you mentioned the effects from an issue called "Whips And Chains And Leather, Oh My!". I recently received that issue, but before then, it had been over a year since I had gotten it before. As nations have absolutely no crontrol over what issues they receive, they have no way to address any "problem" within a certain time frame (aside from answering 4 unrelated issues to bump the offending line from the description).

Failure to comply will result in censure...which is what? There is only one penalty in the UN: ejection. And Proposals cannot mandate that, as only Moderators can eject nations from the UN. I have enough to do as it is, ya know?

Um, no. You're thinking of the NSO which keeps reversing all the progress the UN has made in the area of human rights </partisan politics>
Hey Forgottenlord! :upyours:

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Um, no. You're thinking of the NSO which keeps reversing all the progress the UN has made in the area of human rights </partisan politics>

If by "progress" you mean this useless and redundant thing (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13), and a one-sentence resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62) on a subject it took a much better mind (http://www.nationstates.net/Waterana) a hell of a lot longer to address properly, then yes.

If by "progress" you mean this useless and redundant thing (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13), and a one-sentence resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62) on a subject it took a much better mind (http://www.nationstates.net/Waterana) a hell of a lot longer to address properly, then yes.

Actually, the latter is a two-sentence resolution. The author just failed at punctuation. ;)

And wtf? "If you want phone sex with Cluichstan press 8." LOL

No, really. I gave up already

If by "progress" you mean this useless and redundant thing (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13), and a one-sentence resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62) on a subject it took a much better mind (http://www.nationstates.net/Waterana) a hell of a lot longer to address properly, then yes.

If you'll recall, I initially supported the repeal of the useless, redundant thing before simply abstaining because of the heavy emotions that were flowing from the issue (let's not go there).

As for the one sentence resolution, I'm actually thinking of the passed resolution that you guys put in place blocking the item the "much better mind" spent "a hell of a lot longer" working on and would have made progress on the matter of human rights - both over the one sentence resolution (allowance for taking other alternative measures for sustainable fetus's, etc) and far over the NSO equivelent which took a BIG step BACKWARDS from the work in that one-sentence resolution.

I'll make no comment, save to say that this year there have been 4 Human Rights proposals passed. Of those, one was written by an NSO member (and co-authored by an NSO observer); one was written by a former NSO member (now an NSO observer); one received fairly heavy support from NSO members; and one was about evenly divided between support and dissent from NSO members. Furthermore, of the two Human Rights resolutions repealed this year, one was repealed by an NSO member (and for redundancy, rather than oppression), and one repeal was opposed by pretty much all NSO members.

Against this proposal
Totally

What is with people trying to give the UN more power?
Don't you like your freedom?
Why do you hold out your wrists, wailing "Please, enslave me with more bureaucracy?"

--Rooty

Against this proposal
Totally

What is with people trying to give the UN more power?
Don't you like your freedom?
Why do you hold out your wrists, wailing "Please, enslave me with more bureaucracy?"

--Rooty

In answer to the first line: Yes

In answer to the second line: Yes, but war crimes and crimes against humanity are worth legislating against isn't it?

In answer to the third line: Because it makes us feel more secure.

As for the proposal in general, I don't see why we shouldn't just continue to use the framework of the "The Eon Convention on Genocide" for this sort of thing.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

If you'll recall, I initially supported the repeal of the useless, redundant thing before simply abstaining because of the heavy emotions that were flowing from the issue (let's not go there).

Very well.

As for the one sentence resolution, I'm actually thinking of the passed resolution that you guys put in place blocking the item the "much better mind" spent "a hell of a lot longer" working on and would have made progress on the matter of human rights - both over the one sentence resolution (allowance for taking other alternative measures for sustainable fetus's, etc) and far over the NSO equivelent which took a BIG step BACKWARDS from the work in that one-sentence resolution.

If you'll recall, the original "Abortion Rights" resolution had so many loopholes in it that the entire HotRodia Racing League could have driven through it in one shot. It's hardly taking a step backwards to move from a statement of principle to another statement of principle.

If you'll recall, the original "Abortion Rights" resolution had so many loopholes in it that the entire HotRodia Racing League could have driven through it in one shot. It's hardly taking a step backwards to move from a statement of principle to another statement of principle.

I'm sorry, but that is utter crap.

Yes there were loopholes, many nations abused them (mind you, not a majority of even those that opposed the resolution). Heck, even if we were to agree that it was merely a changing from a statement of principle to a statement of principle (which it wasn't, due to the issues previously noted), I find it hard to accept your claim that a statement of principle supporting human rights and a statement of principle that stays neutral on the matter of human rights are equivelent in their effect on human rights. It's like a nation saying "We feel genocide is outrageous and should never be performed" is equivelent to "It is not our right to worry about genocide in your nation".

