NationStates Jolt Archive

Im so tempted to make a resolution that allows for the use of real life examples.

Yes i understand the idea is not to replicate RL laws in NS, but whats the harm in quoting RL examples, if it helps to demonstrate the scope/expected outcome of the NS proposal, and makes it clear to the forum what the poster means?

I for one don't see the harm in using them. I don't get why they're illegal, and will either make a proposal to legalise the use of RL examples in resolutions and discussions, or move to amend whatever resolution it is that bans it.

Im so tempted to make a resolution that allows for the use of real life examples.Bzzt! Wrong, UN resolutions can't be used to change the rules of the game. Please read this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and try again.

Yes i understand the idea is not to replicate RL laws in NS, but whats the harm in quoting RL examples, if it helps to demonstrate the scope/expected outcome of the NS proposal, and makes it clear to the forum what the poster means?You can use them in the forum all you want, you just can't put them into the text of a proposal

I for one don't see the harm in using them. I don't get why they're illegal, and will either make a proposal to legalise the use of RL examples in resolutions and discussions, or move to amend whatever resolution it is that bans it.

First off, it's not a resolution that bans their use in proposals, it's the rules for proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) that say you can't use them. Secondly, you can't amend resolutions anyway due to limitations on the game mechanics.

OOC: basically it's just reinforcing the point that the NationStates universe is not the real world. The "real life" examples (mostly) don't occur in the NS universe, so logically we couldn't refer to them. Legislation shouldn't refer to specifics anyway, it's almost always a mistake. It's easy enough to fictionalise examples for discussion purposes, but you should never rely on them in law-making.

The above, and the fact that nobody wants to wade through a million "Bush sucks!" and "Out Of Iraq NOW!!!!!1" Proposals.

This rule has been around as long as there have been rules on UN Proposals. I have no interest or intention of changing it.

no, but it saves alot of time when someone can bring a reference to a rl example in the proposal, rather than having to post it later on.

as for the fictionalising thing, yeah its easy but if i wanted to talk about the erm ASU's war in QIRA, everyone would know what i mean.....

it's just that i don't seem the harm, as long as laws arent directed by rl....

just saying something cant be done just cos the rules say they cant, without justification, seems a bit totalitarian.

and i doubt you would get 'bush sucks' in relation to many un proposals....

if i wanted to talk about the erm ASU's war in QIRA, everyone would know what i mean...Um... what?

just saying something cant be done just cos the rules say they cant, without justification, seems a bit totalitarian.You've received justification in this thread. The primary justification is that this is NationStates, not the Real World. There is no "United States of America" in NationStates. There may be an "Iraqstan" (unless he's quit), but there is no "Iraq".

and i doubt you would get 'bush sucks' in relation to many un proposals....You'd be surprised.

anagrams.......ive seen em used here.

ASU= USA
QIRA=IRAQ

and the justification is surely irrelevant if it helps to highlight what someone was talkin about?

and if this is NS, than when someone mentions USA, they might be talking in a hypothetical manner, about a magic country that doesn't exist.

And there was an Iraqstan? hilarious.

and the justification is surely irrelevant if it helps to highlight what someone was talkin about?No, it's not. If you can't make your point without avoiding real world references, then your point is weak.

and if this is NS, than when someone mentions USA, they might be talking in a hypothetical manner, about a magic country that doesn't exist.Ah, yes, because good law always includes references to non-existent entities.

And there was an Iraqstan? hilarious.http://www.nationstates.net/iraqstan

well if we cant refer to rl in law's we'll have to use non entities.

and the point isnt weak, its just being illuminated to make the point clearer.

well if we cant refer to rl in law's we'll have to use non entities.
Or not. Not seems to work quite well, on the whole; have a look at the more recent end of the proposal list.

and the point isnt weak, its just being illuminated to make the point clearer.
Yes, but... if the point needs to be illuminated, it probably needs to be redrafted too. Points in law need to be clear in the first place; if you have to explain them, then you're offering a hostage to fortune in different interpretations, even if you give examples.