NationStates Jolt Archive

No, you won't. Topic hijacking is against site rules.

The topic of this thread refers to the repeal, not the replacement. If you want to propose a variant replacement, start your own thread. If somebody else wants to do the same, they can. In the meantime, your question has been asked and answered. Rephrasing it eleven ways from Sunday will not make anyone post a replacement, and you're starting to push the limits of civlized discourse here.

This is an official ruling. Drop the subject, or start your own replacement thread. End of discussion.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

This is a moot point now as a good replacement has been posted and discussed on this forum.

But I still have to ask, how in tarnation is a replacement off topic? Why do you want to divorce the repeal process from the replacement process?

Because, as you note yourself, genius, they are two separate processes.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Disco, I think this belongs in moderation. Though, I could be wrong.

Because, as you note yourself, genius, they are two separate processes.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Um, no they are not. Process B depends completely on process A. How I and many others participate in process A depends on what we expect the results of process B to be.

Disco, I think this belongs in moderation. Though, I could be wrong.

I'm cool with that if so.

Um, no they are not. Process B depends completely on process A. How I and many others participate in process A depends on what we expect the results of process B to be.


You've done it again, bright boy -- acknowledged yourself that they are, in fact, two different processes. Give it up already.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You've done it again, bright boy -- acknowledged yourself that they are, in fact, two different processes. Give it up already.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

They are different, but not seperate. This body encourages people to treat them as seperate, but that is counter intuitive, and a bad idea. If a repeal fails because people start talking about a replacement.... good. The likely replacement is very much on topic when discussing a repeal.

Breathing out, and breathing in are different processes. They aren't seperate though, B depends on A, and A might be a bad idea if you can't do B.

You've done it again, bright boy -- acknowledged yourself that they are, in fact, two different processes. Give it up already.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I think it's high time you stopped signing your posts "respectfully" when they are clearly not. Disco has a valid point, and your insistence on belittling him for continuing to try and make it when it's never been properly refuted says more about the problem of habituation to potentially questionable policies than it does about the intelligence of the one questioning them.

Why don't you give up?

You've done it again, bright boy -- acknowledged yourself that they are, in fact, two different processes. Give it up already.So is skydiving: Jump out of the plane.


Open your parachute.So, would you like to jump out of the plane (A)? Don't ask me what condition your parachute is in, or even if you have a parachute (B); until you're out of the plane, that issue is moot. The issue at hand is whether or not to jump out.

So decide: jump, or no?

:headbang: So is thinking and writing. Well at least with SOME people.

Give me a break for crying out loud. How can you compare the notion of the steps in skydiving with the completely unrelated processes of repeal resolution and regular resolution. It's like comparing an apple with a cow, or sushi with BBQ tourist. You can't. This is worse than a strawman, it's an airman, and I'm not playing your air guitar here.

In your case you should have checked your parachute before you got in the frigging plane. Failure is not an option in any stage of parachute jumping. (That's not true people have survived great falls after their parachute failed to deploy ... much to the annyance of role playing game designers I should point out and to the annoyance of role playing game players who keep insistnig that role playing game designers should make "realistic rules.")

A repeal must stand on its own because it is perfectly possible that a replacement will not succeed. The set of people who may vote for a repeal does not equal the set of people who would vote for a replacement. Yes it is true that if you have a good enough argument for a replacement you can use that argument alone to shove through an argument for a repeal. How good is good enough? Two points short of impossible.

Not only must they be separate but most of the times you have to give a resting period between the repeal and the resolution to allow the bad vibes from the cutthroat repeal arguments to be partially forgotten. Several repeal/replace attemtps were done this way.

It's a cruel world but that is how it needs to be done. Forcing a discussion of the replacement while the repeal is underway is a near guarenteed way of killing the repeal. I'd rather let a repeal die on its own lack of merrit than on some attempt at misdirection.

This entire discourse stemming from the repeal debate is absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, what is everyone's problem?

If the repeal fails, the repeal fails. We have three more days for voting, so things can go either way. What the hell does a replacement have to do with it?

