NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

FINDING THAT many developing and underdeveloped nations are unable to comply with the 40 hour work week without damaging their economy or the wellbeing of their workers,

RECALLING THAT resolution #49, Section I, Article 2, discourages the UN from tinkering with the internal economic policies of nations,

NOTING THAT the work-week laws of UN nations cannot affect international labor markets because much of market power belongs to non-UN members,

FURTHER FINDING THAT the 40-hour work week requirement puts some nations in an unfavorable position with respect to trade,

PARTICULARLY agrarian nations where work is seasonal and long hours must be put in during certain times of year and less at other times,

AND developing nations who have been stripped of a way to be competitive with developed nations,

ASKING that in the future the United Nations consider international labor standards that are more flexible with respect to the great diversity of nations and that regulate international trade and markets rather than internal policy.

NOTING THAT this repeal does not interfere with the rights of nations to set viable, humane work week and general labor/trade laws, and that this repeal does not seek to prohibit such nations from, if necessary, decreasing work week hours if those nations see fit,

REPEALS Resolution 59, The 40 hour work week.


Co-sponsored By: Pelham Manor

NOTING THAT this repeal does not interfere with the rights of nations to set viable, humane work week and general labor/trade laws, and that this repeal does not seek to prohibit such nations from, if necessary, decreasing work week hours if those nations see fit,
OOC: Good. Because it would be illegal if it were otherwise.

I can't personally support this. IC is more difficult to work out.

What is this, three weeks in a row now that one of these hairbrained proposals comes up for 40 hr workweek? How many times do we have to say "false logic" before people start trying to make a real repeal attempt that actually makes a bit of sense?

The United Nations,

Indeed we are

FINDING THAT many developing and underdeveloped nations are unable to comply with the 40 hour work week without damaging their economy or the wellbeing of their workers,

The wellbeing of their workers? You want to whip your workers around for more than 120 hours a week and you're saying that it's for the wellbeing of the workers? You think 24 hours of sleep time is too much for them? Too nice and cuddly for them? Well being my sore foot (from pulling the side of my toenail from my big toe resulting in a lot of bleeding and a red sock)

Why don't you....y'know.....hire more PEOPLE to take the alternate shifts of those workers. Hey - maybe you'll attract more skilled labour that way. "Come to New Maximus where we have a lot of job opennings for skilled labour"

RECALLING THAT resolution #49, Section I, Article 2, discourages the UN from tinkering with the internal economic policies of nations,

Oh, you mean this article?

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

See those last 8 words? That says that the resolution doesn't give a horses ass about National Sovereignty. Perhaps the UN does, but it sure as heck can't be found within UNR #49. So the term "false logic" works very well for this statement.

NOTING THAT the work-week laws of UN nations cannot affect international labor markets because much of market power belongs to non-UN members,

You are absolutely correct. However, there has been great evidence that people who work hours closer to 40 hours (sure, you have a bit of varience between 30 and 50 hours, but overall) are more productive and more capable of good quality products with much fewer accidents and injuries - it benefits the company, it benefits the workers.

FURTHER FINDING THAT the 40-hour work week requirement puts some nations in an unfavorable position with respect to trade,

The nations that have not figured out how to adapt. Considering that kicking the ass of your deputy ambassador would put the Forgottenlands company "Trimarketer" into a less favorable position for trade as the chief negotiator would choke on the drink he was having while watching this debate on public broadcast and end up in a coma for the next 9 months doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it - rather you probably shouldn't do it because your deputy ambassador wouldn't like it too much.

PARTICULARLY agrarian nations where work is seasonal and long hours must be put in during certain times of year and less at other times,

During certain times of the year? Two terms for you:
1) OVERTIME
2) TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

Use them. Considering most agrarian groups trade labour ("You help me do my field tomorrow, and on Friday, I'll help you do your field") at a volunteer scale, I somehow find this claim to be nothing short of proposterous.

AND developing nations who have been stripped of a way to be competitive with developed nations,

Read: "Stripped of the ability to abuse their workers and make them work until they drop in sweat shops so we need to repeal this resolution so these blatant human rights violations can be remedied in the name of better economies!"

ASKING that in the future the United Nations consider international labor standards that are more flexible with respect to the great diversity of nations and that regulate international trade and markets rather than internal policy.

Don't give a damn.

NOTING THAT this repeal does not interfere with the rights of nations to set viable, humane work week and general labor/trade laws, and that this repeal does not seek to prohibit such nations from, if necessary, decreasing work week hours if those nations see fit,

Fine

REPEALS Resolution 59, The 40 hour work week.

