NationStates Jolt Archive

Below I have put the soon to possibly proposed resolution to ban all WMDs. I realize that several resolutions will have to be repealled first, including "Ban on Chemical Weapons", and the "Nuclear Armament Act", in order to obey the redundancy rule. I do believe that this resolution could take care of all our WMD worries and replace those two effectively.

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

Ban of WMDs

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that weapons of mass destruction threaten the human welfare of all member nations, and the entire world to that fact.

RECOGNIZING that all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, are unnecessary in the world today. Whether it be for offense, defense, or protection, there is simply no need for them.

CONCLUDING that all WMDs must be banned from being produced, trafficked, possessed, and used.

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a) Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) - a weapon of chemical, biological, or nuclear nature that has the power to eliminate a major population base.
b) Chemical weapon - any weapon that uses chemical in such a way to cause physical, or psychological damage to a living creature. (note: this does not include such “weapons” as pepper spray, mace, and tear gas, as they do not cause physical harm, merely physical discomfort.)
c) Biological weapon - any weapon fitting the definition of biological weapon used in the “UN Biological Weapons Ban” resolution.
d) Nuclear weapon - any weapon using a nuclear reaction to cause destruction.

2. STIPULATES that the use of any WMD is unnecessary no matter what the justification may be. The use of nuclear weapons (or any WMD) for defense is simply unthinkable, as if one to launch upon one’s own soil then he is likely, almost certainly, bound to cause more damage to one’s own property than the attackers, and to launch upon another country, even when called “defense”, is quite simply an attack. Using this reasoning, there is no need for any WMDs for any reason.

3. DECLARES that the production, use, and trafficking of WMDs is hereby illegal in any member nation. Also, the conspiring with nation outside the UN sphere of influence with the intention to obtain, or convince their “ally” to use a WMD is illegal and will justify the dismissing of that member nation by the UN.

4. ENCOURAGES, but does not force, non-member nations to obey by this resolution in that it will benefit all of mankind, and will preserve human welfare.

5. CREATES the United Nations Weapons of Mass Destruction Committee (UNWMDC) in order to ensure that this resolution is obeyed by all member nations. It must sustain it’s own funding, and must conduct periodic surveys of nations to make sure they are obeying the resolution.
a) Funding - The UNWMDC will receive funds in several ways. The first way will be funding by member nations according to size. The bigger the nation, the larger the amount of funds given to the UNWMDC. Secondly, by the fines incurred by nations disobeying the resolution.
b) Surveys - The UNWMDC will conduct periodic, unschedueled, random surveys of all member nations. These surveys are to ensure that the resolution is followed, as they are looking for the production, trafficking, or possession of WMDs. If the nation is found to be in violation, they will be heavily fined.

Written by Rhelan

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

Please feel free to respond with critizism (hopefully constructive), possible improvements, opinions on the subject, or whether or not you think it can pass. Thank you for taking your time to read, and possibly reply to this post

Firstly, "Ban Chemical Weapons" was already repealed. All you would have to repeal is "Nuclear Armaments", and get around "United Nations Security Act".

The main reason your proposal is illegal, though, is 4: proposals can't be optional in this way. If you just want to encourage disarmament, fine, but you'll have to rewrite it a bit.

Final question: there are 30,000 UN nations, and 80,000 non-UN nations, who will not and can not be affected by this resolution. Why should we disarm, and leave non-UN nations with military prevalence over us?

I knew there was a reason I didn't join the UN.

I knew there was a reason I didn't join the UN.
And it was...?

As the current delegate for the Yurai Mountains, the Republic of Cantape feels that this resolution, while having the potential to pass, does have some flaws. The two points posed by the gentlemen above are the two largest problems. Also, the organization necessary to ensure nuclear disarmament and full cooperation from all member nations would be nearly impossible. While I would back this resolution, as one who wishes to prolong the existence of our world, I doubt the likelihood of a future for it in the United Nations.

The Gnomes guarantee that any resolution passed by this body is fully implemented in all member nations. Logistics is not an issue.

Two previous attempts to ban nukes, however, failed miserably.

No chance in dark, flaming places.

Nuclear weapons are an excellent deterrent to war, making the cost of an attack complete devastation. It's far to useful for a deterrent to agression by rational actors.

Also, there is the whole thing with Non-member states outnumbering us by quite a bit.

To reply to the first poster.

The Ban of Chemical Weapons is actually a current proposal that is in the queue to be voted on…*while I will not vote for it, I believe many others will and that is the resolution I was referring to when I mentioned repealing.

The problem in number 4. The resolution is not optional for member states, it only is optional for non-member states simply because the UN cannot make it mandatory for them.

