Amendment proposal
Ballotonia
10-02-2004, 18:55
The current proposal on the UN Floor is an amendment to a previously passed resolution (claimed even as such in the resolution itself). Have these become legal now (if so, how is the discepancy between RP and stat effects resolved?), or was this looked over? Maybe it was ruled not an amendment despite its own claim?
Just wondering what's up with the current proposal...
Ballotonia
Tuesday Heights
10-02-2004, 19:31
You beat me here... I just looked it over and was wondering the same thing.
Ballotonia
11-02-2004, 17:37
bump
I'd previously allowed it through because I'd assumed that the resolution it was seeking to amend was a "Furtherment of Democracy" one. My logic in these situations is "the first resolution wanted more democracy. The second one wants to clarify the first, so it wants more democracy too. Therefore, it can stay."
Of course, looking at the previous resolution now, I find that it was a Human Rights one, rather than Furtherment of Democracy. Chalk this one up to an accident in pure technical terms.
Of course, it's tempting to argue that some of the provisions of the resolution up for debate do further democracy, amendment or no. Things like requirements on "functional defences" (or however it's phrased) strike me as being guarantees of the rule of law to a degree. But that's probably more an issue for UN members to debate in the appropriate forum - and it's sounding suspiciously like yours truly engaging in a spot of hasty post hoc reasoning.
Ballotonia
13-02-2004, 10:59
I'd previously allowed it through because I'd assumed that the resolution it was seeking to amend was a "Furtherment of Democracy" one. My logic in these situations is "the first resolution wanted more democracy. The second one wants to clarify the first, so it wants more democracy too. Therefore, it can stay."
But won't that double the effect in stats nontheless?
What are your considerations in not removing it now?
Ballotonia
Yes, it would theoretically double the effect in stats. But a lot of the amendment proposals I've let through in the past have been "Strength: Mild", where the previous one was "Strength: Strong" or greater - so it's not a complete doubling (of course, most of these proposals have a history of not getting enough approvals in the first place, so it's a moot point in general). I kind of think the playership (is that a word?) of the game need to have some means - albeit rarely used and strictly defined - of monkeying about with previous resolutions. I've been pushing admin on the repeal function for months, so this seems like a half-way house.
My considerations for keeping this one in right now are simple - I can't remove it once it reaches the floor. Since the introduction of Game Moderators, a grand total of two or three proposals have slipped through our grasp onto the floor of the UN and this will be the first (it seems) to be adopted. I'm obviously a little cheesed off that the perfect batting average at the general voting stage is about to be shattered, but it's still an impressive record.
Additionally, I'd kind of feel a bit of a killjoy if I zapped the proposal this far along. It's been debated back and forth so well and clearly a lot of thought has gone into some of the threads on the UN forum about it, so it wouldn't be over-nice to kill it now even if I could.
Ballotonia
13-02-2004, 11:49
Ok, thanks.
About that batting record... wasn't '"RBH" Replacement' passed while Mods were in charge of the proposal list? ;)
That was a negative amendment (undoing the previous resolution) yet with the same stats effect (horrible!).
Ballotonia
Goobergunchia
13-02-2004, 16:16
Ok, thanks.
About that batting record... wasn't '"RBH" Replacement' passed while Mods were in charge of the proposal list? ;)
That was a negative amendment (undoing the previous resolution) yet with the same stats effect (horrible!).
Ballotonia
Yes it was - I voted against, but unfortunately I was in Astronomy Camp (I logged on from a University of Arizona computer strictly to vote AGAINST) and was unable to participate in any campaign against it.
This resolution requires the following steps to be taken: 1) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be no longer enforced by the UN. 2) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be re-classified as a “reference- document resolution”. A reference-document resolution is defined as: a prior, passed resolution that is no longer enforced by the UN, but rather, can be used at a nation’s discretion as a suggestion, kept on record by the UN, that will help nations formulate or adopt different, similar, or identical laws to be passed by each individual nation through their own government process(es).
Implemented: Thu Jun 26 2003
I don't think I'd quite worked out the rules regarding proposals when "RBH Replacement" arrived. The "3 strikes" system only came in around September - from memory - and for a while I didn't actually record dates or reasons for any strikes.
Otherwise, yes it's another mistake :wink: