NationStates Jolt Archive

In an effort to keep the UN Proposal Rules Sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) free from clutter, I'm making this thread for comments, questions and such.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

How do you support a purposal.

You cannot, as you are not a UN Delegate.

In the future, please read the stickies (especially in the Technical Forum) and the game FAQ before asking questions.

I'm just a little dismayed at the narrowness of scope in the environmental category

Is it not a complete generalisation to say that any activity to improve the environment automatically penalises industry

Some recommendations that help the environment may simply require a change in behaviour: such as companies all required to sell in recyclable material with less packaging and not in "convenience" sizes people will either purchase the larger sizes or they'll get something else, but the money will stay circulating - also while for the business there's less of the convenience market there's also less overhead.


Secondly where is this economic penalty taking into account the amount you save by not screwing up ecosystems -
A) there's a lot of talk of the environment as an economic externality - i.e. something that can't be measured financially, but this is utter rubbish, as there are many ways e.g. the wetland you're converting to farmland currently acts as a carbon sink, a nutrient regulator, a system of flood control, a haven for crop pollinators and wild types of your crop (important genetic resources that increase diversity and therefore adaptability,e.g. to a disease). You can measure how much this wetland is then worth by comparing the economic gain of the farmland over the conversion cost, the supplementation of fertilisers, pollinators and the damage costs from floods and pest damage.

B) An intact environment is often more valuable in the long run than a short term gain from exploiting it. This is a basic premise of sustainability. Where is this in such a category?

IMO I think the environment category is way too simplistic and I think many people are put off by environmental proposals because they believe (rightly) that they only penalise their economy, when they need not (in the short term) and definitely do not in the long term.

I'm just a little dismayed at the narrowness of scope in the environmental category

IMO I think the environment category is way too simplistic and I think many people are put off by environmental proposals because they believe (rightly) that they only penalise their economy, when they need not (in the short term) and definitely do not in the long term.

I'd like to say that I actually agree with you. I've snipped most of your post, but the category is IMHO a broken category. But I also fail to see how restricting drugs isn't associated with "civil freedoms" up / down, nor how gambling is its own category.

Having honestly never read Jennifer Government (don't blame me, I keep telling my family it would make a cheap and excellent B-day gift ... instead I get expensive crap that I donate to Goodwill ... I love my family, but I don't understand why they just won't buy me the cheap book), I've always been under the impression that Max's UN was never designed to really be like the real UN.

However, I like seeing the NationStates UN more like a real UN.

I'd like to say that I actually agree with you. I've snipped most of your post, but the category is IMHO a broken category. But I also fail to see how restricting drugs isn't associated with "civil freedoms" up / down, nor how gambling is its own category.I'm guessing that when it was coded, Max didn't expect it to take on a life of its own. Remember, he thought this thing would only last for a few months and have a hundred or so users; this is just another case of the community outgrowing the original plan.

Having honestly never read Jennifer Government (don't blame me, I keep telling my family it would make a cheap and excellent B-day gift ... instead I get expensive crap that I donate to Goodwill ... I love my family, but I don't understand why they just won't buy me the cheap book)Buy it yourself? Get it from the library? Read it over the course of several days at the bookshop? :p

I've always been under the impression that Max's UN was never designed to really be like the real UN.Pretty much.

I'm guessing that when it was coded, Max didn't expect it to take on a life of its own. Remember, he thought this thing would only last for a few months and have a hundred or so users; this is just another case of the community outgrowing the original plan.

Very good point. And for the record, I do think that Max and whomever started the game came up with an original concept and honestly did an "A+" job at getting everything to work.

In fact, I'd attribute the success of the game to the elements that were incorporated. :)

Buy it yourself? Get it from the library? Read it over the course of several days at the bookshop? :p


:)
I *almost* bought the book in April to bring with me to Switzerland and Germany this year, but figured the point of traveling to Europe was to see Europe, not read a book. Is it a fast read?

To bring this a bit back on topic, how hard would it be to deepen the environmental categories? Last week you mentioned that there is in fact a "to-do-list" for category improvements, and I was wondering if anything related to environment was on that list.

I *almost* bought the book in April to bring with me to Switzerland and Germany this year, but figured the point of traveling to Europe was to see Europe, not read a book. Is it a fast read?
You'll be finished before you've put a crease in the spine. It's, er, simple stuff.

You'll be finished before you've put a crease in the spine. It's, er, simple stuff.

So was Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but I loved it all the same. (NO SPOILERS for the others though!) :)

To bring this a bit back on topic, how hard would it be to deepen the environmental categories? Last week you mentioned that there is in fact a "to-do-list" for category improvements, and I was wondering if anything related to environment was on that list.

LIkewise (also to bring this topic back on track) I am interested in this - and if the environmental category is not in the to-do list, can it be added?

I don't mean to be too obviously bumpy, but should this thread be brought to the technical side of things or what?

I still believe that the current categorisation of environmental proposals is weak and one-sided

Sorry, I have one question regarding the procedure to obtain quorum. I submitted a proposal (for fear of being thought to be trying to sell it I won't name it), I read the rules, and made sure everything was cool and all, but I just submitted the proposal myself, without going to discussion threads or anything like that, as I was willing to stake my nation on having not broken any rules. The downside to this was that I inadvertently had avoided the main way in which these things are advertised before submission, and given the very short amount of time for approval (the reasons for which I fully understand) I fear that my proposal, through no fault of its own will not get approved for vote.

In light of all of this, my question is:
If my proposal is not passed, and I decide to now go to the forums relevant to it, discuss it with likeminded people to get the word round about it and possibly hone some of the finer points, and then resubmit it for approval, does this count as duplication?

Nataljans

If my proposal is not passed, and I decide to now go to the forums relevant to it, discuss it with likeminded people to get the word round about it and possibly hone some of the finer points, and then resubmit it for approval, does this count as duplication?

Duplication refers to duplicating an existing Resolution. For instance, submitting a Proposal that allows abortion, would run afoul of duplication as there is already a Resolution dealing with it. In fact, as an experiment, I have submitted the same Proposal six or seven times now (via my UN puppet), trying to see if A) a Proposal in its category could reach quorum and B) if it is possible without advertising it.

Some of the current Resolutions took numerous attempts (some as many as 15) to reach quorum.

Thank you, I can breathe a sigh of relief, with only 11 approvals and the deadline tomorrow, I feel I'll have to submit it again after opening it up a bit in a discussion thread. Thanks for the clarification.
Also, in your experiments on seeing how succesful a proposal is without advertising it, did you find that it made a big difference? Or am I just suffering from hurt pride! :P
Nataljans

I believe my record was 19 endorsements without any publicity. Of course, I usually get distracted by something or another and haven't been keeping up with it. I really should. If nothing else, its presence for a month solid might help, heh

19 is your record?
I've got 19 already, no publicity, 1st time proposer and still 12 hours or so before deadline! Maybe if I open it up on the forum this thing'll actually have some success! Expect a new thread in the next day or so! :)

Duplication refers to duplicating an existing Resolution. For instance, submitting a Proposal that allows abortion, would run afoul of duplication as there is already a Resolution dealing with it. In fact, as an experiment, I have submitted the same Proposal six or seven times now (via my UN puppet), trying to see if A) a Proposal in its category could reach quorum and B) if it is possible without advertising it.

Some of the current Resolutions took numerous attempts (some as many as 15) to reach quorum.

I've submitted proposals without any advertising before, and they failed to break the 50 endorsement mark. I think it *might* be possible for a human rights proposal to maybe eventually make it to the UN floor without advertising, if it is fairly well written. But moral decency or political stability? No way.

19 is your record?
I've got 19 already, no publicity, 1st time proposer and still 12 hours or so before deadline! Maybe if I open it up on the forum this thing'll actually have some success! Expect a new thread in the next day or so! :)

With no telegram campaign, I think the text of the proposal and its category have a significant impact.

So if Hack has submitted a "Gun Control" proposal and not telegrammed a soul, I would think 19 endorsements is pretty good.

Some of the current Resolutions took numerous attempts (some as many as 15) to reach quorum.
And still no-one's trying to break my illustrious record...

And still no-one's trying to break my illustrious record...
I don't think anyone else has had to. :p

Is there a guide somewhere on how to make Proposals and the like? People are using a certain style (with the NOTING, URGING, etc. etc.) and I am getting a sense on how to do it but I still would like a guide before I go on to propose anything large.

Is there a guide somewhere on how to make Proposals and the like? People are using a certain style (with the NOTING, URGING, etc. etc.) and I am getting a sense on how to do it but I still would like a guide before I go on to propose anything large.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681196&postcount=3

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681196&postcount=3

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome. :)

I passed "Outlaw Pedophilia" without any campaigning. :p

Another question:

If your thread says "DRAFT" do you have to make a new one that doesn't say that? I cannot change the Forum Title to remove Draft, even though I have made all of the improvements I feel I can make.

Another question:

If your thread says "DRAFT" do you have to make a new one that doesn't say that? I cannot change the Forum Title to remove Draft, even though I have made all of the improvements I feel I can make.

There hasn't been any official ruling on this, but I've been asking all UN resolution authors to create a new *poll* the day before their resolution hits the UN floor. The polls are used to gauge the level of interest in the resolutions being debated.

For example:
Mitigation of Large Reservoirs had 137 responses
The Microcredit Bazaar had 164 responses
The Transgender Equality Act had over 310 responses (when debate closed)

The point being is that the Transgender Equality Act actually was a subject that more nations were interested in *voting* publically on. It also happened to have around 24 pages of new debate, in addition to multiple threads for the draft proposals.

Ultimately, by creating a new thread that includes a poll, resolution authors not only get a chance to put their best face forward and start fresh, but the end result is we can also generate graphics (some might argue they are a waste, but in time I hope to answer the question about how representative of the overall UN vote the UN forum is):

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Transgender_Equality_Act

Question, can you do a general "thank you to all those that helped edit this proposal" or something to that extent?

There hasn't been any official ruling on this, but I've been asking all UN resolution authors to create a new *poll* the day before their resolution hits the UN floor. The polls are used to gauge the level of interest in the resolutions being debated.

For example:
Mitigation of Large Reservoirs had 137 responses
The Microcredit Bazaar had 164 responses
The Transgender Equality Act had over 310 responses (when debate closed)

The point being is that the Transgender Equality Act actually was a subject that more nations were interested in *voting* publically on. It also happened to have around 24 pages of new debate, in addition to multiple threads for the draft proposals.

Ultimately, by creating a new thread that includes a poll, resolution authors not only get a chance to put their best face forward and start fresh, but the end result is we can also generate graphics (some might argue they are a waste, but in time I hope to answer the question about how representative of the overall UN vote the UN forum is):

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Transgender_Equality_Act

Hmm, I'll defintaely have to do this myself soon, thank you.

Last question for the day, what ACTUALLY gets Proposals put onto the floor? Threads in the Forum or submitting a Proposal in the NS website, under the UN sub catergory.

Hmm, I'll defintaely have to do this myself soon, thank you.

Last question for the day, what ACTUALLY gets Proposals put onto the floor? Threads in the Forum or submitting a Proposal in the NS website, under the UN sub catergory.

TG campaigns do wonders. Good topics can often pull it off (ie: if they are very heavily supported normally), but when you lack the good topic, TG campaign is a bit more important. These forums might get you 20 endorsements. Anywhere outside this forum on jolt might get it deleted for pimping.

Question, can you do a general "thank you to all those that helped edit this proposal" or something to that extent?

You can always make a post after the debate thanking specifically those whom helped. But your question is a good one, as I don't know. :)

Question, can you do a general "thank you to all those that helped edit this proposal" or something to that extent?

yes, it would be great for all those proposition (mine included) improved by several nation on the UN forum

Hmm, I'll defintaely have to do this myself soon, thank you.

Last question for the day, what ACTUALLY gets Proposals put onto the floor? Threads in the Forum or submitting a Proposal in the NS website, under the UN sub catergory.

The UN forums can be thought of as the UN Headquarters. When I was in the UN headquarters (as a visitor) in Geneva, there was as much discussion going on in the main conference rooms (which they have plenty of) as in the hallways. :)

Our threads are those discussions. They can be in a meeting room or the hallway.

This is how I describe the mechanics of resolutions (this is not official, but I think this is a pretty darn accurate statement based on my experiences in following the NS UN):

- idea / discussion (OPTIONAL)
---- a repeal is also a proposal, technically it is a "proposed repeal"
- draft proposal (debated on the forum and/or off-site)
- submitted proposal (formally submitted on the NS website)
---- proposal seeking endorsements (said to be in the proposal queue)
---- these proposals last 3 to 4 days (depending upon when submitted)
---- one of three things happens:
-------- 1) proposal is deleted by "UN Secretariat" (game moderators)
-------- 2) proposal reaches "quorum" and the resolution queue
-------- 3) proposal fails to reach "quorum" & is removed from proposal queue
---- proposals that reach "quorum" are still in the proposal "queue"
---- they can still be deleted by the moderators and aren't "resolutions"
---- we call this part of the queue the "resolution queue"
---- they sit there as long as another resolution is on "the UN floor"
---- when a resolution finishes voting, a half day passes
- oldest proposal (not highest endorsed) becomes the next resolution
---- a repeal is also a resolution, technically a "resolultion to repeal"
---- other proposals move forward in the "resolution queue"



To recap, there is a "proposal queue", where all submitted proposals go. There they sit and collect UN Delegate endorsements. Once any proposal gets over 6% of the total number of UN Delegates to endorse it, it is said to have achieved "quorum" and moves to a part of the proposal queue that we call the "resolution queue" (meaning it is waiting to become a resolution). In that time, it isn't officially a resolution, even though most players and even many game moderators call it a resolution.