To reply to Forgottenlands.

The fact that bans on nuclear weapons have failed miserably is why I included chemical and biological weapons in the resolution. In fact I made an effort to add nuclear weapons as a "rider" on this resolution so that people would vote for it without notice of that fact.

To reply to Anglophone Peoples.

The fact that nuclear arms are an excellent deterrant in modern warfare is not viable. The fact that one has nuclear armament is practically pointless. A) one cannot attack another nation using nukes because it's already illegal. B) the use of nuclear weapons in defense would involve launching at your own soil or waters, which would most likely cause more damage to yourself than your enemy. And for those who say, "if they attack us, we can fire nukes into their country" this is simply an excuse for attack, for it is an advance on foreign soil, which is an "attack", which, as stated before, is illegal.

The reason nuclear arms are so hard to let go of is because of their early apperance on the scene of modern warfare. Since the world (outside nationstates) has had nuclear arms for so long, we simply cannot think outside the box past nuclear weapons. That is part of the reason that such new ideas such as unmanned war machines, large scale chemical and biological weapons are not accepted today, because they are a change in our "set" ways.

To address the point of the whole non-member states with nukes outnumber us thing, I would like to point out that I could easily (and will now that you mention it) add a part where the UNWMDC would also maintain anti missle systems in all member nations. Don't say this technology doesn't exist, it does. It's simply that no nation in the world today wants to take the time and money to develope such systems. Something about that I would like to point out is, the cost of upkeep and production (yes we still produce) nuclear arms today would be enought to at least start this program. In fact, more than enough, seeing as that we can use those handy nuclear launch facilities as launch sites for anti-missle missles.

Thanks for listening.

The Gnomes guarantee that any resolution passed by this body is fully implemented in all member nations. Logistics is not an issue.Funny. Where I come from, assuming actions of characters you do not control to bring nations you do not control into immediate and full compliance would be termed Godmoding. ...

Funny. Where I come from, assuming actions of characters you do not control to bring nations you do not control into immediate and full compliance would be termed Godmoding. ...

Y'all must be nice out there. Folks around here just call it stupid. They're a bit on the rude side.

To address the point of the whole non-member states with nukes outnumber us thing, I would like to point out that I could easily (and will now that you mention it) add a part where the UNWMDC would also maintain anti missle systems in all member nations. Don't say this technology doesn't exist, it does. It's simply that no nation in the world today wants to take the time and money to develope such systems. Something about that I would like to point out is, the cost of upkeep and production (yes we still produce) nuclear arms today would be enought to at least start this program. In fact, more than enough, seeing as that we can use those handy nuclear launch facilities as launch sites for anti-missle missles.

Thus who will run and maintain these anti-missle systems as the UN can't have a standing military to do it and it takes a force of some kind to maintain them? Since it would fall on each nation to do this then let them build the weapons systems they can and maintain them.


Also with 8 missles coming in for every 3 in place who wins? There is a limit to what can be produced and not cost an arm and leg. Also sometimes it is better to go offensive than sit and get beat in a simple unworkable defensive status. Anti-missile systems have their faults just as those might be launched against us; but since there are more aimed at us we need take out some of those production facilities. As all an enemy has to do is hit our production facilities or enough of them and it's all over but burying the dead if anyone is left to bury whatever might be left.

With an anti-missile-missile all that would be needed is to launch a few dirty missiles and let you explode a few over yourself. Then wait for the fallout to take effect. Waving a blank gun at a person does nothing to stop them if they know that what it is, wave a real loaded gun at them and they will stop, or they are dead. Anti-missile systems are like blank guns, useless in stopping somebody who has a real gun.

Funny. Where I come from, assuming actions of characters you do not control to bring nations you do not control into immediate and full compliance would be termed Godmoding. ...

Because, of course, Hack hasn't made this fairly clear several times over (mind you, he's the one that controls the Gnomes)

Because, of course, Hack hasn't already admitted that Gnomes are godmodding to begin with

I'm certain the Gnomes are quite capable of Godmoding all by themselves without you to assist them. :rolleyes:

And being a mod doesn't mean that Hack decides which RP applies to all of us. Several prominent players have already stated that they do not ackowledge the Gnomes (aside from players like myself and The Palentine, who only "acknowledge" the Gnomes so we can shoot them), which they have every right to do. Have you read any of the helpful sticky material about roleplaying compliance? Any at all?

Yes

The thing is that I still hold the FAQ as the holy grail of the RP rules. Therefore, roleplaying non-compliance beyond loophole abuse I see as godmodding and subsequently ignore outright.