Yes there were loopholes, many nations abused them (mind you, not a majority of even those that opposed the resolution).

That sounds like the compliance issue calling me again... ;)

Heck, even if we were to agree that it was merely a changing from a statement of principle to a statement of principle (which it wasn't, due to the issues previously noted), I find it hard to accept your claim that a statement of principle supporting human rights and a statement of principle that stays neutral on the matter of human rights are equivelent in their effect on human rights. It's like a nation saying "We feel genocide is outrageous and should never be performed" is equivelent to "It is not our right to worry about genocide in your nation".

...and I find it hard to accept that allowing nations to determine their own abortion policies is equivalent to allowing genocide for someone who favors legalizing abortion. Maybe if you opposed abortion because you thought it was murder, it would make sense to see allowing nations to determine abortion policies as a statement like "it is not our right to worry about genocide in your nation". Genocide can hardly be compared to keeping women from aborting fetuses, and keep in mind my nation allows women to have abortions without restriction because we value their liberty highly.

Genocide can hardly be compared to keeping women from aborting fetuses,
Well...

Someone once said that banning abortion instituted a kind of rape by the state. I think that's rotten hyperbole, but there is no reason why someone couldn't make that case to The Pretenama Panel, who are authorised to rule in the case of mass rape.

Similarly, if one held fetuses to be babies, then one could presumably apply for another nation's holocaust of the unborn to be called into question by TPP.

In both cases, I'm sure they'd actually dismiss the case, though.

Oh no, I don't claim that at all. I claimed that two "statements of principle" are not necessarily morally equivelent, as you yourself seem to claim.

It's hardly taking a step backwards to move from a statement of principle to another statement of principle.

(This thread seems to have gone down the toilet. First an @#$ who doesn't listen, and now it's gone off topic. Great.)

(This thread seems to have gone down the toilet. First an @#$ who doesn't listen, and now it's gone off topic. Great.)

(The NSO didn't respond to my joke statement the way I wanted them to which would have completed the joke, instead they responded in a way that left holes - though I Flib's response made up for it quite nicely)

(The NSO didn't respond to my joke statement the way I wanted them to which would have completed the joke, instead they responded in a way that left holes - though I Flib's response made up for it quite nicely)
OOC: It was either that or flame and I figured that that was the better choice.

(The NSO didn't respond to my joke statement the way I wanted them to which would have completed the joke, instead they responded in a way that left holes - though I Flib's response made up for it quite nicely)

Were you wanting me to make a riposte about the UIC? I considered it, but what would I say?

Well, I don't see this thread a complete disaster, as I seem to have procured the movement from:

Quote:
As a complete newbie, I accept that this draft legislation may need tweaking, however the basic premise that nations should not be allowed to ignore UN legislation stands.
Gruenberg
Yes, and this is already the case, by default.

and
Quote:
"ignoring of the Gnomes" - who are these people - perhaps they are so small I just don't notice them.
Gruenberg
They're a manifestation of the idea that compliance is already mandatory.


and

Forgottenlands
Gnomes do enforce those resolutions (yes, they are an admitted and widely accepted form of godmodding because of the necessary task the accomplish) and are the RP embodiment of the UN Compliance ministry - changing your laws automatically and preventing them from contradicting passed UN resolutions.


and
Quote:
If that was true, then there would be some method of dealing with nations that flout the rules.


Forgottenlands
The UN Gnomes go in and change the laws of the nation automatically and continuously so they remain in compliance.


to

Gruenberg
In gameplay terms, compliance is half mandatory - once a resolution passes, all UN members receive a stats change - and half non-mandatory - so I can answer daily issues however the hell I like. There is no mechanism for enforcing the latter, nor can there ever be (my italics)

It was this last point that my resolution was an attempt to address.

Forget RP for a moment. As far as gameplay goes, what we have is a United Nations that passes resolutions that in effect are not mandatory. Only yesterday I passed a law in my UN member nation to sacrifice a member of the public daily - and that's OK it seems.

So (from a gameplay perspective) there seems little point in the United Nations at present

Well, not quite. All resolutions have an effect, statistically: free trade resolutions increase economic freedoms, international security resolutions increase police and military spending.

But re your final point: that's just the way it is, and I don't see how a proposal - the implementation of which is roleplay - can change that.