NationStates Jolt Archive

[OOC: This is totally out of character and perhaps in the wrong forum, but I bring it up here since it involves many UN players.

The short story is Hersfold got a warning for submitting the UNEC Amendment proposal and he and I feel that this warning is unjustified. Normally that is something that can be worked out with the mods, whom we both respect and have worked with before. But I also feel there is a larger UN issue at hand here, and thus post here.

Background

Weeks ago during the UNEC resolution debates many nations, my among them, objected to the UNEC resolution on the grounds that it left out many details. This is common with UN resolutions.

In fact, I'd argue that it is impossible to cover everything in a NationStates UN resolution, because unlike the real UN, NationStates resolutions are limited in character length (though it is a generous length) and more importantly ... NationStates players have smaller attention spans than professional UN diplomats.

This means that during the course of debate many of us will make suggestions to "revisit" or improve upon an idea.

After the UNEC resolution passed, a number of us (including nations like mine that voted against the resolution because of its wording, but whom totally agreed with its ideals) decided to work together to do something that happens in the real UN, but hasn't yet happened in NationStates: take an existing resolution and continue the work from it.

The Issue at Hand

Now I felt that doing this would be (in the real world) an amendment. Here I'm thinking of how when you create a new constitutional amendment to the US constitution it isn't always related to the previous amendments ... in fact, it isn't an "amendment" at all, but in most cases in US history, a constitutional amendment means you are adding to the civil rights granted to US citizens. The first 10 US amendments to the US constitution are called the Bill of Rights. They were all enacted at the same time: 1791.

The reason I bring up the US constitutional amendments as an example, as UN resolutions are slowly building NationStates UN law. Each resolution is clearly a sort of "amendment" to that law. But we don't use that word.

However, a few of us agreed that it would be nice to show that the NationStates game isn't a fire and forget game. That once debate on a resolution is finished that we can't go back and pick up on the loose threads from a debate ... that we can't go back and improve upon what we've done.

It is clear that we are not allowed to reverse NationStates UN resolutions. That point is well documented.

What is not well documented is that when we decide to revisit an issue ...

Is that allowed?
Can or should we call this an amendment?

Or are old issues completely off topic? Now that we've voting on euthanasia, does this mean that every proposal with the title euthanasia is a violation of the NationStates rules?

Or is the issue at hand that we choose to call our refinement of the UNEC an "amendment"?

Please bear in mind that Hersfold was the author of the original proposal and has been supportative of the current proposal. In fact, that he was he was (unfairly in my opinion) given a warning.

Hersfold has in my opinion an incredible track record of working with both the previous UN moderator and many of the UN delegates (though frequently off the UN forums, since they are extremely lagged).

In fact, the current proposal has been submitted several times before ... I think 4 or 5 (though I've lost count). We've failed to get the required number of endorsements, however if you look over the past week's worth of posts you will see that there is still a few of us who are working on refining the UNEC Amendment proposal.

The reason we named the proposal "UNEC Amendment" is because we wanted to make it clear that we are building on existing work. That this game stands for something more than just firing off a resolution and walking away. That this game can simulation something of a real world UN process, where issues are slowly refined with time.

The name of a resolution is important ... take the current Black Market Arms resolution as an example ... people are not reading the resolution, but automatically assume (incorrectly) that the proposal is attacking nation's right to bare arms.

So we came up with a name that we thought would make it clear that we are building upon the foundation of the UNEC resolution. I fear that the moderator who unfairly gave Hersfold a warning didn't read the proposal ... I fear that he / she may have had a react to the word "amendment".

Now it is clear that we can't use the Nazi flag in this game. But is the word "amendment" forbidden? Or is the issue that perhaps we are not allowed to make resolutions that reference prior resolutions?

I'd like to ask that everybody let us know how you think Nation States should handle this?