You're right, the Gnomes aren't the only or universally accepted option, but if you're telling me that ignoring resolutions completely is an actual option, you seriously are bitching at the wrong person. The Gnomes are an explaination and one that we can actually follow. Don't like it, fine. Move on, develope your own alternative. But Max did say compliance was mandatory.

And before we get into it, no I'm not saying Max's statements can be interpreted as the UN is only for infringing on Nation's rights (a different argument completely), but that this is one area where there is no question of interpretation. You can't just shrug off resolutions. Compliance is mandatory. Come up with your own explaination - I happen to like the Gnomes.

Umm, the FAQ has nothing to do with roleplay -- it explains Gameplay. Stats changes via UN fiat. Which are easily reversed. So your appeal to Max is irrelevant.

And I never said ignoring resolutions was an option, did I? I only said that using someone else's characters to bring other players' nations into full and complete compliance is Godmoding. There are numerous options for players wishing to bring their nations into compliance, partial compliance or noncompliance, and they are all referenced in the stickies. Stop pretending that all nations fall into immediate, unconditional, incontrovertible RP compliance just because you'd like it that way. Individual players decide how and to what degree their own nations come into compliance -- not you, not Hack, not Max, not the Gnomes (who I've always considered a running joke on this forum, not a serious RP component).

(who I've always considered a running joke on this forum, not a serious RP component).Eh. Little from Column A, little from Column B...

I would like to bring this discussion back to the relevant point…*the resolution! I admit, I believe in gnomes, and yes, I have read all the proposition rules and I feel that I have followed them

But please, from now on, no more dicussion of gnomes. Post about the resolution. If gnomes must be mentioned, then mention away, but please don't make them the subject.

To address the speil from Zeldon:

Anti-missle missles are not a "fake" gun, they are more of that bulletproof vest your wearing. They allow you to live long enough to return fire, and possibly win. Second, your numbers are horribly wrong. For each incoming missle, you should be able to expect as many as 5 anti-missles. Anti-missles don't need to be huge, just large enough to no-off-course or detonate the incoming missle. I would like all of you to look at the Aegis Cruiser for example of the mathmatics in this situation

Umm, the FAQ has nothing to do with roleplay -- it explains Gameplay. Stats changes via UN fiat. Which are easily reversed. So your appeal to Max is irrelevant.

Since when?

And I never said ignoring resolutions was an option, did I? I only said that using someone else's characters to bring other players' nations into full and complete compliance is Godmoding. There are numerous options for players wishing to bring their nations into compliance, partial compliance or noncompliance, and they are all referenced in the stickies. Stop pretending that all nations fall into immediate, unconditional, incontrovertible RP compliance just because you'd like it that way.

Um........

I could've sworn it was generally accepted that everyone is required to meet every single resolution to the letter of the law - even at the RP level. This certainly would be the first time I've heard otherwise.

Individual players decide how and to what degree their own nations come into compliance -- not you, not Hack, not Max, not the Gnomes (who I've always considered a running joke on this forum, not a serious RP component).

Never picked it up that way, especially in the manner that they were presented to me.

Actually, I'll play your argument anyway.

Ok, let's just say compliance isn't mandatory - what is there to guarantee that ANY nation implements ANY component of ANY resolution? If we aren't allowed to just ignore UN resolutions, what forces us not to?

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, all of this makes even less sense. Everyone KNOWS that you can counter a resolution on the same day it passes within gameplay. If anything, within gameplay is the worst place to claim compliance is mandatory, because there is absolutely nothing stopping a user from just clicking the button that contradicts the UN.

That was where the entire concept of area-of-effect within a resolution came to be a consideration - how could compliance be mandatory if anyone can - at literally a click of a button - violate the resolution. The only solution could possibly be that the text of the resolution applied to roleplay, not gameplay (while the category applied to gameplay since that actually affected stats).

So if compliance isn't mandatory in roleplay and it obviously isn't mandatory in gameplay, where is Max referring to?

Should this proposal make it into the queue, the people of Cluichstan hereby vow to launch an immediate nuclear strike against Rhelan before suck an attack is made illegal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Since when?Have you even bothered reading the FAQ, or just that one little passage that resolutions are not optional? The entire FAQ pertains to Gameplay; it answers questions specifically relating to how you use the game instrument. Roleplay is never addressed, except to note that it is conducted entirely on the forums. Thus, from context, it can easily be deduced that the FAQ's reference to mandatory compliance refers to the Gameplay aspect; namely, the automatic stats change.

Um........

I could've sworn it was generally accepted that everyone is required to meet every single resolution to the letter of the law - even at the RP level. This certainly would be the first time I've heard otherwise.Oh, well. Live and learn ...