My lighter says no.

Co-sponsored By: Pelham Manor

Sponsored. New term.

Indeed we are

My lighter says no.

Sponsored. New term.
No, it's not. Sponsored is common lingo - see Grosseschnauzer's sig, for example. And you don't have to respond to every line - what does saying "indeed we are" add?

(Sorry, not sniping at you personally - just in general, it seems like ping pong ad nauseam afflicting the UN at the moment.)

If I start cutting it down, I do respond to every line and have pretty much since I adopted the technique from DLE. I do it all the time in debates and my lesser comments range from "agreed" to "already addressed" to "un, no".

EDIT: and meh. Can't forget my favorite placeholder.

If I start cutting it down, I do respond to every line and have pretty much since I adopted the technique from DLE. I do it all the time in debates and my lesser comments range from "agreed" to "already addressed" to "un, no".
Yes, I know. And I'm asking what the point is.

Yes, I know. And I'm asking what the point is.

*shrugs*

I adapted it that way, never saw a need to change it.

Forgottenlands,

There are a few things I'd like to respond to.


The wellbeing of their workers? You want to whip your workers around for more than 120 hours a week and you're saying that it's for the wellbeing of the workers? You think 24 hours of sleep time is too much for them? Too nice and cuddly for them? Well being my sore foot (from pulling the side of my toenail from my big toe resulting in a lot of bleeding and a red sock)


The fact of the matter is, some developing economies are not ready for the 40 hour work week. By imposing this on them, they will not be able to produce enough goods and services to feed their families and pay for shelter and health. By imposing the standards of the developed countries onto the underdeveloped ones, we ensure that the underdeveloped countries remain in a state of disease, famine, and starvation. Instead, I'd like to see these nations improve their gross product to the point where there people can have the luxury of a shorter work day and meaningful pay for it.


Why don't you....y'know.....hire more PEOPLE to take the alternate shifts of those workers. Hey - maybe you'll attract more skilled labour that way. "Come to New Maximus where we have a lot of job opennings for skilled labour"


Maybe when you're talking about a single firm, you can hire more people. But, when talking about a national economy, you simply can't hire more people - there's a finite population.


See those last 8 words? That says that the resolution doesn't give a horses ass about National Sovereignty. Perhaps the UN does, but it sure as heck can't be found within UNR #49. So the term "false logic" works very well for this statement.


I am well aware of article 49 quoted in the proposed repeal. The last 8 words say that the international community can recognize certain immunities. Legally, an immunity is a type of right that is an exemption from an obligation. The 40 hour work week cannot be defined as an immunity, because it does exempt anyone from anything (labor or prosecution). Instead, it actually removes rights of contract between employers and employees.

If a resolution called for an immunity that said if someone decides to quit a job, they cannot be prosecuted, I would support it.

Resolution 49 says that, in general (with some exceptions - and I believe these exceptions should be for the purposes of policies that affect the international community), nations have sovereignty within their borders. Therefore, resultion 59, which blantantly crosses the line between UN policy and national policy, is against the spirit of resolution 49.


You are absolutely correct. However, there has been great evidence that people who work hours closer to 40 hours (sure, you have a bit of varience between 30 and 50 hours, but overall) are more productive and more capable of good quality products with much fewer accidents and injuries - it benefits the company, it benefits the workers.


If it benefits the company, then the company should set work policy.
If it benefits the workers, then worker friendly nations can set the work policy.


The nations that have not figured out how to adapt. Considering that kicking the ass of your deputy ambassador would put the Forgottenlands company "Trimarketer" into a less favorable position for trade as the chief negotiator would choke on the drink he was having while watching this debate on public broadcast and end up in a coma for the next 9 months doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it - rather you probably shouldn't do it because your deputy ambassador wouldn't like it too much.


I suppose most resolutions have their winners and losers, but who are the losers with resolution 59? It is the developing nations that cannot support the stringent labor policy of more advanced economies. How would you like it if the rest of the world zoomed ahead of you in production and then demanded that you meet their standards which at that point would be 20 hour work weeks with a 100-fold increase in the minimum wage? Your economy would not be able to support it.


During certain times of the year? Two terms for you:
1) OVERTIME
2) TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

Use them. Considering most agrarian groups trade labour ("You help me do my field tomorrow, and on Friday, I'll help you do your field") at a volunteer scale, I somehow find this claim to be nothing short of proposterous.