Do you think the current UNEC amendment (which I'll repost in an hour or so) violates the spirit of the ruling that we can't reverse UN resolutions? I hope not, because Hersfold has remained vigilant that the amendment stick to the spirit of his original resolution -- despite my best attempts. ;)

Do you think that the very word "amendment" should be banned from NationStates? That using the word should result in a warning?

Most important:
Do you like the idea of future resolutions referencing and further defining the committees defined in previous resolutions? What if the original author of the resolution gives his / her consent to the process?

Really the issue is, how rigid or flexible do we want our game to be. Right now I think the warning comes because we've changed UN moderators ... but with that in mind, I'd ask that a clear policy be adopted and that Hersfold's warning be removed.

10kMichael

First of all, this topic belongs in Moderation, considering it address the way a mod acted and the way the game works.

Personally though, I agree with you, Milk. I've seen a lot of resolutions pass without having everything documented or worked out, and the overall effect of all these incomplete resolutions passing is hurting everyone.

I could go through the list of past resolutions and give you probably five examples of incomplete resolutions, but I want to get this post finished before the server goes gay on me, so I'll just finish with this.

Amendments, or whatever vernacular we decide to adopt for them, should be very legal.

First of all, this topic belongs in Moderation, considering it address the way a mod acted and the way the game works.

Amendments, or whatever vernacular we decide to adopt for them, should be very legal.

Thanks!

Maybe a mod can move the thread there ... but I also felt that there is a larger issue about how we want the UN to be played out here and I know that few players take the time to surf all the forums. :)

As for amendments, I can understand moderators not wanting an amendment to reverse a previous resolution ... because of that game stats issue.

But I think amendments / revisitations / retellings etc. should be allowed when they are in the spirit of the original proposal. A good way to see that is if the original author or debate seems to support the new idea.

There is wiggle room here ... but we should work together to set up some guidelines so that good players like Hersfold don't get treated unfairly! (BTW: if you've not talked with him off the forums, he is a great guy and is honestly trying to just make ends meet. I have to admit I'm a bit upset myself, because warnings shouldn't be given without looking into the situation and I think in this case they were issued unfairly.)

10kMichael

Thanks, Mikitivity, for posting this here. I, as I have already told you, fully support all of this, and must congratulate you for looking up all the extra info! But anyway, please, mods, consider this carefully. This can and will affect all UN members fromthis point out. There is no reason that amendments should not be allowed, and even if you decide that they are not, the rule would not have been in action at the time that my proposal was deleted, and if it was, it was definitly not clear at all. Thank you for looking this over, and please contact myself and Mikitivity once you have decided.

2 long 2 read, i either agree or disagree, buit that was long.

2 long 2 read, i either agree or disagree, buit that was long.

Kwas, please, don't spam moderation, it's not the greatest place to do so if you must.

The ideas of amending resolutions is a sound one, but if the quality of UN proposals was at least a few steps better than it is now, this wouldn't be an issue. I think the entire system of what qualifies as a UN proposal should be redefined, as the quality of them as of late is horrendous to say the least.

Ammendments are not permitted. It doesn't matter how justified or why you think it's necessary.

It's impossible to ammend a resolution because the precise effects of the resolution cannot be undone or changed; they've already taken effect and are part of a nation's stat profile. There is no distinction as to what stats were changed by what proposal. The tricksey nature of the stats and how UN proposals affect them mean that it's impossible to ammend or repeal a proposal. Therefore, ammendments and repeals are against the rules.

I'm not sure, but I think it would be permissible to submit an entirely new proposal, rather than a proposed ammendment, which accomplishes what you desire.

While it would be nice, it would involve a major change in the game mechanics. Thus, it isn't going to happen.

Pity. Still, Raem is correct. New resolutions can be made.

Ammendments are not permitted. It doesn't matter how justified or why you think it's necessary.

It's impossible to ammend a resolution because the precise effects of the resolution cannot be undone or changed; they've already taken effect and are part of a nation's stat profile. There is no distinction as to what stats were changed by what proposal. The tricksey nature of the stats and how UN proposals affect them mean that it's impossible to ammend or repeal a proposal. Therefore, ammendments and repeals are against the rules.