Roleplay

The stuff that you write about how your nation is dealing with the passage of a resolution is roleplayed compliance (or noncompliance, as the case may be).
Free-form roleplay is practiced on this site, so you can roleplay what you like and with whom you like. You can roleplay having massive spaceships or being sentient potatoes, and you can even roleplay outright noncompliance with UN resolutions. As with most things, some people are going to accept how you roleplay and some people are not. Even among “serious” roleplayers there are sometimes disagreements over whether or not a particular technology or strategy is appropriate roleplay. It happens. Just deal with these disagreements appropriately and you’ll be okay. ...
From a roleplay standpoint, resolutions are made law in all member nations. This leaves you with plenty of options for roleplayed noncompliance. Just like in real life countries, the law can be flouted, remain on the books but lack enforcement by the government, or it can be nullified by another part of your nation’s law. Maybe even a combination of those three approaches could be used. Just be aware of the possibility of other nations putting diplomatic pressure on you to comply. If you want to roleplay compliance with resolutions from the start, just have your Parliament (or whatever your legislative body is, if you have one) pass a law that reflects the text of the UN resolution, have your government enforce the law, or have your citizens voluntarily do whatever the resolution said. You can even roleplay that the UN Gnomes brought you into compliance. As with noncompliance, you have options, and they can be used in combination with one another.
The text of every resolution has certain qualities that allow nations to roleplay the use of loopholes to get around complying with the spirit of the law. For example, the resolution "UN Taxation Ban" only protects the citizens of UN member nations from taxation, which leaves us with a rather large loophole allowing the UN to tax people who don't have citizenship in their nation, corporations, and governments. Another example is the resolution "Abortion Rights", which because of its vagueness allows for all sorts of good/bad limitations on abortions by the determined member nation.
Bottom line, players control their own nations, and they are perfectly capable of roleplaying noncompliance. Deal with it. If you don't like what players are saying about their nations not being in compliance, just ignore them. That's your right. You cannot presume to control other players' nations, even to tell them that they are in compliance whether they like it or not (or that they're being invaded by gnomes), because it's Godmoding. That was my original point, from which you have attempted to divert with all this nonsense about Max Barry and the FAQ.

Actually, I'll play your argument anyway.

Ok, let's just say compliance isn't mandatory - what is there to guarantee that ANY nation implements ANY component of ANY resolution? If we aren't allowed to just ignore UN resolutions, what forces us not to?Diplomatic pressure from other member nations? Blockades? Trade embargoes? Economic sanctions? A dream team of dodgeball champions? Ashlee Simpson and exploding penguins? Take your pick. It's RPed noncompliance so there will be RP consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of roleplaying your nation? Just to post shit and have nothing happen? That's pretty boring.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, all of this makes even less sense. Everyone KNOWS that you can counter a resolution on the same day it passes within gameplay. If anything, within gameplay is the worst place to claim compliance is mandatory, because there is absolutely nothing stopping a user from just clicking the button that contradicts the UN.

That was where the entire concept of area-of-effect within a resolution came to be a consideration - how could compliance be mandatory if anyone can - at literally a click of a button - violate the resolution. The only solution could possibly be that the text of the resolution applied to roleplay, not gameplay (while the category applied to gameplay since that actually affected stats).

So if compliance isn't mandatory in roleplay and it obviously isn't mandatory in gameplay, where is Max referring to?You know very well he is referring to the automatic stats change that comes with every passed resolution. The only reason this effect can be reversed with issues is that it would be too difficult to program the game otherwise.

You can't honestly be saying that the FAQ (when read in whole) pertains entirely to Gameplay -- except one passage about compliance, which is actually about roleplay? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

The main reason your proposal is illegal, though, is 4: proposals can't be optional in this way. If you just want to encourage disarmament, fine, but you'll have to rewrite it a bit.
Uh, actually you might want to read clause 4 a little closer as it talking about non-members, which probably still renders it illegal.

On the other hand the last part of clause 3, "Also, the conspiring with nation outside the UN sphere of influence with the intention to obtain, or convince their “ally” to use a WMD is illegal and will justify the dismissing of that member nation by the UN." (emphasis mine) is completely illegal, as only the mods can kick nations from the UN and they only do that when nations break the rules.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Uh, actually you might want to read clause 4 a little closer as it talking about non-members, which probably still renders it illegal.