Community Property- you've been ragging about a replacement since the damn repeal came up for vote. You've got it. Will you please make some relevant points?

Disco- Just, just stop, please. You are fine to discuss a replacement, but it is indeed two seperate processes. As the Meddling Monk put it, you can't discuss the replacement without first passing the repeal. To use another horrible analogy that's likely to be intentionally misconstrued, you can't bake bread unless you grind the flour. Stop debating the repeal on the merits of the replacement- debate on the merits of the repeal.

Honestly, it's just getting fucking annoying.

I really have a hard time seeing how some of you can't understand this.

Repealing UNR_7 will have one of two consequences:

1. We all go on our merry way and don't worry about sexual liberties anymore.
2. A replacement resolution is submitted for discussion.

Now I am sure as hell going to be more comfortable repealing UNR_7 if I know that Consequence 2 is the likely candidate.

The guy who doesn't count his chickens before they hatch is a first-rate dumbass.

But I still have to ask, how in tarnation is a replacement off topic? Why do you want to divorce the repeal process from the replacement process?
The question wasn't the replacement per se, it was the way in which the player kept posting about it. He demanded that the authors post their replacement. They told him "no". He then proceeded to fill post after post, and later topic after topic, with the same question phrased 12 different ways. At no point did he offer any suggestions of his own, it was simply a string of demands that amounted to deliberate topic hijacking.

Other players asked about the replacement later in the thread and managed to do so respectfully. Despite the repeated answer of "no", they managed to not break forum rules. Thus, only one player was punished in this case.

Personally, I think the continued refusal to post the repeal was extremely damaging to the author's campaign, but that's not my worry. I was just enforcing site rules of an extreme case of topic hijacking.

As the Meddling Monk put it, you can't discuss the replacement without first passing the repeal.

Dear god why? You can't pass a replacement until the repeal has passed, but you certainly can discuss it, and there is a clamoring horde that tries to do it, and gets told they're off topic by mods.

EDIT: The offense on the thread that prompted this discussion appears to be thread hijacking, which is distinct in some way from being off topic.

The mods seem to generally represent the will of the vocal members of the NSUN. I posted this thread here because I wanted to discuss the topic, not get the Mods opinion of what the will of the NSUN is.

thread hijacking, which is distinct in some way from being off topic.
In this case ...

Thread hijacking: "I refuse to let this thread continue until I get an answer! I'm going to keep posting this same damn post over and over until you post the replacement."

Off-topic: "Here's how Sexual Freedom is a violation of international Copyright Law."

not get the Mods opinion of what the will of the NSUN is.
Since your initial premise was flawed, I corrected it. I'm also a UN player, so my player opinion is just as valuable as my mod rulings. If I want to participate in any open thread, I most certainly will.

Dear god why? You can't pass a replacement until the repeal has passed, but you certainly can discuss it, and there is a clamoring horde that tries to do it, and gets told they're off topic by mods.

Reason #1) If the repeal fails the whole discussion on the resolution was pointless.

Reason #2) Most people insist on discussing the replacement because they can't properly argue against the repeal. They can better argue against the replacement than they can argue against the repeal.

Reason #3) There have been times when between the replacement and the repeal came the sudden surprise. The first resolution to be submitted after the repeal has passed that gets to quorum and passes will be the one to prevail. (The ALC is a good example of a sudden surprise that kicked out another abortion resolution because it was submitted faster.)

Reason #4) The argument for the repeal is based not on the fact that a replacement is needed but that this resolution is a piece of manure that actually doesn't even remotely do what the title says it does. We don't have sexual freedom under this resolution, we won't have it if the resolution is repealed.

Reason #5) Like any of this manure is going to make a difference? Half of the against votes have been made because of the system generated title "Repeal "Sexual Freedom"" and no matter what we say or do that's a fact that will never change.

:headbang: So is thinking and writing. Well at least with SOME people.

Give me a break for crying out loud. How can you compare the notion of the steps in skydiving with the completely unrelated processes of repeal resolution and regular resolution. It's like comparing an apple with a cow, or sushi with BBQ tourist. You can't. This is worse than a strawman, it's an airman, and I'm not playing your air guitar here.