The trading of labor service is still a labor contract and fall under the jurisdiction of resolution 59. With respect to the temporary employees, you once again miss the point. What if the entire country is agrarian, and everybody has to work during a certain season and take another season off. You can't find temporary workers if they have to deal with their own fields.

Overtime pay is possible sure, but it would cause far less work to be done during the critical season in agrarian nations, and lessen the amount of food ultimately produced.


Read: "Stripped of the ability to abuse their workers and make them work until they drop in sweat shops so we need to repeal this resolution so these blatant human rights violations can be remedied in the name of better economies!"


What human rights violations? If a nation cannot produce enough to feed their citizens or pay for healthcare, and people who cannot get enough jobs are turning to crime, black market activity, and prostitution, who's human rights have you protected?

I am rather humored by your responses. For some reason, they seem to contradict one another. Don't believe me? Well.....let's rearrange your post a li'l.

Forgottenlands,

There are a few things I'd like to respond to.

The fact of the matter is, some developing economies are not ready for the 40 hour work week. By imposing this on them, they will not be able to produce enough goods and services to feed their families and pay for shelter and health. By imposing the standards of the developed countries onto the underdeveloped ones, we ensure that the underdeveloped countries remain in a state of disease, famine, and starvation. Instead, I'd like to see these nations improve their gross product to the point where there people can have the luxury of a shorter work day and meaningful pay for it.

What human rights violations? If a nation cannot produce enough to feed their citizens or pay for healthcare, and people who cannot get enough jobs are turning to crime, black market activity, and prostitution, who's human rights have you protected?

Maybe when you're talking about a single firm, you can hire more people. But, when talking about a national economy, you simply can't hire more people - there's a finite population.

I find this rather humorous, all around.

First you argue that the problem is that people can't get enough jobs and this is what is hindering the economies. Yet in a previous argument, you say that you can't hire more people because of a finite population.

Now....somehow that just doesn't seem to make sense. You have a labour shortage so you can't hire more people meaning there are more positions that need to be filled but can't be, yet people can't find more work. There seems to be a little "1=0" logic going on here.

I am well aware of article 49 quoted in the proposed repeal. The last 8 words say that the international community can recognize certain immunities. Legally, an immunity is a type of right that is an exemption from an obligation. The 40 hour work week cannot be defined as an immunity, because it does exempt anyone from anything (labor or prosecution). Instead, it actually removes rights of contract between employers and employees.

If a resolution called for an immunity that said if someone decides to quit a job, they cannot be prosecuted, I would support it.

Resolution 49 says that, in general (with some exceptions - and I believe these exceptions should be for the purposes of policies that affect the international community), nations have sovereignty within their borders. Therefore, resultion 59, which blantantly crosses the line between UN policy and national policy, is against the spirit of resolution 49.

Now, if we're going to start talking about the spirit of UNR #49, it is certainly fair to bring in what the author himself has said. Fris, who is now a game moderator, has stated that the intent of UNR #49 was to basically write a resolution that dealt with what the UN was when Max Barry created it. In essence - he was giving no real purpose to it, adding absolutely nothing to the game, but taking what was the game and putting it into a resolution. He has stated several times that using UNR #49 to support National Sovereignty arguments is plain stupid and, quite frankly, wrong. It doesn't support National Sovereignty from the UN. Nor does it really say that it isn't an issue to consider. It just says that you have to listen to the UN. The immunities really does mean "except where the UN mandates". You don't believe me? Ask him.

If it benefits the company, then the company should set work policy.
If it benefits the workers, then worker friendly nations can set the work policy.

Whatever

I suppose most resolutions have their winners and losers, but who are the losers with resolution 59? It is the developing nations that cannot support the stringent labor policy of more advanced economies. How would you like it if the rest of the world zoomed ahead of you in production and then demanded that you meet their standards which at that point would be 20 hour work weeks with a 100-fold increase in the minimum wage? Your economy would not be able to support it.

False.

The minimum wage in those countries is abysmally low. Whether you're employing 20 workers or 60 workers rotating 8 hr shifts, you still get a massive deal over the expensive labour in developed nations. Your economy could support it.

Honestly, I think it is absolutely amazing that no one has ever tried working with a developing economy and putting in a bunch of these labor policies to see what would happen. Instead, they just run with fearmongering about how it would screw up the economy with absolutely no real data to prove their theories.

The trading of labor service is still a labor contract and fall under the jurisdiction of resolution 59. With respect to the temporary employees, you once again miss the point. What if the entire country is agrarian, and everybody has to work during a certain season and take another season off. You can't find temporary workers if they have to deal with their own fields.