On the other hand the last part of clause 3, "Also, the conspiring with nation outside the UN sphere of influence with the intention to obtain, or convince their “ally” to use a WMD is illegal and will justify the dismissing of that member nation by the UN." (emphasis mine) is completely illegal, as only the mods can kick nations from the UN and they only do that when nations break the rules.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


Doesn't its reliance on an earlier resolution for a definition of 'biological weapons' (according to the copy that I've seen posted in the UN DEFCON forum: Unfortunately I can't access either the NSUN pages themselves or page 1 of this thread on the computer that I'm currently using...) make it illegal on HoC grounds, too?

On the other hand the last part of clause 3, "Also, the conspiring with nation outside the UN sphere of influence with the intention to obtain, or convince their “ally” to use a WMD is illegal and will justify the dismissing of that member nation by the UN." (emphasis mine) is completely illegal, as only the mods can kick nations from the UN and they only do that when nations break the rules.

An excellent point. Hello, Metagaming!

Ok, Kenny. Then a few questions for you:
1) Why are the bleeding-heart NatSov's always foaming at the mouth if compliance isn't mandatory. Look at the RL UN which passes it's acts so that they read like they're mandatory but people only come into partial (if any) compliance. (I THINK I heard once that the UN actually passed something legalizing abortion or something like that at one point).
2) Why do we have these legalistics debates if they're so irrelevant since anyone can just bypass the entire resolution with "oh, I think compliance isn't mandatory". Why do we have loophole hunts, why do we repeal based upon loopholes, why do we do any of these legalistic things in our debates? Just to criticize? Just to laugh? International pressure will always aim at intent rather than letter, so why do we always stick to the letter of the law as being what we follow?

If compliance isn't mandatory, why has the community evolved in the manner it has?

Ban of WMDs

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that weapons of mass destruction threaten the human welfare of all member nations, and the entire world to that fact.

It could be argued that it is the use of WMD's, not their very existence, that creates the threat to our welfare. Semantics, I know, but the point could be made.

RECOGNIZING that all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, are unnecessary in the world today. Whether it be for offense, defense, or protection, there is simply no need for them.

This becomes highly debatable.

CONCLUDING that all WMDs must be banned from being produced, trafficked, possessed, and used.

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a) Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) - a weapon of chemical, biological, or nuclear nature that has the power to eliminate a major population base.
b) Chemical weapon - any weapon that uses chemical in such a way to cause physical, or psychological damage to a living creature. (note: this does not include such “weapons” as pepper spray, mace, and tear gas, as they do not cause physical harm, merely physical discomfort.)

Pain is your body's way of telling you that it has been hurt, or damaged. While the injuries caused by mace, etc, is temporary, it is still inflicting damage. A matter of degrees that could rapidly become a slippery slope argument.

c) Biological weapon - any weapon fitting the definition of biological weapon used in the “UN Biological Weapons Ban” resolution.

Relying on another resolution for definitions is foolhardy. HoC violation as well as annoying for any who wish to debate the merits or flaws of this point.

d) Nuclear weapon - any weapon using a nuclear reaction to cause destruction.

That leaves some large gaping holes to be abused. And, trust me, they would get abused. I won't fire a missile that will explode with a nuclear reaction. I'll simply launch a missile that will spread radioactive material over a large area. The long term effects will be just as devastating without completely destroying the buildings and there is no nuclear reaction to speak of.

2. STIPULATES that the use of any WMD is unnecessary no matter what the justification may be. The use of nuclear weapons (or any WMD) for defense is simply unthinkable, as if one to launch upon one’s own soil then he is likely, almost certainly, bound to cause more damage to one’s own property than the attackers, and to launch upon another country, even when called “defense”, is quite simply an attack. Using this reasoning, there is no need for any WMDs for any reason.

The argument for defensive use is that of a deterrent. It is less likely for a nation to consider invasion if the possible immediate response is to have their homeland turned to plate glass or a chemical wasteland or a biohazard region.

3. DECLARES that the production, use, and trafficking of WMDs is hereby illegal in any member nation. Also, the conspiring with nation outside the UN sphere of influence with the intention to obtain, or convince their “ally” to use a WMD is illegal and will justify the dismissing of that member nation by the UN.

I'd have to double check for the violation, but I'm fairly certain that the Mods don't want extra work heaped onto their plates by resolutions, which is what this would be doing. Anyone RP'ing non-compliance with this clause would need to be ousted from the UN, which is the work of the Mods.

4. ENCOURAGES, but does not force, non-member nations to obey by this resolution in that it will benefit all of mankind, and will preserve human welfare.

Lose this clause entirely. As has already been stated by others, this kind of optional clause renders the whole proposal null and void through sheer ineffectiveness.