In your case you should have checked your parachute before you got in the frigging plane. Failure is not an option in any stage of parachute jumping. (That's not true people have survived great falls after their parachute failed to deploy ... much to the annyance of role playing game designers I should point out and to the annoyance of role playing game players who keep insistnig that role playing game designers should make "realistic rules.")

A repeal must stand on its own because it is perfectly possible that a replacement will not succeed. The set of people who may vote for a repeal does not equal the set of people who would vote for a replacement. Yes it is true that if you have a good enough argument for a replacement you can use that argument alone to shove through an argument for a repeal. How good is good enough? Two points short of impossible.

Not only must they be separate but most of the times you have to give a resting period between the repeal and the resolution to allow the bad vibes from the cutthroat repeal arguments to be partially forgotten. Several repeal/replace attemtps were done this way.

It's a cruel world but that is how it needs to be done. Forcing a discussion of the replacement while the repeal is underway is a near guarenteed way of killing the repeal. I'd rather let a repeal die on its own lack of merrit than on some attempt at misdirection.

Now THAT was the most eloquent and reasoned refutation of replacement relevance I have ever read, and look! Nobody was insulted or belittled (much).

You have my thanks and my admiration.

Repealing can be likened to eating, replacing can be likened to taking a poo. You can't take a poo without eating something first, but who in their right mind will be sitting there shoving food into their face while plotting their route to the bathroom, guessing the consistency of their poop, determining whether or not the toilet paper goes in overhanded or underhanded after the roll runs out, etc.?

One thing at a time, people!

There is a big difference between foresight and jumping the gun.

Repealing can be likened to eating, replacing can be likened to taking a poo. You can't take a poo without eating something first, but who in their right mind will be sitting there shoving food into their face while plotting their route to the bathroom, guessing the consistency of their poop, determining whether or not the toilet paper goes in overhanded or underhanded after the roll runs out, etc.?

One thing at a time, people!

There is a big difference between foresight and jumping the gun.

Are you telling me that you don't consider the consequences of your meal before deciding what to eat? If I have a big speech to give, I'm not going to snack on hot wings beforehand. If I'm going to be stuck in a car with some pretty ladies for a few hours, I'll go easy on the refried beans. It makes perfect sense to consider the consequences before you make your decision. Knowing that a group of people plans on introducing a resolution as a replacement for the legislation that is up for repeal and wanting to know what that replacement entails is not jumping the gun.

St Jello Biafra;11892128']Are you telling me that you don't consider the consequences of your meal before deciding what to eat? If I have a big speech to give, I'm not going to snack on hot wings beforehand. If I'm going to be stuck in a car with some pretty ladies for a few hours, I'll go easy on the refried beans. It makes perfect sense to consider the consequences before you make your decision. Knowing that a group of people plans on introducing a resolution as a replacement for the legislation that is up for repeal and wanting to know what that replacement entails is not jumping the gun.

I'm talking about eating and then pooping out what you eat, not speeches and meetings and teh ladiez! Jee christ, it's a metaphor, not a bleeding allegory.

Well it's a crappy metaphor.

Tee-hee.

St Jello Biafra;11892188']Well it's a crappy metaphor.

Heehee. Get it?

OOC: http://209.85.12.232/7474/111/emo/xptdr.gif

Repealing can be likened to eating, replacing can be likened to taking a poo. You can't take a poo without eating something first, but who in their right mind will be sitting there shoving food into their face while plotting their route to the bathroom, guessing the consistency of their poop, determining whether or not the toilet paper goes in overhanded or underhanded after the roll runs out, etc.?

One thing at a time, people!

There is a big difference between foresight and jumping the gun.

I make sure I know where the bath room is in a bar before I get plastered.

Okay, let's stop with the shitty analogies.

Heh heh. Okay, that was the last one.

Okay, let's stop with the shitty analogies.

Heh heh. Okay, that was the last one.

It seemed like the people against discussing a replacement, when working on a repeal, got us sidetracked with these analogies.