Pretty much, yeah.

While we have been kicking around the idea of allowing something like this in the future, there is currently no mechanism for this.

The point however, is not reversing anything. Any 'ticks' recieved for voting in 'bad' resolutions will stay on the grounds that there are no mechanisms to reverse them. That is a given. What we want to do is add a bit of realism and give the Role Players something to do.

A resolution designed to change a previous one or even cancel it out will not remove any 'ticks' from any catagory. it's designed more for the Role Players to not be pushed into corners by people who just want to vote to get the good 'ticks'

For instance... someone creates a resolution to "withdraw" the Gay Rights resolution. It would fall into the catagory of Moral Decency or with stretching, Political Stability. the passing of this does not mean that everyone who voted for the Gay Rights Bill gets a tick removed. Thats done and gone. what it does mean is that the Gay Rights bill is now invalidated. for the Non Role-players... that means absolutly NOTHING, except now they can submit other Gay Rights without overlapping bills (like this passed Biodiversity rights as well as the past rights for all bill.)

But for the Role-players, they now have a tool to help enhance the role-playability of the game without any game mechanics being changed. It gives them a better enhancement to the game. Because let's face it, with no consequences for flagrently breaking UN Resolutions, why vote Nay to anything. Might as well vote Aye and get the ticks and then ignore what gets voted in, no punnishments, no santions, you only get kicked out for shouting out your beliefs.

Granted this is a FREE game and we do get what we pay for... However, I feel that this form of changing past resolutions is best because it gives the Role-Players something to do, Does support the "no Changing of Game Mechanics" law, offers a bit more in playability, and give another aspect to role playing world leaders without changing stats for the nations.

Hey, You don't even need to add catagories for Proposal Writing.

Anyway, my $0.02

Ammendments are not permitted. It doesn't matter how justified or why you think it's necessary.


Actually the way Enodia (who was the UN moderator at the time) described it is that resolutions can not be proposed to *CHANGE* existing resolutions.

However, he did hint that he had no problems with revisiting a prior resolution and further defining things.

The problem is there are a host of UN resolutions that create commitees without funding mechanisms, without any membership rules, and only a vague notion of what they do. There is *enough* in the resolutions that created them to make a pretty good guess at what their general purpose was. In other words the "spirit" is laid out, but like the real UN, sometimes you can't be too-long winded about things. ;)


It's impossible to ammend a resolution because the precise effects of the resolution cannot be undone or changed; they've already taken effect and are part of a nation's stat profile. There is no distinction as to what stats were changed by what proposal. The tricksey nature of the stats and how UN proposals affect them mean that it's impossible to ammend or repeal a proposal. Therefore, ammendments and repeals are against the rules.

I'm not sure, but I think it would be permissible to submit an entirely new proposal, rather than a proposed ammendment, which accomplishes what you desire.

*nod* Hersfold understood that. What he called an amendment wasn't to change stats but to continue the work. He wasn't asking for game stats to be changed ... though naturally the game is really kinda dumb and he does have to put a category.

Question: since we've adopted resolutions on military budgets, saving the forests, equal rights for all people, saving the oceans, etc. and any future resolution on those topics would change game stats, should any proposal with those topics result in issuing a warning to the nation?

The game stats argument is actually ill-posed.

Michael

Ammendments are not permitted. It doesn't matter how justified or why you think it's necessary.

It's impossible to ammend a resolution because the precise effects of the resolution cannot be undone or changed; they've already taken effect and are part of a nation's stat profile. There is no distinction as to what stats were changed by what proposal. The tricksey nature of the stats and how UN proposals affect them mean that it's impossible to ammend or repeal a proposal. Therefore, ammendments and repeals are against the rules.


Pretty much, yeah.

While we have been kicking around the idea of allowing something like this in the future, there is currently no mechanism for this.