5. CREATES the United Nations Weapons of Mass Destruction Committee (UNWMDC) in order to ensure that this resolution is obeyed by all member nations. It must sustain it’s own funding, and must conduct periodic surveys of nations to make sure they are obeying the resolution.

In contradiction to the previous clause.

a) Funding - The UNWMDC will receive funds in several ways. The first way will be funding by member nations according to size. The bigger the nation, the larger the amount of funds given to the UNWMDC. Secondly, by the fines incurred by nations disobeying the resolution.

The first part of this is dangerously close to the UN taxing it's members, which is banned by the UN Taxation Ban. A better wording would be along the lines of "ENCOURAGING all member nations to lend resources and personnel to assist the UNWMDC"

b) Surveys - The UNWMDC will conduct periodic, unschedueled, random surveys of all member nations. These surveys are to ensure that the resolution is followed, as they are looking for the production, trafficking, or possession of WMDs. If the nation is found to be in violation, they will be heavily fined.

There seems to be some confusion over punishment here. If they are found in non-compliance, they are either being heavily fined or dismissed from the UN depending on which clause one is looking at. List them together, choose one, or leave some vagueness or ambiguity as to UN Gnome Goon Squad Enforcement.

I'm not going to say that it won't pass. Stranger things have happened. You would need to clear up a couple of the issues mentioned before submitting it or the Mods might remove it for you.

That being said, at this time, we would oppose on the grounds that we like our big scary things that go boom alot. Good luck with it.

The Cheecanian Goverment condons the use of WMD's in times of war and will not vote for this if it is summited.
However, Cheecan condems the use of WMD's for use in prempteve strikes and raids.

Ok, Kenny. Then a few questions for you:
1) Why are the bleeding-heart NatSov's always foaming at the mouth if compliance isn't mandatory. Look at the RL UN which passes it's acts so that they read like they're mandatory but people only come into partial (if any) compliance. (I THINK I heard once that the UN actually passed something legalizing abortion or something like that at one point).
2) Why do we have these legalistics debates if they're so irrelevant since anyone can just bypass the entire resolution with "oh, I think compliance isn't mandatory". Why do we have loophole hunts, why do we repeal based upon loopholes, why do we do any of these legalistic things in our debates? Just to criticize? Just to laugh? International pressure will always aim at intent rather than letter, so why do we always stick to the letter of the law as being what we follow?

If compliance isn't mandatory, why has the community evolved in the manner it has?

I'm relatively new here, but here's my interpretation why UN legality matters:

UN resolutions are "the law". Which means the party out of power will bash the party in power if they're caught breaking the law. And nations that don't like yours will jump all over you if you're caught breaking the laws. If you're sneaky enough to wiggle through a loophole, or powerful enough to tell everyone else to go to heck, you can ignore those laws, much like unnamed RL nations do. Otherwise, there may be repercussions.

*snip*I'm referring to the rare case of a nation (preferably controlled by a very good roleplayer) choosing not to comply with a single resolution -- not some arrogant attitude on the part of players that UN resolutions have no effect on their nations, and they can routinely ignore any resolutions they don't like and pay no consequences. That in itself is Godmoding. There are consequences for flouting the will of the international community -- you can say they would be international outrage, diplomatic disengagement, other diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions and trade embargoes, the threat of military action -- all on the part of other member states or non-members with heavy interests in the United Nations (like my own nation). The UN is perceived as a collective pact of nations who sign on to an agreement to abide by certain international laws, and if a nation decides to break a law, you have to assume it's gonna piss off the other signatory nations. Members roleplay UN resolutions as though they are mandatory because, well, they are. But that doesn't mean the rules can never be broken. For example, it is mandatory that I abide by all the laws of the United States of America and the state of California -- yet I did smoke pot in college.

In a similar fashion, it is widely regarded on this forum that compliance is mandatory -- but as the stickies indicate, noncompliance is possible, but it is rare and carries serious (RP) penalties. (It's also very risky because if players assume a noncompliant player is Godmoding, they can simply ignore him -- and what's the point in playing an interactive game if fellow players will not acknowledge you?) Pretending that magical gnomes automatically rewrite all UN nations' laws and that noncompliance is therefore never possible is not only Godmoding, it's just plain fucking boring. What's the point of roleplaying if the outcome is always the same, and the occasional wrinkle or abberation can never occur?

Pretending that magical gnomes automatically rewrite all UN nations' laws and that noncompliance is therefore never possible is not only Godmoding, it's just plain fucking boring. What's the point of roleplaying if the outcome is always the same, and the occasional wrinkle or abberation can never occur?