It's been asserted that discussing a replacement makes it harder to pass a repeal. In that case, shouldn't the repeal fail?

Off-topic: "Here's how Sexual Freedom is a violation of international Copyright Law."

Are you trying to get Disco off topic by bringing up his favorite subject?

OoC: I feel I should comment on this, but I can't. Frankly, I've had five lagers and an entire bottle of Californian Cabernet Sauvignon. And I weigh 10 stone, before people start accusing me of being a light weight. So, simply put, my entire arguement consists of swaering and something to do with goats.Fuck it. I can;'t remember my argument. I can't even remember whether I'm for or against this. Bollocks.

Now, if someone could get me some Alka Seltzer...

Are you trying to get Disco off topic by bringing up his favorite subject?

I have to admit, I am so concerned about the repeal process, in general because I am so concerned about a specific repeal.

But I'm running out of steam here on nation states. The last person to submit a repeal of UNCC was not me, nor one of my puppets.

They were just from your region and used your text.

Not fooling anyone here, Disco.

I think it's high time you stopped signing your posts "respectfully" when they are clearly not.

Wah-wah, boo-freakin'-hoo.

Now THAT was the most eloquent and reasoned refutation of replacement relevance I have ever read, and look! Nobody was insulted or belittled (much).

Where the hell's the fun in that?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OoC: I feel I should comment on this, but I can't. Frankly, I've had five lagers and an entire bottle of Californian Cabernet Sauvignon. And I weigh 10 stone, before people start accusing me of being a light weight.

I hate stones. The keep rolling and forget to collect their required moss allocation. On the other hand the music isn't all that bad. So let's me see this little handy handy stone converter and ...

YOU ARE A LIGHT WEIGHT.

So says the 6' tall 16 stone representative from Tzorsland. Who fortunately hasn't had five lagers (I'm assuming since you used stones that they were all proper pints) and an entire bottle of wine. Because I would be exceptionally tipsy myself ... to the point of actually spelling delegate right on the first pass.

While I'm converting I also appear to be shy of 7 slugs, and a little over 8 togs and well short of half a candy.

Because I would be exceptionally tipsy myself ... to the point of actually spelling delegate right on the first pass.We certainly can't have that.

Repeals and replacements are of course related.

But the NSUN systems means that they must be artificially separated.

This whole argument could be avoided if there was some way for resolutions to be amended without having to be repealed. But I think that would be a hideously bureaucratic mess for the NSUN. There are enough proposed repeals of whole resolutions as it is without introducing a million proposals repealing individual clauses.

They were just from your region and used your text.

Not fooling anyone here, Disco.

What you say is true, but my point was that I've stopped sum biting repeals to UNCC. The nation who submitted it was the one that took delegate status from me in said region, briefly.

Repeals and replacements are of course related.

But the NSUN systems means that they must be artificially separated.

This whole argument could be avoided if there was some way for resolutions to be amended without having to be repealed. But I think that would be a hideously bureaucratic mess for the NSUN. There are enough proposed repeals of whole resolutions as it is without introducing a million proposals repealing individual clauses.


The code of the nation states does force them to be artificially seperated. The rules of the UN forum do encourage such seperation.

There aren't that many resolutions. If there was one thread about amending each resolution... that would be an improvement. It beats starting a new thread for each repeal attempt, over and over again, for the same bad resolutions.

In my opinion if I may there should be two forms of repealing a resolution. First way should be repealing without intent on replaceing. This can occur in many instances however will be more difficult for the proposer. Second way should be repeal with replacement. Do to the fact there is no way to amend legislation in the assembly this would be a way for all to know the intent of the repeal even if those proposeing the repeal do not wish to tell the rest what they are really up to. Because as the rules stand now I could call for a repeal on any law and say "I dont think this law does what it says lets get rid of it." Now im not required to give any replacment ideas and if the repeal goes through then we may not want to replace it but that should be part of the repeal process. In my opinion any way. Im not here to complain Im here to bounce ideas off people. We need a more specific form of repeal and in my opinon we should have limits on the amount of times a law can be called on for repeal so that those proposing for the repeal will be more careful about their arguements in the repeal to make sure they have a strong arguement so that it is not a wasted attempt at repeal. This wastes all the floor members time when this law gets voted on time and time again with the same result. Just my two cents.