I think you are hiding behind an arbitary rule / decision.

The way Enodia described it made much more sense.

Resolutions can't be undone not because reversing game stats can't be done ... that is easy, since you can save information on what the game stats changes were with each resolution. The question is who was in the UN at the time and who wasn't.

My nation joined in late Jan. 2004. All resolutions before that time did not change my nation's game stats.

You could say my nation doesn't have to "follow" those resolutions, because its game stats don't reflect those resolutions. But there is a clause somewhere or perhaps it was Enodia himself who said it is just "assumed" that new nations will honor those resolutions.

But many of the players in the UN don't care about game stats ... realistically you are gonna be pushed into a more liberal position if you are playing a UN nation and would otherwise be centrist.

Anyway, by focusing on this whole debate on game stats, you are also limiting the game play for whole other group of people ... people who want to make a *series* of resolutions like a real international body would.

Laws shouldn't really be kept to simple one paragraph grunts ... but the way the system is designed combined with shotgun based approaches to managing those rules really encourages just that.

Enodia went on to say that his concern was limited to just resolutions reversing previous ones. So much so that Hersfold's proposal wasn't bumped the first 4 times it was submitted.

If you read the UN forums you can see his proposal (search for UNEC or TG me and I'll get you a copy). It really was never designed to *change* his previous resolution. Heck, some people wanted to correct the typos of his previous UNEC resolution, but I said -- forget that, let's focus on making this committee real and work on fixing the vague details.

I think whomever was the moderator that issued the warning should: (1) have talked to the previous moderator, because their decisions were totally at odds, and (2) should have looked at the original UNEC resolution. He / she would have seen that the amendment was proposed by the same author and that it isn't really changing the intent of the previous resolution.

I would encourage the moderators to change their minds: allow us to submit this resolution.

Also, if you are terrified of the word "Amendment" you really should be consistent on why. I can dig up some of Enodia's old UN posts and provide links, but it is bad for the game when moderators are basically publically issuing different opinions. Personally I really liked Enodia's approach, because it balanced game stats and coding changes with real roleplaying.

Michael

here's a question... if an admentment was called to repeal a previous admendment, why does there have to be a "removal" of stats gains for those who voted for the faulty resolution?

In my opinion, it should not. after all, the voting is all by the 'beliefs' of the Nation. The stats will reflect that and any repeals should not affect that since beliefs change as well as social situations/graces.

Laws get repealed because the moral compass changes, or the law in question is outdated or just plain stupid. Those repealing the laws are not branded as revolutionaries nor as radicals. This can be a simple tool for the role-players and no game mechanics are needed.

We are not discussing repeals here.That has already been established as an illegal activity. Right now, we are trying to show that amendments do not always change game stats, but are usually, as in the case of the UNEC amend. This was simply trying to clarify some of the weaker points in the origional resolution, and would not have altered game stats at all. I believe that some resolution that did this was already passed - I will hunt it down and post it for evidence later today. If we are to make these sorts of amendments illegal, you will have to delete this one, which will be going against your own already established policies. Choose wisely.

Also, would the mod who sent me the origional warning PLEASE stand up?

The Federation of Hersfold
UN Delegate, Part123

Very interesting. Could you please link to the text of the Resolution in question? Or post it here if not on-line exactly as it was submitted?

Ballotonia

Ok, first, it's a wonderfully written proposal. That should be said. Second, I actually agree with you. Now down to business..

I think you are hiding behind an arbitary rule / decision

I don't believe we are hiding behind any thing. More so we are following Nationstates policy. There is nothing wrong per se with your proposal. It's purely a game mechanics issue. There is no way to amend, repeal or otherwise resolutions that have already been passed. We have talked about how we may be able to change this before. It is some thing that I hope we will be able to do in the future. Sadly, at this time, that is the way it is. Hopefully in the future we will have a way to amend and or repeal proposals. At this time we simply don't. The code doesn't allow for it. As said, it was a great proposal. It was simply a game mechanics issue. I'm sorry.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Very interesting. Could you please link to the text of the Resolution in question? Or post it here if not on-line exactly as it was submitted?