OOC: Given the proven ability of individual nations to exploit loopholes in the resolutions, I assume that what the UN Gnomes actually do is see that the Resolutions themselves are written into the various national law-codes -- and maybe that the various national laws then passed are basically compliant with the wording of those resolutions -- rather than write those actual national laws...

I'm squinting at this, and it sounds waaaaaaay too much like "double-think"

I should note that there was one post where TH, the writer of that sticky, stated that he disregarded people who flaunted compliance with a resolution as being godmodders. Does that mean that this concept is unusable, no. TH was merely indicating the different areas that people could touch upon with compliance. He provided little moral judgement on each within the actual post. However, some, such as myself and likely TH, ignore all claims to non-compliance (beyond legal wrangling) as godmodding. You can call it Gnomes, you can call it international pressure (which is illogical, impractical and an unrealistic claim to determining how we, as a community, function), you can call it whatever you want. However, Gnomes are the most accepted version and the easiest to explain.

Anyways, with Gnome theory fairly well developed, what I've stated thus far about Gnomes matches what was already developed. Is it truly unreasonable to explain already developed entities within the UN? Is that Godmodding? Yes deployment of Gnomes is godmodding, it will always be godmodding, Hack himself has stated clearly that it's godmodding. However, you want to explain how you can reasonably keep the entirity of Gatesville from flaunting every single last UN resolution? We all know the UN would lose a war with them, we all know that economic sanctions against them would probably be meaningless as their community is big enough and encompasses enough regions to make such attempts moot. So you tell me - how is the UN keeping them in line?

BTW, you are the first regular (since I got here, at least) to claim that compliance ISN'T mandatory at the RP level. Even the most referenced example of non-compliance was proven to be merely a loophole abuse after Mik tried to play it in a fairly recent resolution debate.

BTW, you are the first regular (since I got here, at least) to claim that compliance ISN'T mandatory at the RP level.Didn't say that:

Members roleplay UN resolutions as though they are mandatory because, well, they are. But that doesn't mean the rules can never be broken. For example, it is mandatory that I abide by all the laws of the United States of America and the state of California -- yet I did smoke pot in college.I can't be the first, either: Ever heard of Sophista?

The Gnomes guarantee that any resolution passed by this body is fully implemented in all member nations. Logistics is not an issue.

Two previous attempts to ban nukes, however, failed miserably.

The Ambassador from the Forgottenlands is partially correct ... gnomes might exist in the Forgottenlands and serve as their legislative branch, but in the Confederated City States of Mikitivity the implementation of UN resolutions is a long involved sovereign process where the Mikitivity Office of International Affairs summarizes the nature of the international recommendation to our Council of Mayors, who then decides if the recommendation should be forwarded to the Mikitivity Office of Cantonal Affairs. If a UN resolution is forwarded to the Office of Cantonal Affairs, then that office is responsible for coordinating a local and independent election in each of Mikitivity's various cantons.

Historically the cantons of Aslan and Valitz tend to take years to adopt the language recommended by the Office of Cantonal Affairs, and in some situations have forwarded alternative laws back to the office recommending the other cantons replace the existing laws with the revision.

OOC:
FACT no moderator has nor will any moderator come in and tell a player exactly how they choose to "implement" a UN resolution. That is clearly a Roleplaying issue, and it has long been the policy of NationStates to encourage creative roleplaying. I'd personally appreciate it that if you have any problem with my CHOICE to adopt a Swiss-model in this game, that instead of TELLING me how I play the game that instead you direct any frustrations you have to Mikitivity's (and many other players') Swiss-like (or other) political models via an In Character device and seek some sort of Roleplayed penalty against Mikitivity, as this game and also in Real-Life, implementation of international recommendations is not a black-n-white issue.

The reason I bring this up is we've had this discussion at least a half dozen times ... and I don't want new players thinking that they aren't free to occasionally "cheat" UN resolutions ... Iraq, Israel, the United States, China, India, Russia, etc. do this ... and NationStates will be much more interesting if we are free to play with national government models that interest each of us. Notice how I'm not telling you that you are not allowed to pretend funny little men in red hats implement the laws in your nation ... the cartoon gnome model works fine, just not for me.

BTW, you are the first regular (since I got here, at least) to claim that compliance ISN'T mandatory at the RP level. Even the most referenced example of non-compliance was proven to be merely a loophole abuse after Mik tried to play it in a fairly recent resolution debate.

Not at all. I've been claiming that resolutions are not mandatory since Spring 2004, but I've also been very careful to claim that rampant failure to adhere to UN resolutions would be viewed as poor Roleplaying / Godmoding and I've also recommended that our nations (not the players) adhere to all resolutions in a good faith effort.