In my opinion if I may there should be two forms of repealing a resolution. First way should be repealing without intent on replaceing. This can occur in many instances however will be more difficult for the proposer. Second way should be repeal with replacement. Do to the fact there is no way to amend legislation in the assembly this would be a way for all to know the intent of the repeal even if those proposeing the repeal do not wish to tell the rest what they are really up to. Because as the rules stand now I could call for a repeal on any law and say "I dont think this law does what it says lets get rid of it." Now im not required to give any replacment ideas and if the repeal goes through then we may not want to replace it but that should be part of the repeal process. In my opinion any way. Im not here to complain Im here to bounce ideas off people. We need a more specific form of repeal and in my opinon we should have limits on the amount of times a law can be called on for repeal so that those proposing for the repeal will be more careful about their arguements in the repeal to make sure they have a strong arguement so that it is not a wasted attempt at repeal. This wastes all the floor members time when this law gets voted on time and time again with the same result. Just my two cents.

Big blob of text. Punctuation...haphazard at best...

Eyes...glazing...over...

and in my opinon we should have limits on the amount of times a law can be called on for repeal so that those proposing for the repeal will be more careful about their arguements in the repeal to make sure they have a strong arguement so that it is not a wasted attempt at repeal.

So then anybody wishing to make a resolution safe in perpetuity could just fill the list with deliberately-hopeless repeal "attempts"...

Wah-wah, boo-freakin'-hoo.
Now, now, I'm not looking for civility, I'm looking for consistency. Kinda like "subject-insult agreement".

(Nice use of the wah-wah pedal to accompany your sarcastic crying -- very Shaft-like.)


Where the hell's the fun in that?


Well, perhaps negotiating your frustration without belittling your opponent could be a test of debating ski-- aw, fuck it. You're right.

You're right.

I always am.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

In my opinion if I may there should be two forms of repealing a resolution. First way should be repealing without intent on replaceing. This can occur in many instances however will be more difficult for the proposer. Second way should be repeal with replacement. Do to the fact there is no way to amend legislation in the assembly this would be a way for all to know the intent of the repeal even if those proposeing the repeal do not wish to tell the rest what they are really up to. Because as the rules stand now I could call for a repeal on any law and say "I dont think this law does what it says lets get rid of it." Now im not required to give any replacment ideas and if the repeal goes through then we may not want to replace it but that should be part of the repeal process. In my opinion any way. Im not here to complain Im here to bounce ideas off people. We need a more specific form of repeal and in my opinon we should have limits on the amount of times a law can be called on for repeal so that those proposing for the repeal will be more careful about their arguements in the repeal to make sure they have a strong arguement so that it is not a wasted attempt at repeal. This wastes all the floor members time when this law gets voted on time and time again with the same result. Just my two cents.

I understand your point, but I'd like to explain why it is probably better to keep things simply and just have one type of repeal.

Sometimes we change our minds. For example, my government has no felt that the practice of gender selection and infanticide are deplorable, and while we may have once considered authoring a repeal with intent to replace the abortion resolution, our legal experts have not found an obvious way to build something of an international consensus on this topic.


I think a key point that was raised here is "Is it valid to ask if a replacement is at hand during a repeal debate?"

My government feels that if this question were considered legal by our UN Secretariat (which if I am reading the statements from the Undersecretary General from Frisbeeteria correctly -- it is), then our decision to support a repeal can be addressed via the debate.

Howie T. Katzman

I think a key point that was raised here is "Is it valid to ask if a replacement is at hand during a repeal debate?"

Ceorana's answer to this is: it depends.

If the original resolution is harmful, then the replacement is irrelevant: it's more important to get the original off the books.

If, on the other hand, the original is full of loopholes, or poorly written, or mild, then certainly: Ceorana would rather have a flawed but partially effective/good statement of principle resolution than no resolution on that topic at all.