Ballotonia

Hersfold may have changed it slightly, but the first versions most certainly looked like the earlier posts in this thread:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138994&sid=734f00960ab8e909d40abfd20e7f18ae

But only Hersfold can answer what was changed. But please look it over. It doesn't look at all like it is changing the SPIRIT of anything.

Instead we are trying to roleplay in much the same sense the real UN does. It is common practice for the UN to reference existing resolutions.

Thanks,
-Michael

Ok, first, it's a wonderfully written proposal. That should be said. Second, I actually agree with you. Now down to business..

I think you are hiding behind an arbitary rule / decision

I don't believe we are hiding behind any thing. More so we are following Nationstates policy. There is nothing wrong per se with your proposal. It's purely a game mechanics issue. There is no way to amend, repeal or otherwise resolutions that have already been passed. We have talked about how we may be able to change this before. It is some thing that I hope we will be able to do in the future. Sadly, at this time, that is the way it is. Hopefully in the future we will have a way to amend and or repeal proposals. At this time we simply don't. The code doesn't allow for it. As said, it was a great proposal. It was simply a game mechanics issue. I'm sorry.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I understand the time involved in changing the coding for a free site and agree that not allowing repeals or actual amendments is a good policy ... my argument really is that our proposal isn't changing the original resolution at all.

It is an "amendment" only so far as it goes to further define an existing resolution. The passage or failure of the amendment will in no way alter the old resolution.

I'm basically hoping that Hersfold can have his warning removed (it sucks to work so hard and get treated in a fashion similar to nations that purposefully abuse the rules of the game) and for a blessing for us to resubmit the proposal on the assumption that it is game legal ... i.e. that it really isn't changing the original resolution.

Thanks,
-Michael

p.s. and yes, it does mean a lot to us that you like the proposal ... it certainly is a work in progress and whatever version we submit will look similar but will have a minor change or two as well ... currently we are refining clauses 1 and 2. :)

This is the resolution that was mentioned before. It is basically doing exactly what we are trying to do with the UNEC "amendment", yet was passed by the entire UN by the margin shown below.

Definition of 'Fair Trial'
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ninjadom
Description: A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003. However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is. Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which: 1. Is speedy and efficient. 2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense. 3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant. 4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed. 6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers. 7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read. 8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime. 9. Makes the trial open to the public and media. 10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason. It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that: 1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial. 2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists. 3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation. 4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction. As such: all litigants, plaintiffs, prosecutors, and varying degrees of defendants will benefit and allow for a clearer interpretation of United Nations law so that due process shall be upheld, making the legal system fairer for all people.

Votes For: 12556

Votes Against: 6283

Implemented: Sat Feb 14 2004


This resolution is clarifying the resolution "Fair Trial, which I will also paste if neccessary. My point here is, the mods have allowed this to happen before, there fore this must not have changed any game stats, either those the origional proposal set up or ones that this resolution created. If anyone is trying to change stats here, it is the mods, through changing their policies mid-game.

And Stephistan, were you the one who deleted the proposal :?:

Yes, I am the one who deleted the proposal and sent you the warning, that being said, here is what we're going to do.

1)I am going to remove the warned tag from your nation.

2) You are going to re-name the proposal to some thing that won't imply it's an amendment and re-submit it.

3) We will call it a day?

Stephanie
Game Moderator

The only reason I ask about the "repealing of old resolutions" is because the only reason why it's not allowed (per the mods) is the changing of the stats for the nations that did vote on the original and those that didn't (Basically, Game Mechanics change)

I was wondering, (dangerous, I know) if the stat change thing didn't have to happen, no changing of Game Mechanics, and no code re-writes. Would you, the mods, allow changing of resolutions via amendments and other such activities?

just something to think about.