The difference between a proposal and a resolution is that game moderators can delete proposals, regardless of the number of UN Delegate endorsements *or* their location in the "queue". Game moderators cannot delete or change UN resolutions. They must be voted upon by UN members.

Only passed / adopted resolutions are stored on the NationStates resolution archive. However, a number of players have managed to archive the text of almost all of the resolutions (passed and failed) that have ever been debated.

[first posted in the technical forum]

Greetings,

We would like to propose a new opportunity, in the way the UN works with repeals:


As Amendments to resolutions are not possible, and in order to modify or replace an “existing resolution” a UN Member need:

- 1st, to repeal the “existing resolution”

- 2nd, to submit his “new proposition”


As many times, when a UN Member wants to modify or replace an “existing resolution”:

- A sterile debate and unnecessary legal discussions take place

- UN Members will vote FOR or AGAINST a repeal, without the knowledge of the content or even of the existence of the “new proposition” intended to replace the existing one

- The lapse of time between the vote of the repeal and the vote of the “new proposition”, can exceed 1 week or even more; and in the case of an essential “existing resolution” at stakes, a future hole in the UN legislation can lead to great dangers


=> We think, it could be great for the UN, that mods allow UN Members to submit a “new proposition” even if it contains a Duplication or a Contradiction violation of the “existing resolution(s)” it intend to replace, in the only case the 2 following conditions are respected:

-1- The Repeal(s) of the violated “existing resolution(s)” have/has already been submitted the very same day (ie: same "Voting Ends" date);

-2- The repeal(s) mention explicitly the “new proposition” following and the “new proposition” mention explicitly the repeal(s)


=> Then, if (one of) the repeal(s) fail, mods will delete the “new proposition” before its vote at the entire UN can begin.

Ps: it will even be easier for nations trying to repeal + replace an “existing resolution”, as they will be able to submit them the same day, and have a single more efficient TG campaign for both the repeal and the “new proposition”


Thank You
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel

I don't completely follow, but I wanted to say that I'm starting to think it would be nice if in addition to repeals if there was an option to "replace" resolutions. The argument for the replacement should be short, but the text of the description could be the actual text. Logistically this might be more trouble than it is worth.

I wanted to say that I'm starting to think it would be nice if in addition to repeals if there was an option to "replace" resolutions.

i fully agree, an option to "replace" resolutions will be better than the opportunity i propose

I don't completely follow

Ok, sorry, maybe my post was confuse:

the opportunity is that nations will be allowed to submit the repeal first and then the "new proposition", the same day (even if the "new proposition" is a violation)

=> Advantages:

- every delegate will approve or not the repeal, and every nation will vote FOR, AGAINST or Abstain the repeal, with full knowledge of the text of the "new proposition"

- the author will have only 1 joint TG campaign to do

- no more sterile legal debate about repeal/replace

- if the repeal reach quorum, but the "new proposition" doesn't, the author will have the possibility to ask mods to delete the repeal

- no modification of the code or the game is needed, it's just a rule; there is only 1 thing mods will have to do: they should delete the "new proposition" if the repeal doesn't reach quorum or fail



We think it will be an important step towards the Furtherment of democracy in the UN body

Ok, sorry, maybe my post was confuse:

the opportunity is that nations will be allowed to submit the repeal first and then the "new proposition", the same day (even if the "new proposition" is a violation)


:)
Ah, I understand and actually think this is a great idea!

The only problem is that the moderators would have to be careful to delete (without warnings) any proposals that would reach the floor ahead of the repeals. We'd probably need Hack, Frisbeeteria, and Euroslavia (whom is just a forum mod) to give us some feedback if they think this is too much to ask our game moderators.

:)
Ah, I understand and actually think this is a great idea!

The only problem is that the moderators would have to be careful to delete (without warnings) any proposals that would reach the floor ahead of the repeals. We'd probably need Hack, Frisbeeteria, and Euroslavia (whom is just a forum mod) to give us some feedback if they think this is too much to ask our game moderators.

thanks

i don't think the mods will have much to do
they will have to delete the "new proposition", only if it reach quorum and the repeal doesn't reach quorum or fail

They will also have less legal case to think about

furthermore, i propose this opportunity, to be granted only if the link between the repeal and the "“new proposition” is stated in the 1st line of both

(snip)

I highly suggest this sort of text on the overall process be placed in the FAQs.

It reminds me of the old Schoolhouse Rock song "I'm Just a Bill."

How about this, adopted from Mikitivity and a little cleaned up:

Conceptualization & Research

1. Initial idea sparks an Authoring State to being the process for new resolution or repeal.
2. Thoroughly research prior UN Resolutions Throughout History (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions) to ensure no pre-existing resolution already specifies similar provisions, conflicts with, or might have significant impacts on the new proposal.
3. Read the The Great Big Consolidated United Nations Sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=412468) and the Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding] (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).
4. DISCUSS the issue in UN or off-site Forum
5. DRAFT PROPOSAL posted on the NS or off-site Forums (RECOMMENDED)
6. Incorporate changes from initial feedback and suggestions.

Resolution Proposal Queue

7. RESOLUTION PROPOSAL submitted on the NS website proposal queue. You will have to select a Resolution Category (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2) and strength for the proposed resolution, and ensure the proposal is less than 3,500 characters (including spaces). (REQUIRED)
8. Supporters can conduct a TG (Telegram) campaign to Delegates to garner support.
9. UN Delegates may APPROVE or pass on proposal over next 3-4 days

Highly Undesired Events During Proposal Queue

Note: Try to word proposals to avoid these conditions.

10. Nation states may lodge complaints against the proposal in the Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) forum.
11. Nation states may highlight proposals in Silly Proposals: THE RETURN (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397276) for proper deconstruction.
12. Proposals which violate UN Resolution guidelines may be deleted by "UN Secretariat" (game moderators).
13. Proposals that do not reach "quorum" (approval of 6%+ of delegates) by the expiring date are removed from proposal queue

Resolution Queue

14. Proposal that successfully reach "quorum" (approval of 6%+ of UN delegates) are placed in the resolution queue
15. Proposals can still be deleted by the moderators at this stage and are not yet "Resolutions"
16. They wait until the Resolution at Vote passes or fails.
17. When a resolution finishes voting, a half day passes.

The Resolution At Vote

18. Oldest PROPOSED RESOLUTION (not highest endorsed) becomes the next Resolution at Vote
19. Other proposals move forward in the resolution queue
20. The resolution is put as a sticky at the top of the NS UN forum for all players to look at, review and comment on.
21. All UN member nations can vote on the Resolution at Vote in their NationStates (http://www.nationstates.net/) control panel under United Nations.
22. UN member nations can change their vote at any time up to the closing of the vote.
23. The vote lasts for (N) days. [Need to check exactly how many.]
24. If the Proposed Resolution does not achieve a majority of votes cast, it is defeated and put aside.

Resolution Enacted

25. If the Proposed Resolution is passed, it is given a Resolution Number and added to the official list of UN Resolutions.
26. Within the next day, the Compliance Ministry (by automatic game mechanics) applies the UN Resolution by automatically affecting the economy of all UN member states based upon the category and strength of the resolution.
27. The Compliance Ministry sends a telegram to all affected UN member states of the enforcement of the new UN Resolution.

Is there anything I missed? Any errors or assumptions?

As resolution become more and more complex
As it can be interesting that the UN ecourages Nations to work together with some others Nations when writing a proposition

=> The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel would like to suggest that proposition can now be co-authored by 1 or 2 nations instead of only 1

I'd like to ask for clarification on the whole MetaGaming/committees thing. I know mods like doing specific drafts, not vague questions, but I don't have anything final right now, and don't intend to spend a lot of work getting one ready only to have it booted. But, would creating a WTO be illegal? It seems like it once was, and that's become less explicit.

I'm not really interested in the WTO as a whole, but rather one of its councils: the one that oversees TRIPS. After repealing UCPL, we need to get some patent-stuff going, and it strikes me that establishing this sort of oversight committee would be a good part of the solution. I hope it's not out of the question?

Are national sovereignty arguments appropriate for repeals? A most outlandish opinion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10168628&postcount=172) (based on false information) was proffered last night by GMC.

Are national sovereignty arguments appropriate for repeals? A most outlandish opinion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10168628&postcount=172) (based on false information) was proffered last night by GMC.

My opinion / comment:

I think it really depends on what was written, but in general opinions on the role or scope of international law should be legal, because it already is OK to promote cooperative roles of the UN.

When I last looked at the *game* FAQ, I saw nothing in there that specifically prohibited *opinions* on the scope of international law from being included as the justification to create or repeal international law. Though Hack's current UN rules really should be where this sort of decision is better dealt with. FAQs are simply frequently asked questions ... a subset of rules.

Anyways, getting back to why I think National Sovereignty arguments should be allowed but screened, if I wanted to create a resolution related to coordinating the search for other civilizations, a fair statement might be,


"CONVINCED that the purpose of the United Nations is to establish diplomatic ties with nations;"

Nobody would mind seeing that opinion / justification in a preamble. There are examples of that in plenty of RL and NS UN resolutions. In fact, per NationStates rules, we aren't *allowed* to include actual facts in resolutions, as facts are tied to either RL or individual events in imaginary nations. :( So all justifications have left are general opinions.



Therefore, by the same logic one should be able to include something like the following as a justification for a repeal,


The United Nations,

CONVINCED that the scope of international law should focus on subjects dealing with international relations;

AWARE of provisions in its resolution Giving Children Happy Childhoods, adopted on Dec. 25, 1991;

RECOGNIZING that its recommendation that 'mothers kiss their babies each night, in order to create a positive, loving environment' is a domestic social decision;

1. REPEALS the Giving Children Happy Childhoods resolution.



Anyways, I read GMC's single post ... and I think it really would be helpful to see the larger discussion in order to see the context of his decision. Personally, using a national sovereignty argument in a repeal is tricky ... and hope that GMC's post isn't some new law that simply says we can't express any type of national sovereignty opinion as a justification, because in the above example I feel I've easily demonstrated a case where it is a valid opinion for or against an unilateral (UN) action.

I'd like to ask for clarification on the whole MetaGaming/committees thing.
Committees violate metagaming when you specify how they are formed from within regions or organizations, or that members should create ad-hoc panels on the forums, or that impinge on any other aspect of the game or forums that would require specific player or moderator action. Thus, Olympic Committees that meet on a certain schedule or in a specific region would be metagaming.

Creating an amorphous committee via a proposal, and then roleplaying that committee (bearing in mind that any such roleplay has no force of law behind it) can be fine. Stating that an Olympic Committee be formed and that games be held on a 'regular' schedule would (in my opinion) probably be fine, depending on the other context. There are in fact somewhat 'regular' Olympic roleplays happening in NS and II anyway, though there is no UN restriction. Careful and deliberate vagueness is the key here. Specificity is the killer.

I'd probably like The Most Glorious Hack to reinforce this before setting it as an Official Moderator UN Edict, but that's my take on it.

Are national sovereignty arguments appropriate for repeals?
I've seen any number of proposals stating only, "It violates national sovereignty." If that's the sole basis of your repeal, then it should probably be deleted. If that's merely a single line in a more complex argument, I probably wouldn't delete it just for NatSov reasons.

As to the GMC decision, some informed guesswork: As to making "completely false statements about it's own effect", I'd probably agree with him. If somebody posts a Human Rights proposal to raise taxes for some deserving party whose rights have been abridged, I'd delete it for Category violation. A similar case could be made for virtually every category, including Repeals. I don't know the specifics of this resolution, because only fragments are included in the linked thread

If GMC removed the post for the line "which irrefutibly are derived from Bible doctrine", he would be correct for removing it as well. Not only is it a Real World reference, but it's most certainly not "irrefutable". Read the linked thread for refutation. It's possible that no single one of GMC's listed reasons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10153369&postcount=58) for removal would justify its demise, but the aggregate of them certainly do so.

I'm not sure if you're saying that GMC removed this 'because it had false information' or that you're saying that GMC's information was false, but I don't think either is relevant. He enumerated multiple valid reasons for removing the proposal, and I think you may be reading entirely too much into the post you linked.

I've seen any number of proposals stating only, "It violates national sovereignty." If that's the sole basis of your repeal, then it should probably be deleted. If that's merely a single line in a more complex argument, I probably wouldn't delete it just for NatSov reasons. ... I'm not sure if you're saying that GMC removed this 'because it had false information' or that you're saying that GMC's information was false, but I don't think either is relevant.He said all NatSov-based proposals "are removed ... because the site admin says so," a rule of which I was not formerly aware. He also claimed the site FAQ lists national sovereignty as a reason for deleting a proposal. It says no such thing. But I appreciate that the repeal actually failed on multiple grounds and thank you for the advisement.

Stating that an Olympic Committee be formed and that games be held on a 'regular' schedule would (in my opinion) probably be fine, depending on the other context.I would, and have, go so far as to allow certain time requirements. Something stating that "these Games will run every 4 years," would probably be fine. 'Years' is a vague enough concept that there won't be a problem. "Every 4 NS years" or "every 4 real years" would be right out (for Real World violations (also, the first is a Meta violation too, zOmg!)).

Basically, as long as you keep in mind Cog's example (comittees are staffed by magical beings that spring into existance instantly and are solely loyal to the UN), you should be fine. Comittees (and, indeed, most Metagaming violations) are some of the trickiest to judge, especially without any specifics.

Careful and deliberate vagueness is the key here. Specificity is the killer.Exactly.

I'd probably like The Most Glorious Hack to reinforce this before setting it as an Official Moderator UN Edict, but that's my take on it.Looks like we agree.