Excuse me

*walks out of the room and into a side chamber*

*an unearthly scream is heard

*walks back in*

Anyways, where were we. Oh yes.

A society that is fully agrigarian means that every single bloody farm is family owned. I'll be damned if they have any employees in there. Plenty of employers, though.

Regardless, it still shows that you have absolutely no bloody clue about how an agrigarian community works. The families help one another get their fields tended to during harvest season. Spend some time there, you might actually learn a thing or two about that. They often don't hire temp labour - or really pay anyone anything.

FURTHER FINDING THAT the 40-hour work week requirement puts some nations in an unfavorable position with respect to trade,

My inner economist tells me this is a load of hooey. In reality, a 40-hour workweek evens the playing feild for developing nations, forcing them to comply to labour standards that equal-out market differences. Without it, less moral but rich nations/companies could work their labour force to the bone, vastly out-producing poorer nations that cannot enforce brute labour techniques, provide adequete tools, nor provide as adequete sales goods...or on the flipside poor nations could take advantage of this and put rich nations on end as corporations move their workforces away from the richer but more worker-concerned nations would be left in the dust, forced to buy back their raw goods shipped to manufacturer nations...or not even be able to supply raw goods, and suffer heavy consequences. Although doubtless some nations are put at odds by the 40-hour workweek, other nations would be put at odds without it...it balances out at the least and renders this argument weightless.

I am rather humored by your responses.


As I am humored with yours. You seem to pretend that you know what you're talking about, yet you argue like a child.


First you argue that the problem is that people can't get enough jobs and this is what is hindering the economies. Yet in a previous argument, you say that you can't hire more people because of a finite population.

Now....somehow that just doesn't seem to make sense. You have a labour shortage so you can't hire more people meaning there are more positions that need to be filled but can't be, yet people can't find more work. There seems to be a little "1=0" logic going on here.


No, this logic is fine. The 40 hour work week regulation bans certain labor contracts. That means that its going to be harder for employers and employees to form an agreement.

While you claim that a firm can keep output stable with the passage of the 40 hour work week, I point out that a nation cannot. I never said that people will be unable to get enough jobs, but if the nation cannot produce enough to meet the basic needs of the people, then it won't matter if everyone has a job: some will still continue to starve. You can't create something out of nothing.


Now, if we're going to start talking about the spirit of UNR #49, it is certainly fair to bring in what the author himself has said. Fris, who is now a game moderator, has stated that the intent of UNR #49 was to basically write a resolution that dealt with what the UN was when Max Barry created it. In essence - he was giving no real purpose to it, adding absolutely nothing to the game, but taking what was the game and putting it into a resolution. He has stated several times that using UNR #49 to support National Sovereignty arguments is plain stupid and, quite frankly, wrong. It doesn't support National Sovereignty from the UN. Nor does it really say that it isn't an issue to consider. It just says that you have to listen to the UN. The immunities really does mean "except where the UN mandates". You don't believe me? Ask him.


Res 49 must do something. I'm reading what it says, I shouldn't have to go back and ask the writer what it says. If I do, then its a poor resolution. In fact, when the UN voted on it, I'm sure most voters didn't talk to Fris.


Whatever


Fine then - why don't we just submit all of our decision-making to the UN who will make sure that everyone is cared for, cradle to grave.


False.

The minimum wage in those countries is abysmally low. Whether you're employing 20 workers or 60 workers rotating 8 hr shifts, you still get a massive deal over the expensive labour in developed nations. Your economy could support it.

Honestly, I think it is absolutely amazing that no one has ever tried working with a developing economy and putting in a bunch of these labor policies to see what would happen. Instead, they just run with fearmongering about how it would screw up the economy with absolutely no real data to prove their theories.


There's a good reason why developing countries don't adapt the labor standards of developed countries. In fact, there are instances where they do, but they turn into authoritarian dictatorships.


Excuse me

*walks out of the room and into a side chamber*

*an unearthly scream is heard

*walks back in*

Anyways, where were we. Oh yes.


cute.


A society that is fully agrigarian means that every single bloody farm is family owned. I'll be damned if they have any employees in there. Plenty of employers, though.

Regardless, it still shows that you have absolutely no bloody clue about how an agrigarian community works. The families help one another get their fields tended to during harvest season. Spend some time there, you might actually learn a thing or two about that. They often don't hire temp labour - or really pay anyone anything.