Yes, I am the one who deleted the proposal and sent you the warning, that being said, here is what we're going to do.

1)I am going to remove the warned tag from your nation.

2) You are going to re-name the proposal to some thing that won't imply it's an amendment and re-submit it.

3) We will call it a day?

Stephanie
Game Moderator

That sounds good to me. I will rename the proposal "Clarification of UNEC", or something similar. The only guideline I see on this right now is that Mikitivity and I can't use the word "Amendment" in the title, right?

However, I will not personally call it a day until it is made clear in the proposal writing guidelines that amendments that seek to change the way a resolution works are illegal, and if they are simply trying to clarify a resolution, like ours, then the word "amendment cannot be used in the title. This is the only reason we have had this discussion, and I am trying to make sure that it does not happen again to some other innocent nation. Thank you, Stephanie, for working with us on this quickly and cooperatively. Thanks also to those who supported Mikitivity and myself in this matter. Live Long and Prosper, all of you.

The Federation of Hersfold
UN Delegate, and
Ambassador to The North Pacific for Part123

That sounds good to me. I will rename the proposal "Clarification of UNEC", or something similar. The only guideline I see on this right now is that Mikitivity and I can't use the word "Amendment" in the title, right?


It sounds VERY pleasant to me. :) Stephanie, you made my day ... and being a Monday it start off with mismatched shoes and a few work dilemmas due to being out of the office for just 2 days. ::sigh::

More than just the word amendment, she and the other mods seem to appreciate the care we've gone to to stay within the framework of your original resolution (feel free to correct me Stephanie and others), but they don't want us to set an example that others who are less noble or less careful will follow.

I too agree that we don't want to waste time getting into the same exact debates: talk the legalization of prostitution resolution. If others think you can amend resolutions or even "clarify" them, they might start to undo resolutions -- which makes moderation an extremely unpleasant task.

SUGGESTION: Let's take the "debate" on what to rename the resolution back to the UN.

And Stephanie, we certainly will resubmit the proposal, but we would like to incorporate the changes that my nation and Ichi Ni have been publically negotiating as well. Assuming that is OK?


However, I will not personally call it a day until it is made clear in the proposal writing guidelines that amendments that seek to change the way a resolution works are illegal, and if they are simply trying to clarify a resolution, like ours, then the word "amendment cannot be used in the title. This is the only reason we have had this discussion, and I am trying to make sure that it does not happen again to some other innocent nation. Thank you, Stephanie, for working with us on this quickly and cooperatively.

As she said, let's worry about that later ... I would see at some point in the near future that we'll want to change the FAQ to basically say that due to game stats and whatever other reasons, it is extremely important that nations never attempt to change or undo existing resolutions. Then explain in a bit more detail the hows and whys of that policy. But for now, we've won our case and have been giving a rare second chance. Let's not waste it.

Thanks again! :)

Michael

I agree... Small steps first... I kinda left the title off of the latest posting of what we got so far. I felt that the title should be the last thing to be put on.

[Applaudes Hersford and Mikitivity]

Just a little bit of a note, just to hammer home a point about revisiting proposals...

This sort of thing was an issue as far back as a year ago. Initially there weren't actually any objections to reworking proposals, but that was largely because the nature of the game was still being hashed out by (presumably) Max and his associates. When I first entered the UN, there was immediately a resolution which did exactly this. It was entitled "Required Basic Healthcare."