I think a key point that was raised here is "Is it valid to ask if a replacement is at hand during a repeal debate?"

I tend to view the question from the opposite direction. A repeal can be based on two arguments. Either the reslution is horrid and should not exist, or that there is a problem in the resolution and it should be replaced. If it is the later then it is the repeal proposer who should provide the replacement because that is their argument.

If they do propose the replacement it is a valid point to argue about what would happen if the repeal succeeds but the replacement fails. There are many problems with the repeal and replace method and one needs a good argument in order to go this route.

If the repeal is based simply on how horrid the resolution is then the argument is that nothing is better than the current situation. While a replacement may be good, it is not immediately necessary and there are no significant consequences if a replacement is delayed or not approved.

In either case it really depends on the repeal resolution writer to make the specific case. Demanding a replacement is going into the terriroty of "what ifs" and it's hard enough for those who want to use this argument to use it.

We believe it's always valid to ask if a replacement is intended during a repeal debate. It's a legitimate question. It may not, though, be an issue that should weigh heavily in decision-making.

There are two situations, we believe, in which resolutions should be repealed. The first is if the resolution does positive harm. We believe the very short-lived "Right to Divorce" was a good example of this. One provision of that resolution placed children of divorce in peril. These need to be repealed, regardless of any possibility of replacement.

The second case concerns resolutions which are simply ineffective. Many of the old resolutions, some of which have been repealed, are examples. They had good intent and, had they been properly drafted, would have had good effect. But they failed to do what they intended, or to do it effectively. In such cases, why bother repealing them? Two reasons....

First, and most important, would be to replace them with sound, effective legislation. In such cases, the potential for good replacements to be enacted is an important issue.

There's another reason, though. They may be--or may be perceived to be--blockers for good legislation on the issue. In some cases, they may actually block subsequent efforts. In other cases, misunderstanding of the Contradiction and Duplication rules may prevent people with good ideas from drafting worthwhile legislation. In discussing proposal ideas with potential authors, we've heard something like this several times: "Well, I'd like to write a proposal about X, but there's already a resolution about X". Whether their proposal would actually be illegal or not isn't the issue. They perceive that it would be illegal, and people react to their perceptions.

This is why our delegation strongly supports the removal of ineffective legislation from the books. The argument that "it was OK back in its day" is specious. We need to clean out the old and unfortunately flawed in order to open the door to the possibility of good legislation on the issues.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We concur with our friend, Mr. Olembe, but we would also like to add anoth er reason why a resolution should be repealed, and that would be the philosophical reason. There are some resolutions -- oh, such as UNR #18, "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" -- that don't do any direct harm per se, but that do unnecessarily meddle in national affairs (and, in this case, based on horribly bad "science"), or those like Resolution #39, "Alternative Fuels," which extends the hand of the UN into individual private enterprises, rather than nations.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The honorable Sheik is, of course, correct. There are occasions when nations wish to repeal resolutions because they disagree with the premises upon which those resolutions were founded. As usual, our focus was on the practical, rather than the philosophical.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Hey, I can be deep sometimes, y'know. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If a resolution isn't blocking anything, then the repeal is pointless. If it is blocking something, then what it is blocking is pretty important, and we should open that discussion before repeal, as a precaution.

Well, in my humble opinion as a new player at NS and the NSUN. I would like to see discussion of possible resolutions before going thru the entire process of getting them quied up for a vote on the floor first.

Granted, the repeal and replacement clauses in the UN rules are far from perfect, in my opinion, but as im still studing them i have not yet formed the necessary arguments for admending them, or repealing them all together. However, suffice it to say i think it would be good to be able to admend resolutions when a full repeal isnt necessary...closing a loophole in Resolution x for example, or adding a definition to Resolution y as an other example.

The point on this was made that it would cause a massive amount of red tape to come into being...and i think that need not be the case. Im sure there are those here who would jump on the chance to become admendment experts if given the chance...or even propose necessary legislation for us in the developing world. I only say these things as something to think about...we need not start working on amending or repealing the rules yet, indeed it may not even be necessary...just the ramblings of some random noob (newbie).