I have never heard of a society where every single farm is family owned. The fact of the matter is, there are many different possible structures for agrarian societies - most of which you ignore.

My inner economist tells me this is a load of hooey. In reality, a 40-hour workweek evens the playing feild for developing nations, forcing them to comply to labour standards that equal-out market differences. Without it, less moral but rich nations/companies could work their labour force to the bone, vastly out-producing poorer nations that cannot enforce brute labour techniques, provide adequete tools, nor provide as adequete sales goods...or on the flipside poor nations could take advantage of this and put rich nations on end as corporations move their workforces away from the richer but more worker-concerned nations would be left in the dust, forced to buy back their raw goods shipped to manufacturer nations...or not even be able to supply raw goods, and suffer heavy consequences. Although doubtless some nations are put at odds by the 40-hour workweek, other nations would be put at odds without it...it balances out at the least and renders this argument weightless.

Keep in mind that many (I think most) nations in our world are not in the UN and therefore do not have to live with these labor standards. This means that poor UN nations will have this restriction when competing with all kinds of non-UN nations. The restrictions clearly don't put them at an advantage when they don't adapt them on their own.

I believe that every nation has the right to set its own labor standards. As the economy grows, labor standards increase. I don't think its right for the UN to step in and tell nations what they must do in this respect. Especially a good democratic nation, where the people are the driving forc behind labor standards. A one-shoe-fits-all policy doesn't work here.

Res 49 must do something.
It does. It defines national sovereignty - as subject to the rule of international law.

There is no point using #49 to back you up. Not only is it incorrect, it's a waste of space: sovereigntists will support the repeal anyway.

resolution 59. With respect to the temporary employees, you once again miss the point. What if the entire country is agrarian, and everybody has to work during a certain season and take another season off. You can't find temporary workers if they have to deal with their own fields.
Overtime pay is possible sure, but it would cause far less work to be done during the critical season in agrarian nations, and lessen the amount of food ultimately produced.

"Ahem." From resolution #59 _
5. Work exceeding 40 hours per week that is voluntarily undertaken shall not exceed a total of 80 hours per week, and shall be paid at a rate of at least time and a half or an equivalent pro-rata time off in lieu.

So if the farm-labourers have to work harder than average during one particular season, but then get another season off as you suggest, that could -- depending on the precise details -- already be legal under the resolution that you're trying to repeal...

Keep in mind that many (I think most) nations in our world are not in the UN and therefore do not have to live with these labor standards. This means that poor UN nations will have this restriction when competing with all kinds of non-UN nations. The restrictions clearly don't put them at an advantage when they don't adapt them on their own.

I believe that every nation has the right to set its own labor standards. As the economy grows, labor standards increase. I don't think its right for the UN to step in and tell nations what they must do in this respect. Especially a good democratic nation, where the people are the driving forc behind labor standards. A one-shoe-fits-all policy doesn't work here.[/QUOTE]

So all you want to do is work your workers to death like they do in other Non-U.N member states. However, our nation has reservations about the 40-hour work week but believe that it should remain for working standards so workers aren't abused by the government.

The rights of the workers overhwelm the cause here.

Workers who want to work more than 40 hours a week should be able to do so, and those who wish to work less should be able to do so, taking into consideration that if they are able to work, and do not; then they will not be eligible for any compensation from any organization tat caters to the financially distressed.

Employers should not be able to force excessive workloads onto their employees. This is obvious.

I am in favour of regulating the number of hours in a workweek, but on a case by case basis, according to the type of work.
Blue collar workers should have overtime hours apply earlier than white collar workers, due to the physical strains involded.

Regardless of which policy is implemented; the UN should be nothing more than a supervisor in this regard, and not be involved in the internal affairs of individual nations unless the rights of the workers are being violated, or are putting them in danger.
Something of an international labour board to protect the workers, but not to dictate how the nations regulate their workforce is something I would support.

Let's cut to the chaste - if Utskistan wants its citizens to work a 60 hour work week - what right is it of this body to meddle in internal commerce? Will the UN come in and provide for our citizens when they are not prepared for the monsoon season? Will the UN provide labor when the sugar crops need to be harvested in a 10 day period or that crop will rot in the field? Will the UN provide labor for infrastructure so that a small nation like Utskistan can compete with larger nations in the region and the world?

Of course not - the 40 hour work week is just another capitalist conspiracy to shackle developing and underdeveloped nations.

The Armed Republic of Utskistan will never be a natural resource whore for the developed nations in this body.