There are two really good examples of non-compliance. The Joccian incident was a loophole, that my government argued that the government of Joccia still violated the spirit of the resolutions ... Sophista and the Law of the Sea is another issue. Fris IIRC suggested it was a loophole, but I do actually believe that he is misremembering the Dodgeball Wars and that Sophista never intended to implement the resolution. I can't remember what debate that was in, but it must have been prior to March. Fris posted in that thread and we could easily dig up his position and look back into the Law of the Sea issues.

Guys... I'm enjoying this debate, and I think it's a good one to have, but not in this thread. Since Jolt's being a whore, I can't split the off topic discussion, so if you want to continue, please make a new thread and link to it.

I don't want to kill the convo, but it really is hijacking.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481183

Guys... I'm enjoying this debate, and I think it's a good one to have, but not in this thread. Since Jolt's being a whore, I can't split the off topic discussion, so if you want to continue, please make a new thread and link to it.

I don't want to kill the convo, but it really is hijacking.

Party Pooper ... I posted twice, just hoping to kill the "telling me how to RP my nation" and didn't have time to actually jump into the actual proposal at hand. :p Or perhaps I'm getting OLD and should have thrown the below in too. ;)

IC:
In general Mikitivity supports restrictions on Weapons of Mass Destruction. As a government that can be described as sovereigntist in nature, our position obviously might appear contradictory, however, due to the international nature of mass destruction, we feel general discussions on this topic transcend the normal boundary of sovereign rule.

Bearing this in mind, my government is always open to supporting effective restrictions on WMDs.

Howie Katzman

I have decided that as it is my resolution will not pass, therefore I deem this thread dead. Note: people can feel free to read as they like and even post, but also know that I am no longer watching so it doesn't really matter.

I am glad to have all of your opinions, and suggestions concerning this amendment. I may rewrite it, or quite possibly start anew. Thanks for the input, you can all go back to talking about gnomes, nukes, and other things now.

I have decided that as it is my resolution will not pass, therefore I deem this thread dead. Note: people can feel free to read as they like and even post, but also know that I am no longer watching so it doesn't really matter.

I am glad to have all of your opinions, and suggestions concerning this amendment. I may rewrite it, or quite possibly start anew. Thanks for the input, you can all go back to talking about gnomes, nukes, and other things now.

OOC:
My apologize then for any hijacking. I'd honestly rather see the subject of WMD continued to be talked about instead of gnomes. A new rewrite sounds like a better idea. In general, I like incremental legislative approaches, and it might help to single out a particularly nasty type of WMD that we've not dealt with.

Since no one can win a WMD war, even if only one side has them, they are completely useless UNLESS your objective is to kill every living organism on the planet except for Cockroaches.


Hmm...why do I think the Cockroach is the "new" mammal. I bet like 100 million years ago the T-Rex was like "Those fury disgusting little rodents...creeps me out...especially the ones that walk on two legs...EEEEEeeeewwww..."

Since no one can win a WMD war, even if only one side has them, they are completely useless UNLESS your objective is to kill every living organism on the planet except for Cockroaches.



Winning, or even fighting a WMD war isn't the point. The point is, if you have a bad@$$ WMD, no sane country will invade you, even if their conventional army is 10X as big as yours. Even if they also have WMDs, they'd have to be crazy to attack.

Since no one can win a WMD war, even if only one side has them

OOC: "Ahem!" So what about WWII? Didn't the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki make that "a WMD war"?

Winning, or even fighting a WMD war isn't the point. The point is, if you have a bad@$$ WMD, no sane country will invade you, even if their conventional army is 10X as big as yours. Even if they also have WMDs, they'd have to be crazy to attack.

Then the UN might be able to still make effective resolutions in this subject area ... as instead of focusing on WMDs, the focus should be arms limitations. :)

Winning, or even fighting a WMD war isn't the point. The point is, if you have a bad@$$ WMD, no sane country will invade you, even if their conventional army is 10X as big as yours. Even if they also have WMDs, they'd have to be crazy to attack.

The key words you need to focus on is "no sane country". You're right, I'm not worried about Sane leaders.

OOC: "Ahem!" So what about WWII? Didn't the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki make that "a WMD war"?


OOC: To consider WWII a Nuclear war is a bit of a misstatement. We only had two working bombs in the entire world...and we didn't even know if they would work.


That's not the case anymore.

It's like comparing the Matchlock pistol to a M16. I mean what do you think would happen if we dropped two nukes on Japan today?

OOC: To consider WWII a Nuclear war is a bit of a misstatement. We only had two working bombs in the entire world...and we didn't even know if they would work.No True Scotsman (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots) fallacy.