NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently received the following telegram from NS Moderators:

"Repeal "Public Domain"" was deleted for hewing too close to creating new law in a Repeal, which is against UN Proposal rules. No warning added, and you should probably take this to the UN Forum for reworking.

I was unable to find the precise guidelines for Repeals not 'creating new law' in the stickied thread in this forum, and I no longer have a copy of my previous proposal, so before I draft a new version, I'm asking here: What should I specifically avoid? I don't recall making any binding statements on member nations in the repeal, though I did include a section about the UN's intent with this repeal to draft a more comprehensive proposal on public domain (which I would have drafted had my proposal passed), and also emphasized that all member nations might have pubic domain laws at their own discretion (which is the status quo absent any resolution anyway). Are either of those unacceptable?

This isn't a thread for griping about the decision, and I apologize if it's coming across that way (in a bit of a hurry to get to work), but rather it's intended to fish for suggestions or guidelines on what is acceptable in a repeal. Thanks in advance for your time.

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

What does it mean?

-You can't encourage nations to do stuff
-You can't mandate nations to do stuff
-You can't make new defintions for the UN to follow

What can you do?

-You can note facts
-You can note faults in the resolution
-You can note parts of other resolutions
-You can note grammatical and spelling errors in resolutions
-You can request the United Nations do something in the future (like if you're repealing, say, Definition of Marriage, you can go "REQUESTS the UN does not pass another resolution defining marriage" or "CALLS FOR a replacement that limits marriage to between a man and a woman" or something else along those lines. Going "CALLS FOR the UN to have a lobster special in the cafeteria on wednesdays" isn't going to fly)

If you're still confused, just draft your repeal here and we can explain the specific clauses that end up being illegal.

I recently received the following telegram from NS Moderators:

"Repeal "Public Domain"" was deleted for hewing too close to creating new law in a Repeal, which is against UN Proposal rules. No warning added, and you should probably take this to the UN Forum for reworking.

I was unable to find the precise guidelines for Repeals not 'creating new law' in the stickied thread in this forum, and I no longer have a copy of my previous proposal, so before I draft a new version, I'm asking here: What should I specifically avoid? I don't recall making any binding statements on member nations in the repeal, though I did include a section about the UN's intent with this repeal to draft a more comprehensive proposal on public domain (which I would have drafted had my proposal passed), and also emphasized that all member nations might have pubic domain laws at their own discretion (which is the status quo absent any resolution anyway). Are either of those unacceptable?

This isn't a thread for griping about the decision, and I apologize if it's coming across that way (in a bit of a hurry to get to work), but rather it's intended to fish for suggestions or guidelines on what is acceptable in a repeal. Thanks in advance for your time.

Since we don't know what the repeal contained, we're not sure about this, but we'd bet the problem was the statement about nations having public domain laws. If so, there's a simple solution: leave it out.

The fundamental flaw with "Public Domain" is that it tries to legislate into existence something that's already there. The public domain exists whether there's any legislation establishing it or not. It's the default state. If an item of intellectual property isn't carved out of the public domain by intellectual property law, it's automatically in the public domain.

We'd second the suggestion of the distinguished Representative of Forgottenlands that you redraft your repeal and post it here instead of submitting it. We'll be more than happy to work with you on it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

What does it mean?

-You can't encourage nations to do stuff
-You can't mandate nations to do stuff
-You can't make new defintions for the UN to follow

What can you do?

-You can note facts
-You can note faults in the resolution
-You can note parts of other resolutions
-You can note grammatical and spelling errors in resolutions
-You can request the United Nations do something in the future (like if you're repealing, say, Definition of Marriage, you can go "REQUESTS the UN does not pass another resolution defining marriage" or "CALLS FOR a replacement that limits marriage to between a man and a woman" or something else along those lines. Going "CALLS FOR the UN to have a lobster special in the cafeteria on wednesdays" isn't going to fly)

If you're still confused, just draft your repeal here and we can explain the specific clauses that end up being illegal.That's very helpful, thanks.

What does it mean?

-You can't encourage nations to do stuff
-You can't mandate nations to do stuff
-You can't make new defintions for the UN to follow

What can you do?

-You can note facts
-You can note faults in the resolution
-You can note parts of other resolutions
-You can note grammatical and spelling errors in resolutions
-You can request the United Nations do something in the future (like if you're repealing, say, Definition of Marriage, you can go "REQUESTS the UN does not pass another resolution defining marriage" or "CALLS FOR a replacement that limits marriage to between a man and a woman" or something else along those lines. Going "CALLS FOR the UN to have a lobster special in the cafeteria on wednesdays" isn't going to fly)

If you're still confused, just draft your repeal here and we can explain the specific clauses that end up being illegal.

Agreed that this was very helpful.

If the above is an accurate interpretation (and I have no reason to think it isn't), I would guess the clause of the resolution encouraging nations to consider both intellectual property rights and the publics right to free information when drafting their own public domain laws was what got it axed. There might have been other objectionable parts as well, but that was likely the main one. I had no idea that repeals couldn't encourage, as I thought I remembered a repeal of the abortion rights resolution that did just that. (Don't recall if that was the final version that got voted in, though.)

Thanks to everyone who commented!

This is the version that got passed

Repeal "Abortion Rights"


A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category : Repeal
Resolution : #61
Proposed by : Dorksonia

Description : UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument : RECOGNIZES that abortion is an issue where good people on each side of this issue disagree.

PRAISES the concern for women in crisis and with needs.

POINTS OUT Resolution #61 provides no details or reasons for it's argument.

EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit any abortions, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

NOTES people are passionate on both sides of this issue and repealing this issue will indeed be "pro-choice" (member nations may choose to permit abortions for any reason, limit it as they deem necessary, or prohibit).

CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.

QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure.

REPEALS resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"

Votes For : 7,630

Votes Against : 6,519

Implemented : Tue Feb 14 2006

This repeal gives lots of opinions and facts, notes about failings, but nothing in terms of encouragement.

Not all proposals in the proposal queue are illegal (in fact, I've heard as many as 90% get deleted for rules violations). Not all that survive purges are legal. We've had legality challenges for proposals after they made quarom that succeeded in the proposal getting deleted before. If you truly want a good chance of getting your proposal to actually be legal, this forum should be your first source. Yes, a few of our proposals are illegal in the end, but we tend to get mod opinions in the process so we know before we submit. The regulars here have spent many hours each going over the rules and there are many who can spot most of the problems beforehand.

Anyways, the line you quoted might be the line they deleted it on, but it was fairly minor (which would explain the lack of warning).

we tend to get mod opinions in the process so we know before we submit. The regulars here have spent many hours each going over the rules and there are many who can spot most of the problems beforehand.
In fact, the regulars often catch more of the illegalities than the mods do, simply because a) there are more of you than us and b) you often have more time. I don't have time to consult the full list of 162+ passed proposals every time I hit the list. I get the ones I know are covered. I suspect Hack does the same thing. Then we both hit "Silly Proposals" and steal your rationales (which is why I like posts with concise explanations and hate the ones with :rolleyes: )

I can't stress enough that mod opinions should be the *last* resort, not the first. Yes, Hack and I know UN law as well or better than anyone in the game. A few of the other game mods are close, others don't touch the UN at all.

Just like any other court, the judges aren't the ones who have to research the case, chose arguments, and present. We may chose to research the *decision*, but that's it. If you folks set the stage with your arguments pro or con, we'll make a decision. If your only case is "is this legal?", I for one would likely say, 'nah'.

* Pet peeve, managed *