Alexander Ivanovich Serpov,
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt,
President of the Council of Ministers, Ellelt.

Amendments are not technologically possible. It's a limitation of the system, and would require completely recoding this aspect of the game.

It would be nice if the representative of Discoraversalism would, just once, pay some attention to what has been said by others before posting his comments.

If a resolution isn't blocking anything, then the repeal is pointless.

Of course, this completely ignores what's been said here about positive harm, disagreement with the premises of the resolution, and the perception of blocking. The only valid case for repeal of a resolution is if it's a blocker? Utter nonsense.

If it is blocking something, then what it is blocking is pretty important, and we should open that discussion before repeal, as a precaution.

The resolution blocks legislation establishing required colors for jellybeans. That automatically makes jellybean-color laws "pretty important"? More nonsense.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Amendments are not technologically possible. It's a limitation of the system, and would require completely recoding this aspect of the game.

How many times have you had to say that now, mate? How many more times do you think you'll have to say it before people finally get it? Yeesh...

It would be nice if the representative of Discoraversalism would, just once, pay some attention to what has been said by others before posting his comments.

Yes yes, you always begin your posts this way.


Of course, this completely ignores what's been said here about positive harm, disagreement with the premises of the resolution, and the perception of blocking. The only valid case for repeal of a resolution is if it's a blocker? Utter nonsense.


Resolutions with positive harm, that block nothing, are easy to repeal, I think we were talking about repeals that might fail, and possible resolutions to replace them?


The resolution blocks legislation establishing required colors for jellybeans. That automatically makes jellybean-color laws "pretty important"? More nonsense.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I have no idea what you are saying there.

Amendments are not technologically possible. It's a limitation of the system, and would require completely recoding this aspect of the game.

I'm not promoting a technological solution, but user generated solution. There are a great many ways we could effectively amend, without changing a line of code. Repeal and replace is amending.

The biggest thing I can see stopping it is that we are discouraged from using the text of resolutions we may want to improve.

Well, in my humble opinion as a new player at NS and the NSUN. I would like to see discussion of possible resolutions before going thru the entire process of getting them quied up for a vote on the floor first.


That frequently happens in the draft "proposal" threads on this forum and many others. This happened less frequently about two years ago, but more and more players have actually found that it is easier to campaign for UN Delegate approvals if their idea has been vetted in some larger forum at some point in time.

The biggest thing I can see stopping it is that we are discouraged from using the text of resolutions we may want to improve.

I understand this point and think the best way to illustrate it would be for you to take an existing resolution, write an amended *proposal* and a repeal suggesting the change and then post them both here to see what happens. Worst case, mass confusion is caused and Hack, Fris, or TexasHotrodders will lock the thread and the mystery will be solved.

Yes yes, you always begin your posts this way.

He wouldn't have to, if you'd just listen for a bleedin' change.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

How many times have you had to say that now, mate? How many more times do you think you'll have to say it before people finally get it? Yeesh...

Yea not seven times, seven times seventy times! Or was that seven times seventy times seven hundred? Or ... oh nevermind.

How many times have you had to say that now, mate? How many more times do you think you'll have to say it before people finally get it? Yeesh...

Always one more time than it has been said.

Always one more time than it has been said.Who are you? The Dread Pirate Roberts?

Who are you? The Dread Pirate Roberts?

No, he's Will Turner!

I understand this point and think the best way to illustrate it would be for you to take an existing resolution, write an amended *proposal* and a repeal suggesting the change and then post them both here to see what happens. Worst case, mass confusion is caused and Hack, Fris, or TexasHotrodders will lock the thread and the mystery will be solved.

Done that. I did it the PC way though and just highly recomended the original author change some numbers, assuming a repeal passed. I'm trying to avoid breaching experiments.

So would it be appropriate to discuss here possible replacements for the Public Domain resolution?

No, not really.

So would it be appropriate to discuss here possible replacements for the Public Domain resolution?

Especially since it's already been replaced. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Copyright_Convention)

Especially since it's already been replaced. (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Copyright_Convention)

Haha very funny.