Resolution #139 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=138) was technically in violation of the branding rules. I know this was spotted by one or two people, who didn't report it, but a game mod also mentioned they'd seen it, but that it wasn't to be deleted. Should we infer this as an "alright, but don't do it again", or actually as an implicit rules change? I know you had a discussion about the branding rules some time ago, and a poll and everything, and that if you make one change, then someone writes one with 3 co-authors, and so on, so I'm not pushing either way.

24-hour bump.

Resolution #139 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=138) was technically in violation of the branding rules. I know this was spotted by one or two people, who didn't report it, but a game mod also mentioned they'd seen it, but that it wasn't to be deleted.
I'd be curious to see that link from the game mod.

1) It may have simply slipped past us. Not every GM spends hours scouring the UN list, and I'm quite certain that numerous illegal resolutions have quietly dropped off the list without anyone removing them. "The Law of the Sea" was blatantly illegal, but nobody mentioned it to the mods (or they didn't get to it) before it went to the floor. Oops. It happens.

2) The rules were put in place to keep some modicum of order to the proposal queue. If we didn't have rules and we didn't police the list, it would run 30-40 pages and be stuffed full of crap. We do remove the absolutely horrid stuff, and a lot of other stuff that's simply bad, and quite a bit of stuff that's pretty decent but in technical violation in ways that would damage the game. Two branding co-authors will not break the game. It's not a huge deal. Had it been "The Screaming Meanies of Gruenberg and the Popsicle Wizards of Jey" (or whatever you call yourselves today), it would have been deleted.

3) No, one accidental precedent of ommission doesn't change the rules. Don't rules-lawyer us into the ground here. It's a game, and we're not going to lose sleep or write an extra paragraph of explanation into the rules as to "why this one slipped by us" and "don't do it no more". In fact, I've spent far too much time on this alrea

In an effort to keep the UN Proposal Rules Sticky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) free from clutter, I'm making this thread for comments, questions and such.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator
I belive i was unfairly warned in the UN for branding, when it is cleary obviouse that others do it, look on old resolotions. Plus, it was my first my offence. I am asking for a repeal of my warning. My nation is the United Socilaistes States of New US liberalism. Thank you for your time

1. The rules aren't retroactive. They were enacted in May.
2. This belongs in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231).

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad28ts.png

I think it would help if we could find out what strengths there were and how to apply them. Because some of us might make a mild proposal but brand it strong, so it would be really helpful, please?

I think it would help if we could find out what strengths there were and how to apply them. Because some of us might make a mild proposal but brand it strong, so it would be really helpful, please?
There are three strengths: Mild, Significant, and Strong. Mild proposals probably only urge; Strong proposals obviously mandate a major course of action; Significant is anything in between. Beyond that, it's a judgment call, and I think it's unlikely the mods are going to 'draw a line in the sand' for you. If you're unsure, you can always post a draft on the forum [you should do this even if you're not unsure] and the mods, and other forum regulars, can probably advise you. Also looking through the passed resolutions will help you get a feel for it (although don't necessarily take any one resolution in isolation as empirical precedent).

And try to use more recent resolutions as your guide. There were rules changes regarding proposals at one point, so the more recent resolutions reflect those new rules.

Here are some examples, which might help:

IT Education Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=130) - Mild, because it only 'urges'
The Microcredit Bazaar (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=116) - Mild, because states choose how to implement it

UN Biological Weapons Ban (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=112) - Strong, because it completely bans a weapons type
Global Food Distribution Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=129) - Strong, because it completely removes trade barriers

Edited the Repeal section of the rules. Additions are in red.

Repeals

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.

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. Many old Resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint.

We haven't been issuing warnings for these violations, but now that it's in the rules we will.

I think the new rules on repeals are a violation of national sovereignty. :p

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. Many old Resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed.


OOC: For the sake of those of use who weren't involved in NS when those changes occurred, can we have an explanation about which Resolutions already existed when the various rules came into force?

On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint

So these aren't something about which our nation's governments are supposed to know, so our nation's governments have not signed away all claim to sovereignty in the relevant fields (such as 'Human Rights') by joining the UN as certain people have been claiming was the case? Okay.

So these aren't something about which our nation's governments are supposed to know, so our nation's governments have not signed away all claim to sovereignty in the relevant fields (such as 'Human Rights') by joining the UN as certain people have been claiming was the case? Okay.

He meant the NS game laws regarding proposals, not the resolutions.

He meant the NS game laws regarding proposals, not the resolutions.

OOC: Oh, I do realise that he didn't mean the Resolutions and that our nations' governments are bound by those, it was Groot Gouda's arguement that because the 'Human Rights' category exists our nations had effectively surrendered all rights over that field of legislation to the UN when we signed up as members that I saw this remark as contradicting... If the category only exists at our level, rather than at that of the nations as well, then as their governments don't know about it I don't see how they can reasonably be said to have agreed to that actual wholesale surrender of rights...

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."Hmm. This merits more explanation. From what players and moderators told me during the debate for the nuked Gay Rights repeal, national sovereignty cannot be the sole basis for a repeal, but it can be one of several grounds for a repeal argument. Is this so? And if so, could it be clarified in the rules text?

I think the new rules on repeals are a violation of national sovereignty.Don't make me "repeal" your nation... ;)

OOC: For the sake of those of use who weren't involved in NS when those changes occurred, can we have an explanation about which Resolutions already existed when the various rules came into force?Check the post date for the rules and compare to the date on the Resolution. I believe the rules were written in May, 2005. The Enodian laws are linked from the new rules, so dates can be compared there.

it was Groot Gouda's arguement that because the 'Human Rights' category exists our nations had effectively surrendered all rights over that field of legislation to the UN when we signed up as members that I saw this remark as contradicting...In a way, yes. The existence of "Recreational Drug Use" means the UN has a mandate to legislate on recreational drugs.

If the category only exists at our level, rather than at that of the nations as well, then as their governments don't know about it I don't see how they can reasonably be said to have agreed to that actual wholesale surrender of rights...The categories do indeed "exist" in the IC realm. The rule set doesn't. Think of deleted Proposals as the secretary general issuing a unilateral veto.

Hmm. This merits more explanation. From what players and moderators told me during the debate for the nuked Gay Rights repeal, national sovereignty cannot be the sole basis for a repeal, but it can be one of several grounds for a repeal argument. Is this so? And if so, could it be clarified in the rules text?This comes down to fiat. If you list two reasons and NatSov gets most of the attention, it will probably be deleted. If you give fifteen and NatSov is almost an afterthought, it'll probably be fine. It's something like the HoC violation, hard to deliniate without specific examples.

This comes down to fiat. If you list two reasons and NatSov gets most of the attention, it will probably be deleted. If you give fifteen and NatSov is almost an afterthought, it'll probably be fine. It's something like the HoC violation, hard to deliniate without specific examples.

Wait a few minutes. I'll see what I can rustle up. :D

Check this out, Hacky baby. :)

Title: Repeal "Citizen Rule Required"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #8
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description: UN Resolution #8: Citizen Rule Required (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:

The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the principle of national sovereignty and that it is subject to the immunities of international law.

NOTING that UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required” is lacking a means of enforcement and would allow nations to satisfy its requirement by having local elections for “Chief of Breathing Air” and other such nonsensical positions, thereby rendering the resolution ineffective at achieving its goal.

FURTHER NOTING that UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required” would be impractical to implement in societies in which strong leadership by individuals is a cultural imperative.

NOTING WITH REGRET that UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required” is intolerant of non-democratic forms of government, despite the fact that this body contains many valuable contributing member nations who have non-democratic forms of government.

BELIEVING that in the case of UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required” the principle of national sovereignty should not be subjected to international law because it is ineffective, impractical, and intolerant of non-democratic societies.

OBSERVES that UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required” was poorly written, containing several errors and lacking in clarity, which reflects poorly on this august body.

DETERMINED to eliminated ineffective, impractical, and intolerant legislation so that international law might be improved.

REPEALS UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required”.

Legal or illegal under the rule about NatSov?

So OOC I know that the Mods run things, and that's it: IC, the government of St Edmund wonders how the Secretary-General apparently became empowered to make such important rules without consulting the General Assembly -- and getting a relevant Resolution passed -- in each case...

Edmund: This is an OOC thread.

Legal or illegal under the rule about NatSov?At first blush? Legal. I try to look at NatSov as HoC. If I can yank out all the NatSov arguments and still have a valid Repeal, then it should be okay.

In this case, the most damning argument has nothing to do with NatSov: "NOTING that UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required” is lacking a means of enforcement and would allow nations to satisfy its requirement by having local elections for “Chief of Breathing Air” and other such nonsensical positions, thereby rendering the resolution ineffective at achieving its goal."

IC, the government of St Edmund wonders how the Secretary-General apparently became empowered to make such important rules without consulting the General Assembly -- and getting a relevant Resolution passed -- in each case...I think you're horribly overanalyzing this, so just have your government blame it on the Gnomes and call it a night.

At first blush? Legal. I try to look at NatSov as HoC. If I can yank out all the NatSov arguments and still have a valid Repeal, then it should be okay.

Mmm. Initially, that sounds like a decent standard. But then let's look at other forms of political ideology. Let's replace NatSov with IntFed or Human Rights(IndSov), conservativism, environmentalism, socialism, or any other political ideology.

Now let's be clear that I agree that proposals that basically say, "umm...like...national sovereignty" are utter crap. But I don't see the need for the NatSov ideology to be singled out here. "umm...like...international federalism" or "umm...like...human rights" or "umm..like..conservativism" or "umm...like...environmentalism" or "umm...like...socialism" are utter crap too. Those proposals could easily get the axe based on the "Bloody Stupid" rule, because they are. There's no need to single out any particular viewpoint, even the more bluntly honest "I don't like it" view, which by the way also bloody stupid. The above ideological objections all come down to an "I don't like it" view by themselves.

Ideological objections are going to be hands down the most common reason for repeals. Realistically, the IDX clause in the ALC is just too conservative for some people. (Hell, it's too conservative for me and I voted FOR it.) And if folks want to repeal a resolution based on the fact that it doesn't agree with their political ideology (whatever it happens to be) that's fine with me as long as it doesn't violate other rules like "Bloody Stupid".

What I'm basically saying here is that you don't need an extra rule about repeals based primarily NatSov when you already have a rule that takes care of it along with a bunch of other shit. It just makes the UN look inherently anti-sovereignty, which is not the case.

[Note: If anyone disagrees with me that the UN is not inherently anti-sovereignty, they are welcome to debate that issue with me, perhaps by starting another thread.]

In this case, the most damning argument has nothing to do with NatSov: "NOTING that UN Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required” is lacking a means of enforcement and would allow nations to satisfy its requirement by having local elections for “Chief of Breathing Air” and other such nonsensical positions, thereby rendering the resolution ineffective at achieving its goal."

Nothing to do with NatSov? It's being used as a justification for a pro-sovereignty position. Rather like income inequality or worker oppression being used as a justification for a pro-socialist position. In both cases, practical realities are being used as support for an ideological position.

Mmm. Initially, that sounds like a decent standard. But then let's look at other forms of political ideology. Let's replace NatSov with IntFed or Human Rights(IndSov), conservativism, environmentalism, socialism, or any other political ideology.The problem is, we don't get Repeals operating on those grounds; we do get them on NatSov. I've had times where someone's issued ten Repeals in a row stating "This needlessly infringes on national sovereignty," or "This is an issue that should be decided by governments." Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.

Now let's be clear that I agree that proposals that basically say, "umm...like...national sovereignty" are utter crap. But I don't see the need for the NatSov ideology to be singled out here. "umm...like...international federalism" or "umm...like...human rights" or "umm..like..conservativism" or "umm...like...environmentalism" or "umm...like...socialism" are utter crap too. Those proposals could easily get the axe based on the "Bloody Stupid" rule, because they are.Repeals are held to a lower standard because they're arguments, not law. Because of how Repeals are structured, they allow for rhetoric. Or at least, more rhetoric than Proposals. And, again, we don't have a rash of Repeals based on the environment or socialism; we do have it based on NatSov.

And I blame you for that :p

What I'm basically saying here is that you don't need an extra rule about repeals based primarily NatSov when you already have a rule that takes care of it along with a bunch of other shit. It just makes the UN look inherently anti-sovereignty, which is not the case.As stated, this rule came up because pure NatSov arguments are becoming a problem, and I didn't feel comfortable having warnings issued when the policy wasn't explicit. It's not that the UN is intrinsicly anti-sovereignty, it's that the pro-NatSov lobby has gotten a little loony and needs to be kicked back into line.

Also, there is a difference between the NatSov argument and the enviro or human rights or socialist or what-have-you. Unlike the others you listed, an extreme NatSov view could be used as and excuse to Repeal every single Resolution that ever was and ever will be; indeed, people have tried this. Ask Sirocco. He was the one who found the pages of Repeals caused by one nation who tried to Repeal every single Resolution. And what was his justification? It wasn't the environment.

Again, this isn't a crusade/jihad against you or the NatSov concept. This is just addressing a current problem, and currently, pure-NatSov Repeals are a problem.

Nothing to do with NatSov? It's being used as a justification for a pro-sovereignty position.Yes, but it's pointing out critical flaws in the Resolution that exist independant of the NatSov position. Even the fluffiest member would have to acknowledge that Citizen Rule is a toothless and weak Resolution specifically because it lacks definitions.

Could the rule be changed slightly to ban NatSov for the sake of NatSov but allow a repeal that was based mainly on NatSov that backed up the NatSov argument with information specific to the resolution and reasons why the issue cannot be implemented the same way in all nations? Or would that just lead to a slippery slope / finer line type thing?