The Armed Republic of Utskistan will support the repeal of the 40 hour work week and will work toward the restoration of sovereignty to nation states - where it rightly belongs.

It does. It defines national sovereignty - as subject to the rule of international law.

There is no point using #49 to back you up. Not only is it incorrect, it's a waste of space: sovereigntists will support the repeal anyway.
Some of the sovereigntists will.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don and supporter of the 40 hour work week

"Ahem." From resolution #59 _


So if the farm-labourers have to work harder than average during one particular season, but then get another season off as you suggest, that could -- depending on the precise details -- already be legal under the resolution that you're trying to repeal...

Yes, but this resolution, with the introduction of overtime pay, will discourage companies from offering overtime, and therefore less work will be done during the "bottleneck" (busy) season.

It does. It defines national sovereignty - as subject to the rule of international law.

There is no point using #49 to back you up. Not only is it incorrect, it's a waste of space: sovereigntists will support the repeal anyway.

Well - let me put this another way. I'm going to have to break the meta-gaming rule here - but hear me out.

From time to time, each of our nations get issues on which we must decide. Often, these issues have to do with internal labor policy. For example, one issue has to do with the rights of labor unions.

Now, if the UN decides to dictate to us how our nation must handle these issues, it doesn't affect the programming of the website. These same issues will still crop up from time to time, and whether I pick the "UN way" or not, I'll still be a member of the UN and I'll still get a short telegram saying that I have complied. There's a contradiction there. I think that UN issues and the "nation issues" need to be separate, and otherwise there's a glaring contradiction in this simulation.

On the last post:
Sorry, I forgot to address the time off in lieu. There are still hypothetical economic structures in which this will not work out. What if they are temporary workers? You can't give time off later when they're only going to be working for you for three months. I still think this should be a national issue, and if you read above, I think that having these kinds of resolutions on the books really destroys the integrity of the game.

Mayhap in the future the great all-knowing mods/admins will figure out a way to enforce UN regulation on national issues.

Well - let me put this another way. I'm going to have to break the meta-gaming rule here - but hear me out.

From time to time, each of our nations get issues on which we must decide. Often, these issues have to do with internal labor policy. For example, one issue has to do with the rights of labor unions.

Now, if the UN decides to dictate to us how our nation must handle these issues, it doesn't affect the programming of the website. These same issues will still crop up from time to time, and whether I pick the "UN way" or not, I'll still be a member of the UN and I'll still get a short telegram saying that I have complied. There's a contradiction there. I think that UN issues and the "nation issues" need to be separate, and otherwise there's a glaring contradiction in this simulation.

On the last post:
Sorry, I forgot to address the time off in lieu. There are still hypothetical economic structures in which this will not work out. What if they are temporary workers? You can't give time off later when they're only going to be working for you for three months. I still think this should be a national issue, and if you read above, I think that having these kinds of resolutions on the books really destroys the integrity of the game.

Yes, and there's an inherent contradiction in the claims of Max Barry in the FAQ and the reality of the game engine, resulting in a dichotomy in how they treat the gameplay and roleplay Universes - and what parts of the resolution fit where.

Since Max Barry stated that you can't ignore resolutions, obviously the gameplay argument is totally useless. So we start looking at what happens when a resolution passes. In the end, the only thing that happens is the category and strength are used to determine what happens to your nation's stats. You don't get a blurb about it being passed in your nation's page and the most that it ties into your actual account is you see a compliance ministry message that mentions the title. That's it. Where's the text of the resolution applied? Absolutely nowhere.

So then we look at the roleplay environment, where community expectations and the ignore button basically decide what is and isn't acceptable - so long as you don't flame anyone/act like the a-hole from Mars. Here the resolutions can be enforced, so we bring the concept of required compliance to the forums and use that as the place to determine whether you are or aren't complying with the resolution. Gameplay be damned.

You can, of course, import your RP into your gameplay or vica versa - so long as it works within the framework of the environments you're importing it into. Deciding to set up the hub for inter-stellar trade in RP isn't going to translate too well in gameplay, just as breaking UN resolutions in your nation won't translate too well into the RP environment.

This board is a roleplay concerned board, not a gameplay concerned. Our debates about category are a few paragraphs long and only concerned about OOC legality. Our debates about the content of the resolution are done almost entirely IC or OOC while focus on the RP. We aren't going "this'll drop me to Psychotic Dictatorship" and the few attempts to stat wank have actually been deleted by the mods.

So no, the compliance argument isn't a valid one to determine your sovereignty.