NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137070&postdays=0&postorder=asc&vote=viewresult

Second Draft Proposal: 'United Nations Referendum'

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136948

A Declaration to the Peoples and Nations of the World

I would like any and every "moderator" to take a look at these documents and give me your opinions, criticisms, anything.

Both threads relate to allowing proposals to - effectively - be repealed or amended. While they are not of themselves repeal or amendment proposals, they seek to change game mechanics by allowing those types of proposals.
Therefore, despite the fact that they are very well written, I would be forced to delete anything along these lines and eject the author from the UN.

Both threads relate to allowing proposals to - effectively - be repealed or amended. While they are not of themselves repeal or amendment proposals, they seek to change game mechanics by allowing those types of proposals.
Therefore, despite the fact that they are very well written, I would be forced to delete anything along these lines and eject the author from the UN.

Thank you for at least reading them, I do appreciate it.

Could these ideas be moved to the Technical Forum?

They are worth examining.

The power is in the process, not in the result.

"The power is in the process, not in the result."

That is exactly what I've been trying to do. This resolution could still be taken with a grain of salt. It passes, yet has no ligetimate effect as most moderators concerns go towards. Yes, it would allow for people to better argue their cases, but if you MODERATORS would HELP with drafting this resolution, you could put in clauses that make it so strict to challenge something, but as long as the power is there. THAT'S ALL I WANT. This is an excellent time also for you moderators to put in your two cents on an issue that has been going on and on, wouldn't it be nice when people brought it up to just say, look at the 'United Nations Referendum' resolution and read it closely, very closely. You could specifically set limitations, make it very very difficult, but possible. Hence the 2/3 proposed majority (that is well over 20'000 nations to sign a petition)!

I'll let Enodia decide if they should be moved to the "Technical" forum.

If not, then I would suggest reposting these ideas there. That is where discussion of game mechanics changes should go.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

It does change game mechanics, although, if it passes on the floor, it should be allowed into life, and if it does not work, its final use would be the amendment of the document that would not allow its use. I think its a good Idea, the mods have a good beef with it because it changes the game mechanics, but I think they should let it pass... :wink:

Take a look at the 'Improved Rights of Nations' thread in the United Nations forum. I again argue how such a resolution will not change the gameing mechanics. Basically, the arguement form the moderators is that if Nation A passes a law, two weeks later Nation B wants to repeal this law, it passes. A would lose, let's say three points, while B would be -3. Because nations aren't grandfathered in. I understand this. I know its a problem. I argue this in the forementioned thread. Again, I understand the problem. My solution, is this: if you allow repeals, it will not have a negative effect. If B repeals the law, it should not hurt him, in fact, the repeals should be fore the 'furtherment of democracy'. Which would be designed to improve a nations civil and/or political rights. What the moderators have been suggesting is impractical. It's like you want to go back and delete the law from ever being their and delete all the effects the law had on all the nations at the time. That's silly. I'm saying that the law, when it passed, has effects on joined nations. A repeal, would say the law is void, nullified, doesn't work anymore, isn't a law. That's it. For example, a law passes to build temples. B repeals it, even though B joined after the fact and it doesn't really matter for B. All nations then, aren't by law required to build temples anymore. That's what the repeal would be saying. Does this make sense to anyone else besides me?