No problem if the answer is no, I'm not a natsovist :p .

Even the fluffiest member would have to acknowledge that Citizen Rule is a toothless and weak Resolution specifically because it lacks definitions.
now thats just mean. and its not true either! citizen rule protects our natioins from being made to be dictatorships

now thats just mean. and its not true either! citizen rule protects our natioins from being made to be dictatorships

Whoever created this puppet deserves a freakin' medal! :D

Could the rule be changed slightly to ban NatSov for the sake of NatSov but allow a repeal that was based mainly on NatSov that backed up the NatSov argument with information specific to the resolution and reasons why the issue cannot be implemented the same way in all nations?What?

Whoever created this puppet deserves a freakin' medal!Yeah... he deserves something...
http://cover6.cduniverse.com/msiart/0000032/0000032487.jpg

What?
Like, for example, a repeal of a resolution mandating that all nations use hot springs as their only form of energy be illegal if it said "violates national sovereigntiy" but be legal if it was "This decision must be left up to individual nations because not all nations have hot springs"?

Yeah... he deserves something...
http://cover6.cduniverse.com/msiart/0000032/0000032487.jpg

Wow...+5,000 points for the obscure album reference! :D

Like, for example, a repeal of a resolution mandating that all nations use hot springs as their only form of energy be illegal if it said "violates national sovereigntiy" but be legal if it was "This decision must be left up to individual nations because not all nations have hot springs"?Using only NatSov is likely to get a Repeal deleted. In your example, the problems could be pointed out without resorting to NatSov.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.

After looking over your arguments, this seems to be the crux of the matter stated in various different ways. I guess the plain truth is that at this time the amount of repeals that basically say "umm...like..national sovereignty" is getting ridiculous.

This still seems like a great chance to use the Bloody Stupid Rule though. The problem isn't national sovereignty, it's people who submit bloody stupid repeal arguments.

And I blame you for that :p

Heh. I certainly do share some of the blame for that. National Sovereignty arguments against the UN have been used since the game's inception, but I've probably done the most to legitimize NatSov on a large scale. Mea culpa, as Cog likes to say.

Also, there is a difference between the NatSov argument and the enviro or human rights or socialist or what-have-you. Unlike the others you listed, an extreme NatSov view could be used as and excuse to Repeal every single Resolution that ever was and ever will be; indeed, people have tried this. Ask Sirocco. He was the one who found the pages of Repeals caused by one nation who tried to Repeal every single Resolution. And what was his justification? It wasn't the environment.

Have you looked at the resolutions on the books recently? I can think of at least three extreme ideologies that could be used as an argument to repeal all resolutions. The Nazi ideology, the colonialist ideology, and far-right American conservatism. I'm sure there are also a number of political ideologies based on fundamentalist religious beliefs that could also be used as an argument against all resolutions. So I'm a little leary of this line of argumentation.

Yes, but it's pointing out critical flaws in the Resolution that exist independant of the NatSov position. Even the fluffiest member would have to acknowledge that Citizen Rule is a toothless and weak Resolution specifically because it lacks definitions.

You're misunderestimating how fluffy some folks can be. ;)

So OOC I know that the Mods run things, and that's it: IC, the government of St Edmund wonders how the Secretary-General apparently became empowered to make such important rules without consulting the General Assembly -- and getting a relevant Resolution passed -- in each case...

His position was decided by the great creator, Max the almighty. His rights and his limitations of power are decided by our one God. To question him is to question Max. Such blasphemy is this.

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

Have you looked at the resolutions on the books recently? I can think of at least three extreme ideologies that could be used as an argument to repeal all resolutions. The Nazi ideology, the colonialist ideology, and far-right American conservatism. I'm sure there are also a number of political ideologies based on fundamentalist religious beliefs that could also be used as an argument against all resolutions. So I'm a little leary of this line of argumentation.

You're talking about some broad based ideologies. Going "This resolution contradicts the Nazi/Democratic/Dictatorial/whatever way" is also a pretty freaking stupid argument on the same level as NatSov. On the other hand environmental arguments can't repeal abortions while human rights arguments can't repeal a free trade resolution - well, unless they were worded in such a way that they overlapped. But still.

OOC:

When I first read the revised rule, I was quite pleased with it. "Oh, good!" I thought. "Now we have a clear statement of the NatSov legality issue:"

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it."

To me, this clearly says that NatSov cannot be the only reason advanced to support a repeal. It can be included, but there must be at least one other reason. Then, reading subsequent posts, I became less satisfied. It seems that the Mods intend to weigh the relative strength of the NatSov argument against whatever else is included. My problem with that is that it is simply not what the revised rule states.

The rule states that "simply stating 'National Sovereignty' is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal" is illegal. To me, it's black and white. If you adduce any other reasons in addition to NatSov, the repeal is legal.

My 2 cents. :)

All right. I'll try. How legal would this (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Protection_of_Dolphins_Act%22_%28failed%29#Resolution_Text) have been?

Please if a proposal has been deleted would you telegram the author so that he/she/it knows of this. please?

Typically we do. Occationally, I don't have time to do much aside from delete proposals. In those cases, I don't apply a warning.

I understand from my reading of the UN Proposal Rules that one cannot have a proposal that substantially duplicates an existing resolution, and I now see that this prevents it being in the queue for voting, but I am confused about at what point a new United Nations thread can be spawned for working on a replacement proposal. Is it necessary to wait until the existing resolution has been repealed, or can a thread be created as a working space draft proposal to replace and existing resolution.

I ask because there are apparently many instances in which poorly written resolutions are proposed for repeal, but there seems to be no replacement option and this causes the Confederacy of Reidalian some concern that they may be repealed and not replaced. We would much prefer a process to "repeal and replace", but are told that such a process is not allowed. Can those with some authoritative understanding of this issue clarify the issue?

Regards,
vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Council Chair

I understand from my reading of the UN Proposal Rules that one cannot have a proposal that substantially duplicates an existing resolution, and I now see that this prevents it being in the queue for voting, but I am confused about at what point a new United Nations thread can be spawned for working on a replacement proposal. Is it necessary to wait until the existing resolution has been repealed, or can a thread be created as a working space draft proposal to replace and existing resolution.

I ask because there are apparently many instances in which poorly written resolutions are proposed for repeal, but there seems to be no replacement option and this causes the Confederacy of Reidalian some concern that they may be repealed and not replaced. We would much prefer a process to "repeal and replace", but are told that such a process is not allowed. Can those with some authoritative understanding of this issue clarify the issue?

Regards,
vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Council Chair

You would be allowed to start a thread working on a replacement, but couldn't put the replacement in the queue until the repeal has been passed. Really, you have to trust that someone would put in a replacement if they claim that they will in a repeal. I'm sure that someone would feel the need for replacing most repeals (although some really are poor and just deserve to be repealed without replacement), so I wouldn't worry about a repeal not being replaced Reidalia.

I think that's right anyway.

I understand from my reading of the UN Proposal Rules that one cannot have a proposal that substantially duplicates an existing resolution, and I now see that this prevents it being in the queue for voting, but I am confused about at what point a new United Nations thread can be spawned for working on a replacement proposal. Is it necessary to wait until the existing resolution has been repealed, or can a thread be created as a working space draft proposal to replace and existing resolution.

I ask because there are apparently many instances in which poorly written resolutions are proposed for repeal, but there seems to be no replacement option and this causes the Confederacy of Reidalian some concern that they may be repealed and not replaced. We would much prefer a process to "repeal and replace", but are told that such a process is not allowed. Can those with some authoritative understanding of this issue clarify the issue?

Regards,
vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Council Chair

We think we can clear up the confusion. (At least, we hope so.)

You need to recognize that discussions in this forum and elsewhere are separate and distinct from formal submission of a proposal. Replacements can be freely discussed here, drafts can be posted, commented upon, and revised, all with the original resolution in place.

The duplication and contradiction rules come into play only when the replacement proposal is submitted via the NS site for consideration of approval by delegates. Then, if the proposal duplicates or contradicts an existing resolution, it is illegal and will be removed from the list by the moderators.

Replacements are often thoroughly discussed and debated here and in off-site forums such as Reclamation, UNOG, NSO, Repeal & Replace, and the UIC, long before repeals are drafted.

We hope that helps.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Replacements are often thoroughly discussed and debated here and in off-site forums such as Reclamation, UNOG, NSO, Repeal & Replace, and the UIC, long before repeals are drafted.



And DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON). :cool:

How long can my proposal be?
3500 characters, including spaces, punctuation, line breaks etc.

So the real FoIA wouldn't fit.

i thought 5086 characters was the limit?

I thought it was without spaces.:confused:

i thought 5086 characters was the limit?
I thought it was without spaces.
Well you were wrong.

i copied the resolution 3 times to make sure it was too big, and the response was it must be 5086 characters or less, and i dont know if that includes spaces, line breaks etc. or not....

i copied the resolution 3 times to make sure it was too big, and the response was it must be 5086 characters or less, and i dont know if that includes spaces, line breaks etc. or not....
I don't care. The character limit is 3,500. Perhaps the message said the proposal was 5,086 characters over the limit?

ah, "by" not "of"...you are correct, apologies for the confusion

I thought it was without spaces.:confused:

There was a point where we were speculating on 3000 without spaces. However, fairly early in the year we figured out that it's 3500 with spaces and line breaks *sometimes* count as two characters (I believe it's dependant on what platform you used to submit, can't remember though).

(I believe it's dependant on what platform you used to submit, can't remember though).
Yes. Two for Microsoft, one for others, I think.

In that case: oh crap.

i thought 5086 characters was the limit?

OOC: No. 3500 including spaces. There's a thread in Technical in which I asked about this and got a good answer.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471443

To help prevent this question coming up again and again, perhaps the moderators would consider adding this information to the Proposal Rules sticky?

I've always been of the opinion that if a proposal is so blatently illegal then not only the author should get a warning, but every one who approves it. Alas I'm a minority of one here.
Interesting. Opinions?

Interesting. Opinions?

I'm down with that idea.

Interesting. Opinions?
Would arguementless repeals be that blatently illegal?

Would arguementless repeals be that blatently illegal?
Arguementless repeals usually look like simple mistakes to me. Unless someone has gone and tried to repeal a whole slew of resolutions at once, I usually don't even warn.

When I think of "blatantly illegal", I'm thinking [Human Rights]"KILL ALL THE JOOZ!!!1!" or [Free Trade]"UN Deligates getto delete any nation they dont like muahahahaha" or [Political Stability, by SithLord Bogus]"This resolution makes SithLordBogus EMPEROR OF NATIONSTATES". Anyone who would click the Approve button on such proposals obviously has no interest in the UN as a game mechanism.

It's Approval Spam. Maybe we should treat it like any other spam, give 'em a warning shot, then sink 'em.

While I can understand the reasoning, I'm going to have to say "Hell no"

We already are working ourselves hard trying to TG enough delegates to endorse our proposals. To have them now run the risk of TGing a bad proposal is scary. Even worse, with about 2/3s of my TGs coming from complete nobodies, there is NO guarantee for any of them that these proposals are valid. If it came down to a choice between reading the rules and refusing the endorse any proposal, the average delegate would burn their endorsement stamp in the weekly bonfire. They have no way of verifying if the person knows better, so they are going based entirely upon their own knowledge.

EDIT: Also, the people that endorse proposals, they don't really add any work for the mods. The people that propose these proposals in the first place do.

I don't like the idea of punishing approval spam. It would make it even harder to get proposals to quorum because people wouldn't approve as much for fear of getting hit with a spam charge.

Maybe for really blatant offenses, but I'd still prefer to have the responsibility for the resolution rest with the author, and them only.

Don't much care for it personally.

Spanking people who endorced griefers was one thing. This is a little extreme. If they want to be idiots, that's their perogative. While in a perfect world, I'd love to smack them around, I don't think it's fair or particularly in keeping with how we run the game.

It's Approval Spam. Maybe we should treat it like any other spam, give 'em a warning shot, then sink 'em.

How about implementing the three-strikes rule for approvals (a rule with which I'm all too familiar :p ), just like we have for proposal submissions? That, to me, would be more fair.

EDIT: Oh, and keeping it to blatantly illegal stuff like "KILL ALL TEH JOOZ!!!1!"

I think it would create unnecessary work, friction, etc. People complain all the time about their proposals being deleted - this would only add to it.

Besides, I miss WZ Forums - however silly it might be, he (and now DSI, I guess) was one of the fixtures of the game. It'd be sad to see delegates no longer able to support diametrically opposed proposals (my favourite being when he approved a ban on genocide - which I assume was illegal for duplication - and a "kill the [somethings]" proposal, both on the same page).

So I say no.

I think it would create unnecessary work, friction, etc. People complain all the time about their proposals being deleted - this would only add to it.

Besides, I miss WZ Forums - however silly it might be, he (and now DSI, I guess) was one of the fixtures of the game. It'd be sad to see delegates no longer able to support diametrically opposed proposals (my favourite being when he approved a ban on genocide - which I assume was illegal for duplication - and a "kill the [somethings]" proposal, both on the same page).

So I say no.

WZ Forums hasn't been deleted, he just lost delegacy, and now is the only UN nation in his region. (I miss him too :rolleyes: )

WZ Forums hasn't been deleted, he just lost delegacy, and now is the only UN nation in his region. (I miss him too :rolleyes: )

Yeah, I miss him, too -- like I miss that rash that it took six weeks of penicillin shots to get rid of.

Wait. Did I just say that out loud?

I always took it as a point of pride to delete crappy Proposals before WZ/DSI had a chance to support them.

Not an official rule, but a humble request to keep insanely long posts a little shorter:

When doing a point by point critique of a Proposal, please don't comment on portions you full agree with or don't care about. An extra half-dozen lines for a comment of "Boilerplate" or "Meh" or "Agreed" is getting a little irritating.

When doing a point by point critique of a Proposal, please don't comment on portions you full agree with or don't care about. An extra half-dozen lines for a comment of "Boilerplate" or "Meh" or "Agreed" is getting a little irritating.Damn fucking straight.

Not an official rule
Yes?
but a humble
Boilerplate.
request
Meh.
to keep insanely long posts a little shorter:
Agreed.

Ahem...I mean, I do agree. It can be really annoying.

Damn you, Gruen. You beat me to it. :p

Brought on by the discussion over here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11487544).

Proposed Change:

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)Yes, I know there's no strikeout code, but I still think that block should be removed.

Let's put it this way:

If you refer to any real life person, place, thing, etc (including nations), it's illegal for real life reference.

If you refer to any RPed person, thing, etc (including nations), it's illegal for metagaming.

Why should we give an exception for the author - especially when he's already listed under the "Proposed by" spot.? Branding is just a special category to add to the others in which you are not allowed to refer to your nation just as you can't refer to any others. We make the exception only for your co-author because they also deserve credit. That's it.

Just noticed this, a slight edition to the branding rule may be needed.

In Res#165, Led-ends ended his repeal with:

"Co-authored by the members of ACCEL", and it was allowed. Should the branding rule be edited to include the ability to credit an organization as a whole?

Also, in Res#166, I ended with: "Authored by: Bazalonia", and it was also allowed to pass. Perhaps we shouldn't enforce recognition only in the form of co-authorship?

Proposed changes in bold:

* Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author (or other such form of recognition) by nation name only or one organization for their assistance. Examples:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

or

"Co-authored by the members of ACCEL"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of...").

And I know I probably asked about this previously, but is there a chance of the branding rule being edited to allow two co-authors to be credited in the same proposal? I know there are probably numerous proposals where two co-author credits are deserved.

I actually like the official rule being one. If we make it two, then people will push for three. However, if we leave it at one, the mods will generally be lenient enough not to care about the second name while still having an official hard figure.

hi! someone told me the branding rule applies to mentioning your own nation's name in any way; however, i argue that it only applies to suggesting authorship by saying something like "by arctan" or "author: arctan." can you please clear this up for me? thanks
Incorrect. The most common Branding deletions are the ones like"The Republic of Whatizstan encourage you to approve ..."
"Stealing car radios has been a long-standing problem in the region of Whogivesadamn. Therefore ..."
"His Royal Pugnaciousness the King of BustaMove presents to the General Assembly ..."Laws are not advertisements for your nation or region. Don't mention your nation, or any other for that matter. They're not relevant.

However, if we leave it at one, the mods will generally be lenient enough not to care about the second name while still having an official hard figure.
Change "generally" to "occasionally" and I'd agree to this entirely.

The current branding regulations are pure anal feldicarb. The branding regulations should be simple: Don't promote your nation or your region and don't write your name throughout the resolution. Instead it's "Oh my god, you mentioned two people as a co-author ... BRANDING VIOLATION!" I still laugh at the old joke about the person who made a nation out of two nations in order to get around that rule.

Personally, I think we need to have more branding, not less. Resolutions should not be made in isolation. I could be wrong, but I thought we wanted people to come to the forums and present their proposals for some honest opinions by the contributing members of the forums? Aren't all the good resolutions really "co-authored" or at least "major contributors" by the members of the UN forum? Why should be give the average nation who never sees this forum the impression that all the good resolutions are made in isolation or with the help of one and only one other author?

actually, is it alright to have any extended hypotheitcal situation in a proposal?

hypothetically speaking, of course?

also, am i allowed to refer to "the rules" in a proposal (for example say something like "because the rules prevent this resolution from being amended, be it enacted that it is repealed" (please tell me if the rules do not say this in addition to telling me if this is allowed))
No. That's metagaming. The game rules are 'natural laws' that simply can't be violated. They may not be mentioned in proposals.

No, you may not make a provisional 'amendment' that goes into effect upon the repeal of something else. If you want it replaced, you MUST repeal it first.

The current branding regulations are pure anal feldicarb.
All of our rules are pure anal feldicarb. That's because people can't follow common sense suggestions. Every single one of the rules ultimately says one of two things: "no game mechanics alterations" and "don't spam the proposal list". If you drill down to the unlerlying reason for the rules, you'll see that I'm correct. The one addition to that might be "don't contradict previously passed stuff," but I could make a case for that being a combination of spammy mechanics wank.

We've had to institute more and more stringent rules over the history of the game, because people got ever more clever about sidestepping the two core rules and tried to weasel a way into whatever they wanted. See my previous post for a prime example.

also, am i allowed to refer to "the rules" in a proposal (for example say something like "because the rules prevent this resolution from being amended, be it enacted that it is repealed" (please tell me if the rules do not say this in addition to telling me if this is allowed))

No. Metagaming. The rules are OOC enactments. There is a very loose IC explaination for them, but it isn't canon and therefore not acceptable on the resolutions - just as my claim that Hack is the Secretary General on the silly proposals thread the other night is a loose IC statement that isn't canon and, therefore, even suggesting that such a position even exists (let alone who fills it) in a resolution would be illegal.

if i wrote a repeal that was almost entirely a "hypothetical nation problem" would that be a problem?

actually, is it alright to have any extended hypotheitcal situation in a proposal?

Do the second. The first, the way you worded it, sounds like a metagaming violation. Hypothetical situations that could occur in any nation is ok. Hypothetical situations that might occur in nation X are not.

However, as TH said, that's still only hypothetically ok. From the standpoint of the rules, it sounds like it's legal. From the standpoint of the GA, you are probably going to find a bloody brick wall in your way. I'd shy away from using such an argument.

Change "generally" to "occasionally" and I'd agree to this entirely.

Um......how about "accidentally overlook from time to time"

Personally, I think we need to have more branding, not less. Resolutions should not be made in isolation. I could be wrong, but I thought we wanted people to come to the forums and present their proposals for some honest opinions by the contributing members of the forums? Aren't all the good resolutions really "co-authored" or at least "major contributors" by the members of the UN forum? Why should be give the average nation who never sees this forum the impression that all the good resolutions are made in isolation or with the help of one and only one other author?

I absolutely disagree. If you're here to write or help draft for the purpose of getting your name on a piece of paper, then I honestly don't give a damn about you. If you're here to write or help draft because you think it would improve the UN into the way you want it to be, then I'll be more than happy to work with you. The time and effort many devote to this UN is extraordinary and I find that those who are just looking to make a name for themselves to be enshrined into the UN for all time are not worthy of attention. One of the more well known retired players, DLE, never even wrote a serious draft.

Honestly, I don't think most people care about the names attached to resolutions. If you want to be well known, make yourself visible on these forums and you could go down in infamy from those that care about the UN - for better or for worse. The people that are here to help draft aren't here to see their name on the paper they edited - they feel honored when they do, and perhaps that makes an even better argument for keeping it where it is - they're here because they want to see the UN become a better place.

if a person who inforces a resolution, what would that person be called, for example, what is the title of the job of people who go around from nation to nation inforcing Resolution #15 which says:

"We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place. Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income. We must preserve our cultures to keep this world a fascinating place to travel in."

my thought was that the poeple who go around from country to coutry would be called "UN officers." They could even called "UN inspectors" like the meat-packing plant inspectors of the FDA. I really dont know what to call these people so please help me with that.

Some people call them UN Inspectors. Others call them UN Officials or the Compliance Ministry. Some just call them gnomes.

what if i were to mention them in a proposal? am i allowed to do that? (actually its a repeal, but my point stands... i think)

I dunno. I'll do some research and see if I can find precedent for it.

um, can you at least give me a "go" or "no go?" even better, could you give me immunity from getting a bad smudge on my record if it is found to violate a rule? ("In general, you get two 'freebies' before you're chucked." I don't want to lose a "freebie" if it violates a rule that you havent given me a definate answer on)

Might want to hold your horses there, pardner. Give them a couple days and if the Mods still don't respond perhaps bump the topic. There's not always a Mod online to handle any UN proposal rules you want clarified.

i thought you were a mod... ok thanks

No problem. :)

I'm not a Mod, just trying to be helpful.

um, can you at least give me a "go" or "no go?" even better, could you give me immunity from getting a bad smudge on my record if it is found to violate a rule?
Why don't you stop posting hypotheticals about hypotheticals, and just post your proposal / repeal in the UN forum for comments? There are no UN warnings given for proposals posted for comment. Those don't occur until you actually submit them. If there is a problem, somebody will spot it. Maybe even a mod.

if a person who inforces a resolution, what would that person be called, for example, what is the title of the job of people who go around from nation to nation inforcing Resolution #15 which says:

"We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place. Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income. We must preserve our cultures to keep this world a fascinating place to travel in."

my thought was that the poeple who go around from country to coutry would be called "UN officers." They could even called "UN inspectors" like the meat-packing plant inspectors of the FDA. I really dont know what to call these people so please help me with that.

what if i were to mention them in a proposal? am i allowed to do that? (actually its a repeal, but my point stands... i think)

No, metagaming. You might get away with "Compliance Ministry" as an actual group because they're the one that send you your little telegrams after every resolution is passed. However, anything more specific would be metagaming.

um, can you at least give me a "go" or "no go?" even better, could you give me immunity from getting a bad smudge on my record if it is found to violate a rule? ("In general, you get two 'freebies' before you're chucked." I don't want to lose a "freebie" if it violates a rule that you havent given me a definate answer on)

You only burn those freebies if you submit your proposal. If you post here on the forums, mods and players alike will look at it and tell you what is and isn't illegal along with what could use some serious improvement. Only three proposals have made it to quarom without being edited by peers on one of the major UN focus forums in the past year. Of them, only one passed, and it holds the record for fastest repealed resolution of all time (along with several other records indicating how much it was opposed by the UN regulars). I highly recommend you post your drafts here every single time.

Huh.

Arctan, the entire board is for the purpose of help. This is for expansion of thought about the rule set and clarification for the community as a whole rather than for individuals. Basically, if we have a debate between us about certain rules, we can then look through the set and check here.

If you want help finding the rules, as Fris and I have both said, you can create your own thread for it. Post your requests for help there. You'll notice very few posts asking for clarifications on rules here and certainly nothing in terms of 20-post streams of questions. Your question is specific to your proposal, ask it on your proposal's thread.

Your first post on this thread was great. You asked for a clarification of the rules and how you interpreted it the way it was written. Does it need to be here? Probably not. We could've answered it just as effectively somewhere else. However, it was in a decent place and it wasn't a concern. However, when you start just loading up the posts, then the thread diverges from its main intent - to be the ultimate source of information about the rules. When it comes to the rules, the mods tend to ask you guys to ask the regulars - not because we know the rules better or because we're the ones that make them, but because we know the rules well enough and we focus on the UN - giving us more time to focus on your concerns. The mods don't have that time.

There are as many if not more UN regulars than there are mods, and the mods have to worry about ALL boards, not to mention the various issues within the game. In the last moderator log of accomplishments, it was shown that Fris, here, is handling nearly half the workload of the moderators. Do you think he's got so much time that he can deal with every question from every newbie on top of it?

Please, settle down. It's not that we don't want you here, it's that we just feel there is a proper place for your posts - and it isn't here.

Drama aside; any thoughts on these (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11487878&postcount=115) changes? If not, I'll edit the ruleset.


<stuff about Branding rules>Hm. To take your second point first, the number allowed isn't going to be changed. The current restriction was itself a compromise. When I was drafting these rules, there was a very vocal group that wanted no credits at all. Indeed, I think Fris was in that camp. Allowing one was seen as an odious, but acceptable, compromise.

For the first part, I can see that case law has shifted slightly, but I always let organizations slide as they could count as a "co-author". The "written by" lines strike me also being a co-author, just with the placement reversed (the true "co-author" is the "Proposed By" bit). I suppose it could be clarified, but I think I'd rather have it be more likely to be intrepreted strictly as opposed to loosely. If we give too many exceptions, it's more likely to be pressed.

So has a change to the HoC violation been made, or is there no settled solution yet? Not that it matters to me anymore, but it was an interesting question.

I haven't made the change yet. Wanting to see if the language is acceptable.

Drama aside; any thoughts on these (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11487878&postcount=115) changes? If not, I'll edit the ruleset.

/snip/



OOC: Fine with me, Hack. I wonder why? ;)

I posted this elsewhere. Should we add it under Strength Violations as a general guideline? Does it need to be edited, improved, or changed?
My interpretation of strength:

Strong = affects many aspects of all UN nations in a life-changing way
Significant = affects an important aspect of all UN nations in a fairly major way
Mild = affects a specific area in a way that is important to that area, but has little effect elsewhere.

Not all historic proposals would meet these criteria. As a matter of clarification, I'd consider proposals about abortion or euthanasia as Strong, even though they're very specifically pointed towards very specific healthcare events, because they address fundamental rights of humanity. Looking back at some recent resolutions, Child Pornography Prohibition probably should have been Significant, not Strong. UN Copyright Convention and UN Patent Law should have been Mild, not Significant.

Players have a distinct tendency to become so fond of their own writing that they inflate the effect unreasonably. S'ok. It happens. I'd just like it to happen less.

I think Mild proposals can be quite general - but just be very soft in tone.

Other than that, though, it's a fairly good gauge, so might be useful.

I posted this elsewhere. Should we add it under Strength Violations as a general guideline? Does it need to be edited, improved, or changed?

It's a good start, but needs improved, I'd say. I'd write something more like this.

Strong

Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.


Significant

Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild

Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect a policy area in a very minor way.

Don't use "impact" as a verb. But otherwise, yes, I agree more with how you've written it.

Drama aside; any thoughts on these (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11487878&postcount=115) changes? If not, I'll edit the ruleset.
"Failure to respond negatively" = "Approval". Everyone in the corporate world knows that one.

Make your edits, Oh Glorious One.

Don't use "impact" as a verb. But otherwise, yes, I agree more with how you've written it.

Thanks, and changed.

"Failure to respond negatively" = "Approval". Everyone in the corporate world knows that one.

Make your edits, Oh Glorious One.

And really, if the UN forum crowd, of which I am proudly a member, can't find anything to complain about in it, you're pretty safe. ;)

Players have a distinct tendency to become so fond of their own writing that they inflate the effect unreasonably. S'ok. It happens. I'd just like it to happen less.Well, that's not quite it. I look at it in terms of its effect within the scope of operation, so anything that URGES is automatically mild. But I have a hard time classifying MANDATES, REQUIRES, COMMANDS, or FORBIDS as just mild.

Still, I can see the national P.O.V. aspect of this.

Strong
Proposals that affect a very broad area of policy and/or use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way.

Significant
Proposals that affect a fair-sized area of policy and/or use fairly strong language to affect a policy area.

Mild
Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect a policy area in a very minor way.
I like this, but with a bit of expansion on Mild.

Mild
Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.

I like this, but with a bit of expansion on Mild.

Mild
Proposals that affect a very limited area of policy and/or use fairly mild language to affect only that policy area, or broader policy areas in a very minor way.

Looks good to me. :)

OOC: A good addition to the rules. I was looking the other day for a list of what the effect levels were, and couldn't find one anywhere. Thanks, guys.

Not all historic proposals would meet these criteria. As a matter of clarification, I'd consider proposals about abortion or euthanasia as Strong, even though they're very specifically pointed towards very specific healthcare events, because they address fundamental rights of humanity. Looking back at some recent resolutions, Child Pornography Prohibition probably should have been Significant, not Strong. UN Copyright Convention and UN Patent Law should have been Mild, not Significant.

Players have a distinct tendency to become so fond of their own writing that they inflate the effect unreasonably. S'ok. It happens. I'd just like it to happen less.
Huh, well, I won't hijack the topic, but since the jab is at me, I'll try to justify CPP's strength. The UN has passed several resolutions on freedom of speech, media, and expression - most Significant or Strong. Actively legislating against freedom of speech was thus a fairly big step, even if the subject material was fairly narrow. That said, it did extend - there being some debate over how much discretion nations had in this notwithstanding - to simulations. That's a much bigger array of material being banned. Furthermore, it was covering a wide international trade in the materials, calling for cooperation in tracking criminals, and calling for tough sentences for those convicted. I felt it was Strong, although I certainly would have lived with Significant. But it wasn't because I was "fond of my own writing" - it was an assessment of what I thought the effects were. And, sex, freedom of speech, and protection under the law aren't fundamental rights of humanity?

I don't agree on the IP ones, either. Copyright and patent are really quite broad and important areas, and both those resolutions - especially UNCC - imposed binding laws in those areas. Perhaps a different way of looking at it is in terms of what changes definitely happened: the copyright one in particular caused profound changes in many nations' laws. And again I'm thinking property is a fairly fundamental right of humanity.

Which just goes to show there's no consensus, and it should be noted the descriptors are only (helpful) guidelines. Proposals will still need judging in their own right.

Huh, well, I won't hijack the topic, but since the jab is at me ...
No jab intended, Gruenberg. I probably should have left off that "fond of their writing" line, as I was surely not thinking of you or Ceorana. You were just the first examples of Strong and Significant recent proposals I ran across. I was mostly thinking of the plethora of "zOMG My Idiotic Cause is VITAL!!1!" proposals with strengths of Strong. Silly Poposals is full of 'em.

Despite that, I'm going to stick with my initial assessment of the three cited resolutions. Yes, CPP dealt with free speech, but it didn't define the fundamental underpinnings of all of free speech, just a very narrow subset. Because of the international scope, it did in fact deserve to be Significant rather than Mild. It's not Strong. Sorry.

A better example would be "Hearing Impaired Aid Act", which is a perfect example of a very limited policy area who would be strongly affected by the passage of that proposal. It's a textbook example of Mild, in my opinion. Has immense value to the affected population, but in terms of taxes or impact on the daily lives of non-affected population, it's effectively non-existent.

Had we had a better definition in place, I'd have probably pulled it early on for Strength violation. As it is, it slid through as a Strong Social Justice proposal, and nations took a much larger hit to their economies than the measure justified.

Had we had a better definition in place, I'd have probably pulled it early on for Strength violation. As it is, it slid through as a Strong Social Justice proposal, and nations took a much larger hit to their economies than the measure justified.Running on 2 hours of sleep, so sorry if this makes no sense...

The reason I didn't blink at "Strong" was because it required a massive overhaul of that specific area. I think the costs associated with getting all of those translators and the other things required by the Resolution would have been expensive. A hearing specialist at every hospital? How many hospitals does a nation of 2 billion have?

Granted, Significant probably would have been better, but Mild seems too... mild.

Whiel we're on this topic _
Should Yelda's 'Continuity of Government' proposal, with its very limited effects, really be counted as 'Significant'?

Whiel we're on this topic _
Should Yelda's 'Continuity of Government' proposal, with its very limited effects, really be counted as 'Significant'?
No. I would think that now, with these guidelines, it should be mild.

So far, we've had very little discussion of the scope of the suggested changes. There's just this comment. Any others?
I look at it in terms of its effect within the scope of operation, so anything that URGES is automatically mild. But I have a hard time classifying MANDATES, REQUIRES, COMMANDS, or FORBIDS as just mild.
Do you not see the difference betweenMANDATES that all quadraped pets in excess of 1 kg must wear a collar and ID tags when outside of a fenced-in areaandURGES all nations to prohibit and prevent the sale of fissionable materials; by all agents, public and private; to terrorist organisations specified in Article I.
Is something that deals with pet IDs automatically going to have a harsher national effect than trying to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists ... strictly on the basis of the language chosen? I'd surely chose Mild (barely) and at least Significant for the two examples above.

It's not that hard to translate a category description into an approximation of game effects. Basing the strength on the choice of phrasing makes much less sense than basing it on the actual effects.

I'm not convinced by that.

"SUGGESTS nations not give terrorists bombs"

"STRONGLY URGES nations not to give terrorists bombs"

"REQUIRES nations not to give terrorists bombs"

In terms of effect, surely these are different? With the latter, we can be sure there will be a notable (Strong) effect. With the first, many nations may not do this, because it is only a suggestion - and therefore the effect will be much less pronounced.

The thing is, the UN has the power to require almost anything. When it chooses only to encourage or recommend something, I tend to think that it is recognising the policy will not be universally implemented - otherwise why not require it? Therefore, if softer language is used, I would think a softer strength should be used too.

Therefore, if softer language is used, I would think a softer strength should be used too.
That's a fair point, and I'll accept it ... partially. I think the policy area should be the foremost consideration, and the language secondary. If we had 10 strengths instead of three, I could see something with a really wide remit dropping from #10 (top) down to #6 or #7, and something with a really narrow remit (like the Hearing Aid thing) moving from #1 to #4. Unfortunately, we have only 3 levels, and you have to balance the language versus area.

Community Property's earlier comment about basing his initial call solely on choice of operative phrases just bugs the hell out of me. That's like considering buying a house, comparing a 2 room shack and a 20 room mansion, and discarding the mansion because it's painted green. There are broader issues than just color or language.

Ok, that is reasonable. I do agree that summing activating verbs, with no regard for what follows them, isn't the best approach.

On another note, what about providing some examples with the explanation? There are surely three resolutions out of the 150 or so out there that are correctly categorised...and they could be listed as examples of how the strengths should be used. Although that would create its own problems, maybe.

Community Property's earlier comment about basing his initial call solely on choice of operative phrases just bugs the hell out of me. That's like considering buying a house, comparing a 2 room shack and a 20 room mansion, and discarding the mansion because it's painted green. There are broader issues than just color or language.Not “solely”; nonetheless, I do tend to look at language, largely because anything but a requirement doesn't usually amount to a hill of beans.

[HotRodEdit]This post and the next were taken from this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503057).[/edit]

Hack actually pointed out a bit more than that. He called two of the clauses natsov arguments. I'll give an example of why I think this is dangerous as a precedent. Let's look at the Tsunami Warning resolution. We all know that this proposal was in reaction to the recent RL tsunami disaster, because the author made it known and (even if he hadn't) because we can read between the lines. But we wouldn't call it illegal for an RL reference, because there is no reference to the actual disaster in the text itself.I used shorthand, Sam. Come on now. "Natsov" is faster than "This is just another clause that doesn't actually state that there's a problem with the resolution itself, but rather it simply says that the resolution should be repealed because this is an issue that is best handled by individual nations; an argument that isn't sufficient."

Furthermore, what, exactly, is the difference between "this should be left to individual nations" and "natsov"? I don't mean the specific platform put out by the NSO, but the general concept of national sovereignty.

but when it's called illegal based on things that aren't even in the textI'm sorry, but you're just splitting hairs here.

So with all this ruling based on what is in the text, why would we decide that in the case of the natsov argument in repeals rule, we don't need natsov mentioned in the text?We don't need the specific word, no. Otherwise, you're saying something like this isn't a natsov argument:

"STATES that this issue is completely outside the purview of the United Nations and should only be handled on the national level."

If that's not a natsov argument, what is it?

I used shorthand, Sam. Come on now. "Natsov" is faster than "This is just another clause that doesn't actually state that there's a problem with the resolution itself, but rather it simply says that the resolution should be repealed because this is an issue that is best handled by individual nations; an argument that isn't sufficient."

Furthermore, what, exactly, is the difference between "this should be left to individual nations" and "natsov"? I don't mean the specific platform put out by the NSO, but the general concept of national sovereignty.

A simple illustration:

"We should have national sovereignty, and thus the UN needs to stay out of this." --natsov

"This is a decision better made by national governments." --subsidiarity/practicality/devolutionary(maybe)

"I want ful control of my nation and Im sick of teh UN trying tell me what to do, so screw you UN." --natsov

"Individual member states should be addressing this." --neutral, could be intfed, natsov, subsidiarity, anticapitalist, neoliberal, etc.

I'm sorry, but you're just splitting hairs here.

I'm sorry, but you should know by now that I don't waste my time debating unless there's an actual point to it.

We don't need the specific word, no. Otherwise, you're saying something like this isn't a natsov argument:

"STATES that this issue is completely outside the purview of the United Nations and should only be handled on the national level."

If that's not a natsov argument, what is it?

I'd actually call that a subsidiarity or "scope of authority" argument (albeit not as well-supported as I would like), which I've used to support a natsov position, but is not a natsov argument itself.

I use a lot of types of arguments to support a natsov position; pragmatics, subsidiarity, etc. But just because I use them to support a natsov position, it doesn't mean that they are natsov arguments by themselves.

Let's say I used a socialist argument to support a conservative position in my campaign for a congressional election. Is the socialist argument suddenly a conservative argument because a conservative used it?

Let's get even more basic and say that I am a liberal, and I use a toothbrush. Is that toothbrush a liberal toothbrush just because I used it? Granted, Ann Coulter might say so, but I don't put much stock in her bullshit anyway.

Not every argument I use magically takes on the quality of my political ideology. I'm not the National Sovereignty Fairy, spreading natsov with a touch of my wand.

I suppose that the opposition to my following suggestion will be huge, but anyway, I was thinking that, to improve the quality of NSUN resolutions and also the quality of our debates, it could be very interesting to don't display anymore the name of the nation who submitted the proposal. And I'm confident in saying this as with my nation's name already in the book, I will be among those who have something to loose if that happen.

Um... how exactly would that help? Can you cite an example or two of how this was ever a problem?

I suppose that the opposition to my following suggestion will be huge, but anyway, I was thinking that, to improve the quality of NSUN resolutions and also the quality of our debates, it could be very interesting to don't display anymore the name of the nation who submitted the proposal.
Are you suggesting an alteration in the game mechanics? If so, it's not likely to happen, simply because the system has been in place all along, with no real issues. From my modly perspective, I can glance at a resolution, see a name I recognize from this forum, and pretty much decide at a glance, "this one's probably legal and fairly well thought out." Removing the names would make my job harder.

I also don't see the need from a regular player perspective. The only possible issue would be based on the same factors as my modly criteria, i.e. "one of the UN regulars wrote this. I respect his/her work, therefore I'll beat up on any n00b that disagrees." Having anonymous authors would reduce that ... though I can reconize certain authors' style without names at this point. Won't name names, but I'm sure you can make a close guess.

If you're suggesting a change to forum practices, there might be a case to be made. I don't see it, but perhaps you can elaborate on why this is a positive thing.

That's a fair point, and I'll accept it ... partially. I think the policy area should be the foremost consideration, and the language secondary. If we had 10 strengths instead of three, I could see something with a really wide remit dropping from #10 (top) down to #6 or #7, and something with a really narrow remit (like the Hearing Aid thing) moving from #1 to #4. Unfortunately, we have only 3 levels, and you have to balance the language versus area.

Community Property's earlier comment about basing his initial call solely on choice of operative phrases just bugs the hell out of me. That's like considering buying a house, comparing a 2 room shack and a 20 room mansion, and discarding the mansion because it's painted green. There are broader issues than just color or language.

I think any mandatory resolution put into 'mild' under that is probably illegal for not being worthy of the UN's business. Why not "mild" be for optional stuff, "strong" be for mandatory stuff that would cause a lot of change, and significant be any combination of the two?

Why not "mild" be for optional stuff, "strong" be for mandatory stuff that would cause a lot of change, and significant be any combination of the two?
Once again, you're tying 100% of the category to the operative clauses and none whatsoever to the content or area of effect. Go back and re-read some of the other comments in this thread.

For example, shouldn't a global disarmament proposal that suggests detailed standards for testing, storage, and deployment of nuclear arsenals perhaps be labelled Strong, while a Global Disarmanent proposal that mandates the removal of teflon coatings from armor-piercing artillery shells be fairly mild? Nukes have the potential to affect a vast civilian audience, not just in use, but in manufacturing and storage as well. Teflon AP shells are going to have a big impact on people riding in armored vehicles, a miniscule subset of the population. Context always plays a role.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to commit to any ruling on strength violations that doesn't consider content and context. It's just not going to happen.

Once again, you're tying 100% of the category to the operative clauses and none whatsoever to the content or area of effect. Go back and re-read some of the other comments in this thread.

For example, shouldn't a global disarmament proposal that suggests detailed standards for testing, storage, and deployment of nuclear arsenals perhaps be labelled Strong, while a Global Disarmanent proposal that mandates the removal of teflon coatings from armor-piercing artillery shells be fairly mild? Nukes have the potential to affect a vast civilian audience, not just in use, but in manufacturing and storage as well. Teflon AP shells are going to have a big impact on people riding in armored vehicles, a miniscule subset of the population. Context always plays a role.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to commit to any ruling on strength violations that doesn't consider content and context. It's just not going to happen.

But how would anything that wasn't mandatory fit in strong? According to implication by the the rules sticky, strong can move a nation past the center on an issue. If the UN asks a nation to do something without mandating it, I doubt the nation's really going to move to the other side of the aisle on that issue. Of course, content should play a role, but I think a fair bit of consideration should be placed on whether nations are forced to do it.

L&E may be wishing to minimize flamish telegrams along the lines of "You wrote X?! You fucking suck!" I don't know if this is an actual problem or not, but such telegrams could easily be reported or ignored.

L&E may be wishing to minimize flamish telegrams along the lines of "You wrote X?! You fucking suck!"
Hey! I've gotten that telegram.

So have I, but I don't think the telegrams were from L&E.

That's what I figured L&E was saying, but I just don't see it trumping the right of an author to take credit for a proposal on the floor. Also, in a roleplay sense, it's perfectly acceptable for a nation or group of nations to form blocs, defend certain nations' proposals more vigorously than others for the sake of mutual reputation (i.e., in the case of political organizations such as NSO), etc.

Are you suggesting an alteration in the game mechanics? If so, it's not likely to happen, simply because the system has been in place all along, with no real issues. From my modly perspective, I can glance at a resolution, see a name I recognize from this forum, and pretty much decide at a glance, "this one's probably legal and fairly well thought out." Removing the names would make my job harder.

I also don't see the need from a regular player perspective. The only possible issue would be based on the same factors as my modly criteria, i.e. "one of the UN regulars wrote this. I respect his/her work, therefore I'll beat up on any n00b that disagrees." Having anonymous authors would reduce that ... though I can reconize certain authors' style without names at this point. Won't name names, but I'm sure you can make a close guess.

If you're suggesting a change to forum practices, there might be a case to be made. I don't see it, but perhaps you can elaborate on why this is a positive thing.

Thanks for your answer. I understand that this is a usefull information for you, mods, and that the odds to be implemented is very low if not null.

Just to detail my suggestion: it was that the name of the nation may be known to mods and/or displayed in the proposal page, but erased in the resolution book:

I was thinking that if the nation name was not displayed in the book, the level of reward get my someone passing a proposal will be a little bit less selfish.
Then everyone may be a little bit more willing to help others in the drafting phase, and maybe the debate will be a little bit more related to the content of the proposal, as unconsiously everyone will know that if someone submit a proposal it will not be for pure selfish reasons.

I cannot be sure, it's just a psychology analysis which may prove right or wrong and I wanted to ask if some others player were thinking the same way or not.

L&E may be wishing to minimize flamish telegrams along the lines of "You wrote X?! You fucking suck!" I don't know if this is an actual problem or not, but such telegrams could easily be reported or ignored.

Thanks, no this is not related to my post. I get some indeed, but not a lot. It's just 2 click to delete them, no pb for me I ignore them totally.

I suppose that the opposition to my following suggestion will be huge, but anyway, I was thinking that, to improve the quality of NSUN resolutions and also the quality of our debates, it could be very interesting to don't display anymore the name of the nation who submitted the proposal. And I'm confident in saying this as with my nation's name already in the book, I will be among those who have something to loose if that happen.
Here's the thing, though: the forum topic, and NSwiki, means people can get credit for it anyway. I've not cared too much about getting it credits in the past - I said that Fonzo could submit Repeal "Right to Divorce" without a credit line to me in case it caused a problem (which it did), I advised Herconia to drop my name from Repeal "Mandatory Recycling" in case it was deleted for branding, and the same with A-B's (where is he?) Repeal "Replanting Trees", and there was Sheknu - but I don't always refrain from giving myself a good whoring up in the forums (like this post) or NSwiki articles.

So even if you removed the "by such and such" line, I don't think it'd made much difference to the mind-set. And I don't think people are reluctant to draft collectively anyway: it's more
- that sometimes people are defensive about their work, whether their name's on it or not
- that sometimes it's hard to know what to say about a proposal you really like, really don't like, or really don't care about
- that often proposals focus on things people don't know much about, and are best off being written by those who do - the author (hopefully) - anyway
- that people want their proposals to go through secretively
- that we can be such aggressive trolls to newbies at times, that they're discouraged from forum drafting.

Furthermore, the advent of 9 zillion off-site forums has changed the nature of the UN forum anyway. Proposals at NSO, DEFCON, Reclamation - I've seen plenty of collective drafting efforts on them, that simply hasn't translated across to the UN forum. Example, that he hope he doesn't mind my listing: Omigodtheykilledkenny got plenty of good advice and help on DEFCON with his UCAA proposal. He got objections, ranging from valid to knee-jerk, on the UN forum, and little in the way of substantive help. As I say, some of those objections are valid, but in the spirit of collective drafting, that's of less help.

I don't mind if they drop the name or not - though I suspect as it's a coding change, they won't, and also because it would be difficult regarding passed resolutions - but I don't think it'll cast the spell of wonder you're hoping for over the UN forum anyway.
________________________________________________________________

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to commit to any ruling on strength violations that doesn't consider content and context. It's just not going to happen.
Ok, that's reasonable:

The UN,

Says nukes are bad,

Suggests nations give up their nuclear weapons

The UN,

Says really big nukes are unnecessary,

Requires UN nations to give up any nuclear weapons with a yield over 10 Mt.
Without speaking for you, you seem to be saying the former would be of a greater strength than the latter, because it's covering a broader area of effect: yet the latter clearly has more binding effects. I'd argue that area of effect is only of partial significance, and that you seem to be giving it too much weight: if that means that the second proposal should be Significant, not Strong, then ok; but if that means the first proposal should be Strong, not Mild, then I don't think that makes so much sense.

L&E may be wishing to minimize flamish telegrams along the lines of "You wrote X?! You fucking suck!" I don't know if this is an actual problem or not, but such telegrams could easily be reported or ignored.

Out of sight, out of mind. I don't think it would be a frequent problem.

I've gotten the "you fucking suck" telegrams when my resolutions have been on the floor, but once they rolled into the list of adopted resolutions the only complaints I've heard where here on the forum and really were limited to "your resolution makes my head hurt" (which secretly is my goal anyways).


I like the fact that resolutions have a "sponsor" name. I think it is important when references to the old resolutions come up ... as a nation that is a sponsor probably has a unique perspective on the debate, that should carry some sway in the repeal debates.

(ooc: I consider this a dodge by both players and the mods. I have heard second and third hand that players when expressing concern about these matters have been ever so politely told to buzz off, I bring it into the open so it may be addressed in the open rather than ignored individually...so I may judge for myself without a filter just what the actual mechanical difficulty is and why it IS a mechanical difficulty)
[OOC, unless you consider my modly persona to be IC]

Players and mods have diddly to do with amendments. The only way to get new game code is to have one of the admins write it. On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 (http://www.nationstates.net/news/2004/09/23/index.html#repeals), Max Barry, [violet], and SalusaSecondus upgraded the game to include code for repealing previously passed resolutions. Up 'til that point, the standing rule was 'you passed it, you have to live with it'.

Amendments / repeals had been a sore point for players since the beginning of the game, and UN Mod Enodia had to forumulate a rule making both illegal, since the only way to implement them was for the admins to make adjustments to the code with the passage of each game-altering amendment. Their response? "No way, Jose."

The admins worked long and hard on finding a way to address the problem of permanent UN resolutions. They decided that the amendment process was simply too difficult to code effectively, so they went with the repeal code and the strikeout of the prior resolution. Frankly, none of our current admins have the time or inclination to revisit that code, and the problem with amendments is just as difficult now as it was then. That door probably won't ever be reopened.

Let's have a look at the mechanical problem, using Resolution #4 as an example.UN taxation ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.
Let's amend this proposal by taking out the word "not". How would you code an Amendment to reflect this minor change? Would it be different than adding the words "or treasury" between 'citizens' and 'of'? How about changing "for any purpose" to "for any military purpose?

Now, multiply those effects times all the passed resolutions, and correctly anticipate the possible phrasing choices that will be used in all the unwritten proposals yet to hit the floor. Write some code to address all those potential changes. Incorporate it into a simple game where the actual mechanical effects are hidden from the players, so they can't know what the effects really are. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

That's the true, non-evasive answer. Now you see why we don't like writing it out every week when the question gets raised for the umpteenth time.

[OOC, unless you consider my modly persona to be IC]

Players and mods have diddly to do with amendments. The only way to get new game code is to have one of the admins write it. On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 (http://www.nationstates.net/news/2004/09/23/index.html#repeals), Max Barry, [violet], and SalusaSecondus upgraded the game to include code for repealing previously passed resolutions. Up 'til that point, the standing rule was 'you passed it, you have to live with it'.

Amendments / repeals had been a sore point for players since the beginning of the game, and UN Mod Enodia had to forumulate a rule making both illegal, since the only way to implement them was for the admins to make adjustments to the code with the passage of each game-altering amendment. Their response? "No way, Jose."

The admins worked long and hard on finding a way to address the problem of permanent UN resolutions. They decided that the amendment process was simply too difficult to code effectively, so they went with the repeal code and the strikeout of the prior resolution. Frankly, none of our current admins have the time or inclination to revisit that code, and the problem with amendments is just as difficult now as it was then. That door probably won't ever be reopened.

Let's have a look at the mechanical problem, using Resolution #4 as an example.
Let's amend this proposal by taking out the word "not". How would you code an Amendment to reflect this minor change? Would it be different than adding the words "or treasury" between 'citizens' and 'of'? How about changing "for any purpose" to "for any military purpose?

Now, multiply those effects times all the passed resolutions, and correctly anticipate the possible phrasing choices that will be used in all the unwritten proposals yet to hit the floor. Write some code to address all those potential changes. Incorporate it into a simple game where the actual mechanical effects are hidden from the players, so they can't know what the effects really are. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

That's the true, non-evasive answer. Now you see why we don't like writing it out every week when the question gets raised for the umpteenth time.

I see the problem and thank you for clarifying it for me. I am sorry it is for the umpteenth time, genuinely.

The whole UN mechanic just bothers me. It is even harder for me to articulate those feelings and thoughts clearly when I see a repeal implicitly and sometimes EXPLICITLY promise follow up legislation and it simply does not materialize.

The whole UN mechanic just bothers me. It is even harder for me to articulate those feelings and thoughts clearly when I see a repeal implicitly and sometimes EXPLICITLY promise follow up legislation and it simply does not materialize.

Y'know, you can make it materialise by writing it yourself.

Y'know, you can make it materialise by writing it yourself.

You know, if I had that sort of real life time I would be a UN regular. But I'm not, I don't, and it would be refreshing and novel to see something on the order of repeal authors taking responsibilities for their actions.

I do know that if I wrote a repeal and I had a good idea that the repeal would leave a hole I would certainly make the honest attempt to write the "better" replacement legislation in addition to the actual repeal.

But that would make entirely too much sense after all and would interrupt the back slapping and high fiving going on here when folks slap down a n00b or gang bang a member trying to understand the process.

I voted with my feet three years ago and I can certainly do it again. Far be it from me to interrupt this little electronic shangri-la here.

it would be refreshing and novel to see something on the order of repeal authors taking responsibilities for their actions.
This is your second or third topic that you've hijacked into complaints about this. Let's just make this an Official Mod Ruling:Repeal Authors are in no way obligated to provide or promote a replacement proposal. It's not an NS rule, and it probably never will be.
~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

This is your second or third topic that you've hijacked into complaints about this. Let's just make this an Official Mod Ruling:Repeal Authors are in no way obligated to provide or promote a replacement proposal. It's not an NS rule, and it probably never will be.
~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Good deal.

A while back, we had a discussion about whether adding duties to a committee established by a previous resolution would be an HOC violation. I thought I remembered that specific language had been added to the rules permitting that. I just checked the rules because I wanted to quote that to someone, and I can't find it.

Is my ancient memory failing me again, is it my eyesight, or was something changed? Help, please?

I remember the discussion, but not a resulting rules change or addition. I'd suggest looking though some drafting and/or at vote threads for Free Trade resolutions that appeared after the GFDA.

Merged into this thread since it seems to fit better here.

Good move, HR (pun intended), since the latest discussion of the topic is in this thread. On 3 August, Hack posted the added language as a proposed change:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11487878&postcount=115

He later said he was waiting for comments before making the change. The final reference is a 21 September post by Fris suggesting he go ahead and make the change:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11713189&postcount=142

I guess I assumed the change had been made. Shows what happens when you assume, huh? ;)

I guess so.

I'll go ahead and make the change since it looks like there haven't been any objections to it in several months.

That way you won't have to assume anymore. :cool:

Not an official rule, but a humble request to keep insanely long posts a little shorter:

When doing a point by point critique of a Proposal, please don't comment on portions you full agree with or don't care about. An extra half-dozen lines for a comment of "Boilerplate" or "Meh" or "Agreed" is getting a little irritating.And bump.

Branding rules have been clarified. New info has been underlined.

Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.Brought about in part because of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518289) thread.

Proposals currently in the list will not be deleted, but future Proposals (including resubmissions) will be. I'd also like to reiterate the listed definition of "limited". One nation only.

What should we do if our proposal deals with health issues? Also, can we recreate UN organizations such as the WHO in our proposals?

What should we do if our proposal deals with health issues?You'll need to be considerably more specific, as "health issues" can fall under numerous categories, depending on what and how they're addressing a given issue. Typically, the end up as Social Justice, though, as everyone wants to give away stuff for "free".

Also, can we recreate UN organizations such as the WHO in our proposals?Assuming they do something and you aren't just doing a cut-n-paste job. Recreating existing bodies within the rules can be difficult, though.

Regardless, it would be best to post drafts in this forum so people can look them over and catch any problems before it's submitted.

Regarding the list of Passed N.S.U.N. Resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12864234&postcount=215):

Repeal "The Right to Form Unions wasn't written by Jey; It was Cristia Agape.

Oops. Don't know how I goofed that one. Thanks.

Just a suggested addition to the rules which came from an earlier discussion, in which I was suggested to post here. Basically, it's an addition to the rules to prevent "mandating of tech levels"; something like

The Cobdenian Rule
Due to the vast gulf in technology levels in NS, a proposal can't force nations to adopt a certain technology level. This does not mean that you can't write a resolution that only effects modern tech or future tech nations, largely ignores other techs, or merely effects nations of other techs adversely; you just cannot write a resolution that insists (urges and recommending are fine) on a certain technology or technological level being used. For example, a proposal mandating safety standards on jet aircraft would be legal under this rule. A proposal mandating that all international travel be in the form of jet aircraft wouldn't be, as past tech nations would be unable to implement it without ceasing to be past tech. A proposal that urges the fitting of electrostatic precipitators onto factory chimney's would be legal, one that mandated it wouldn't. Similarly, you can't ban cars and insist on people using Flying Talking Donkey's to go to work, as non magical nation's would not be able to comply.

Thoughts? Complaints? Angry Mod Rant on how it's unfeasible ;)?

Not so much an "Angry Mod Rant on how it's unfeasible", but more of a reason why we don't want any more power than we already have in the proposal queue.
Basically, it's an addition to the rules to prevent "mandating of tech levels"
I'm not aware of any rules specifically mandating or refusing to mandate tech levels, and I'm against adding anything like that.

What I'm reading is that you're requesting that IC justifications be allowed to either get out of required compliance; or worse, asking that proposals be deleted for being unenforceable on a roleplaying basis. This puts the mods into the position of Arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable from a roleplaying perspective, and that's far harder and far more power than we ought to have.

If you have an IC problem with a proposal, fight it IC. Send telegrams to the approvers telling them why it's a bad idea. Convince the author why it should be taken down for IC reasons, and have him file a GHR to remove it. (That's the one valid way to take down an otherwise legal proposal.)

My rule of thumb on this whole topic of IC reasonableness - what Hack refers to as the Reasonable Nation Theory (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540667), comes down to the issues in the game. Max passively assumed in the initial issues that most people were playing political variants of modern day nations. Therefore, anything that assumes modern tech (pollution, global warming, planes, trains and automobiles, etc) is fine. Somebody proposing an "Intergalactic Defense Net" or "Rural Electrification for Cavemen" would be deleted under the Bloody Stupid rules.

Does that clarify the situation, or have I misread it?

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding; what I'm hoping for is basically a rule added that is sort of a tech equivalent of "Ideological Ban". Assuming MT would be fine, however, mandating the use of MT or an MT technology wouldn't be. My reasoning behind it is that, in much the same way ideological bans would effectively cause an entire aspect of UN roleplay to cease to exist, much the same would be the case of a tech ban. As I say, it wouldn't affect proposals that assume MT, or urge MT, or even just hurt PT and FT nations, just those that contain language that would mean that they couldn't actually exist in the UN. Using solar power as an example:

Legal if such a ruling were to be in place:

URGES nations to replace coal power stations with solar power stations

MANDATES that nation's invest in research into solar electricity production

MANDATES that solar power stations supply 25% of the UN's electricity supply

Illegal if such a ruling were to be in place:

MANDATES that coal power stations be replaced with solar power stations

MANDATES that solar power stations supply 25% of the electricity supply in each nation

Hope that explains the idea, and my reasoning behind it, a bit better

I think there might be a slight misunderstandingNo, I got it. I just reject your argument.

Ideological bans actually have the potential to go beyond roleplay and actually affect game mechanics. Thus, "Ban Dictatorships" or "Destroy Democracy" would require mechanical changes to UN members who are Psychotic Dictatorships or New York Times Democracies. I'll grant you that we've taken it beyond the pure Game Mechanics rules by extending it to Theocracies and Communist states, but that's a reasonable distinction in a game that defines nations by their political ideologies.

Tech level is entirely a roleplay invention. There is no mention of tech level in the game anywhere other than on the forums. Given that the vast majority of NS players are not regular visitors to the forums, our rules have almost always concentrated on aspects that are found on the game side (plus the six "what can't I post" crash landings in the FAQ).

I don't see inconveniencing the majority of potential UN submitters to appease a tiny (but active and vocal) minority of players. It's arbitrary and just not fair to others.

Ah, point taken. I would suggest that a general ban on banning aspects of roleplay might have a place, but I can see that there would be awful lot of mod discretion involved, perhaps too much to be feasible. In any case, I tried to go through the proposal list to shew how few proposals would be affected by such a ruling, and found none whatsoever, which frankly, renders my point pretty much moot anyhow...

With the shift to the new World Assembly, there's some talk of rearranging the Categories, perhaps getting rid of some of the old dogs (Gun Control, Gambling) and adding some others. Any thoughts?

I have always desired a category dealing entirely with the concept of wildlife management.

I have always desired a category dealing entirely with the concept of wildlife management.

Allow me to clarify the request. You know that categories have at least 3-4 choices or strengths, with different descriptions. If you want us to seriously consider your category suggestion, you'll need to make suggestions that mirror the format of our current categories.

Frankly, I don't see wildlife management as being broad enough for a whole category. Part of "Environmental", sure, but not solo.

Question: With the withdrawing from the WA to avoid bad resolutions impacting your nation then rejoining it for the better ones. Did that work under the old UN?

Question: With the withdrawing from the WA to avoid bad resolutions impacting your nation then rejoining it for the better ones. Did that work under the old UN?

Yes.

Is it possible to add a rule against ever using the word 'encourage' in a resolution? :D seriously though......

Is it possible to add a rule against ever using the word 'encourage' in a resolution? :D seriously though......


I don't want to put a one word reply to this of "Why," but you did kinda go out on a limb and say something that makes me ask the question, so here it is.

Why would we need that?

Oo! Oo! A category for WA Internal Organisation, that impacts on members' economies but doesn't do anything else. We could reserve the Strong entry for the "Pay Your Fees You Bastards" resolution!

Research & Development, with Areas of Effect:
- International Health
- Infrastructure
- Technology
- Agriculture

I'm particularly attached to the first idea, and if the general R&D thing seems too close to existing categories, then at least an International Health category could be investigated.

Either Financial Regulation, with the 3 strengths, or a Business Regulation, with Areas of Effect, or Industries Affected, to include one on financial regulation. (Social Justice cannot really be used for this, as there is no corresponding welfare boost. Examples of proposals could be: banking laws, securities & exchanges regulation. Fun stuff.)

Welfare Reform (exact opposite of Social Justice).

Disclaimer: I completely accept none of these ideas may even be considered, but while the opinion box is open I may as well stick my oar into it.

Also, is the Book-keeping category permanent? If so, could an explanation be added to the Rules?

Also, is the Book-keeping category permanent?No.

How do "branding" rules work with regard to resubmissions of past resolutions? It seems only fair to recognize authors of past resolutions, but I am concerned about what happens if resolutions are effectively "merged" into a single larger resolution, pushing the number of contributing authors (from old resolutions) greater than one.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

hmmz, well, I was trying submit a new proposal and then somehow the engine says that it is too short... It's somewhat long imho, but too short??? could anyone tell me what could be the problem?

tnx alot ;)

hmmz, well, I was trying submit a new proposal and then somehow the engine says that it is too short... It's somewhat long imho, but too short??? could anyone tell me what could be the problem?

tnx alot ;)

Perhaps if you were to post the proposal in the forums we'd have some chance of helping you.

It's somewhat long imho, but too short??? could anyone tell me what could be the problem?

We put a 50 character minimum on the proposal queue to keep out some of the spam and empty proposals. If yours is shorter than 50 characters, I guarantee you that it's not long enough to address whatever it was you wanted to address.

Can we get a 'ruling', or at least indication - and then, I'd like to suggest, an explicit addition to the stickied Rules - on whether c+ping real world resolutions/laws is illegal under the 'plagiarism' rule. People do it all the time, and it's really annoying; and given the whole UN telling Max not to imitate them, probably not great for the website's image. But the plagiarism bit of the rules only covers other people's proposals i.e. in-NS material.

That is: is it illegal to copy [verbatim/at length] real world material?

is it illegal to copy [verbatim/at length] real world material?

That's been an informal rule for some time now. We may not warn anyone over it, but reposting the United States Bill of Rights gets you at least a Voice Of Mod telegram advising you to be just a little more creative.

I think it's reasonable to use other organizations' carefully designed documents and use them as a base for NS law. I know that my own Rights and Duties proposals started out as a UN sub-agency document. By the time I got done filing off the serial numbers and tweaking it with game specific stuff, it was a whole lot better, and all NationStates.

I'm not sure I see the need to make it a warnable offense at this time. If you don't mind, we can leave it to Mod discretion.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

Could one of the mods please fix the Meet the Reps link in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280699&postcount=3)? Not only is the link wrong, we've since opened a whole new one. It's located here (since I know you don't want to search for it): http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554159

Thanks.

Could one of the mods please fix the Meet the Reps link in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280699&postcount=3)? Not only is the link wrong, we've since opened a whole new one.

Fixed that one and several of the NSwiki links. There's probably more to do on that sticky, but I don't have time to address it right now.

Is there any ruling prohibiting the copying and pasting proposals from the old UN for re-use in the WA? I don't mean plagiarising proposals, I mean original author resubmitting their old, now dead, resolutions?

Is there any ruling prohibiting the copying and pasting proposals from the old UN for re-use in the WA? I don't mean plagiarising proposals, I mean original author resubmitting their old, now dead, resolutions?

If it's yours, it's fine.

In this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13576790&postcount=57) Hack indicates, while emphasising his post was 'as a player' and 'not official policy', that it would be allowed.

There would be no reason to ban it. And they let me substantially reuse my slavery proposal. So I think you'll be fine. (And a good thing too, if it means we see Diplomatic Immunity again!)

Heh, Diplomatic Immunity was one of the ones I was thinking of doing, along with Territorial Waters and Passports, although I may revamp the last two a bit.

However, it seems that Hack's example is now a bit off ;)

In this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13576790&postcount=57) Hack indicates, while emphasising his post was 'as a player' and 'not official policy', that it would be allowed.

There would be no reason to ban it.Well...

If we kept having to vote on copies of old UN resolutions, even if they were introduced or approved by the original authors, I can see how the pure tedium and repetition of it all could force the moderators' hand.

Good thing that hasn't been a problem so far.

hey everyone. I am new here so my question is how to you submit proposals? Please help me!

hey everyone. I am new here so my question is how to you submit proposals? Please help me!
Are you in the WA already? _ *(checks this)* _ Yes.
Do you have at least two endorsements? _ *(checks this)* _ Yes.
Okay, so you can submit proposals.

In the menu at the top right of your nation's page, click on the 'World Assembly' link.
Scroll down the main 'World Assembly' page and you'll see a 'Submit Proposal' link: Click on that, and the rest should be fairly obvious.

BUT it's highly advisable that, before submitting any proposal, you _
1/ Read the official rules about writing proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).
2/ Post a draft of your proposal in a [new] thread in this forum, so that other (and possibly more experienced) players can advise you on any problems that they see in it.

What makes these guidelines 'official'?
You might change your mind and the laws of the game might change. If they heven't all ready. Is there something concreate??

The mods say so. That's what makes it official.

You might change your mind and the laws of the game might change.

If you're interested in providing a functional crystal ball so that we can accurately predict the future, perhaps we can lock down the rules a bit.

Failing that, we'll continue to work like every other legislative body in the world and make changes only as they are needed.

A panel of experts has proposed that future security council veto be vetoed if 2/3 of the general assembly decide on a veto.
Failing this, the prediction is that several regions will treat WA for publishing issues
.