Required Basic Healthcare
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Austrivum (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=austrivum)

WHEREAS this resolution will strengthen social justice among all members of the United Nations by requiring that all nations, current and future within the UN, have a basic healthcare plan to support and insure its citizens. Basic healthcare is not a luxury, but rather it is a moral imperative that should be incorporated into UN admissions and acceptance ratings/standards. The following resolution requires that all UN nations meet the below four-point plan of providing healthcare to its citizens through all outlets available within their government, as long as the methods of providing the four-point plan are met without violating international, national and/or local law. The four-point plan is as follows: 1) All families who are at or below the “poverty level” of US$5,005.50 per adult, and US$4,205.50 per child, must be covered by healthcare insurance, as long as one member of the family, age 22 or older, is employed. 2) All children, age 21 and younger, must be covered by healthcare insurance and be reimbursed up to at least 55%. 3) All seniors, age 67 and older, must be covered by healthcare and prescription drug insurance/coverage and be reimbursed up to at least 65% for healthcare matters, while up to at least 50% for required prescription dugs. 4) All people, ages 22 to 66, must be offered healthcare insurance and be reimbursed up to at least 30%. In addition, if the insured, in this category, has been employed for at least 240 days in the given year, they must be reimbursed by an additional 5%. (*Note: Monetary figures were shown in US$ as a general currency; it must be converted accordingly and appropriately based on conversion rates.) Though this is not a full strength plan, it is a necessary start, and a reasonable start, in order to be able to be achievable by all decent nations. Basic healthcare is a necessity, and the Democratic States of Austrivum encourage all nations to pass even larger, more inclusive healthcare packages within their own nation. The exceptions to this resolution include: 1) A UN nation classified as a “third world country,” by the UN, does not have to implement this resolution until its status is upgraded. 2) A UN nation determined to be “at war” by the UN, is exempted from continuing the program, but must have a backup program/plan. 3) A nation whose economic situation is detrimental may plea to the UN for a reduced strength “Required Basic Healthcare” resolution. However, should the UN at any time deem a UN nation’s economy stable enough to support the full strength resolution, it must be implemented under order from the UN. After this resolution’s passage, it must be instituted within three (3) months, otherwise face UN ejection, or plea one’s case for additional time, that cannot be in excess of an additional eighteen ( 18 ) months, to be granted only by and through the UN. ---The Democratic States of Austrivum

Votes For: 10137
Votes Against: 7154

Implemented Thu Jun 5 2003



There was all variety of uproar over certain aspects of the proposal and immediately the author reworked it and managed the second version back into quorum. It too passed:


'RBH' Replacement
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Austrivum (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=austrivum)

WHEREAS the Democratic States of Austrivum, the original sponsor of “Required Basic Healthcare”, hereby submits a replacement document as expressed through its text as follows. It is realized that the United Nations resolution “Require Basic Healthcare” promotes social justice through the statement “basic healthcare is not a luxury, but rather it is a moral imperative”, yet it inhibits the rights of national sovereignty by imposing fairly rigid guidelines. 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). 3) The UN, through this replacement resolution, will support the right of healthcare to all people by adopting this declaration as follows: The UN encourages all nations to provide healthcare to their children, for they are the future of their nations, and have the budding potential that should not be stunted by inaccessibility to healthcare. The working populace within each nation should be granted healthcare for supporting their nation’s economy. All seniors should be supported through healthcare as well, but also in prescription drug coverage, for as they age after many years of service to their nation, they will need, if they so desire, life strengthening, lengthening and encouraging medications. The needy, or poor, should not be scorned, but rather, assisted. The UN stands by the message of social justice in “Required Basic Healthcare”. However, “Required Basic Healthcare” will not be imposed upon UN nations, in order to maintain national sovereignty, but will be kept on record as a “reference-document resolution”. The UN encourages healthcare to be provided to all nations’ citizens, for each step, even the smallest ones that may be taken by some nations, improves the well being of the global community. The Democratic States of Austrivum once again encourages all nations to design and enforce a comprehensive healthcare/prescription drug plan within their nation, especially once economically feasible by that nation. After this resolution’s passage it will take effect immediately. ---The Democratic States of Austrivum

Votes For: 9151
Votes Against: 5564

Implemented Thu Jun 26 2003


My point simply is that two distinct instances in the past have allowed expounding upon prior resolutions, and I would hope sincerely that all game mechanics aside, members of the UN be allowed a degree of self-determination large enough to where additions and clarifications to prior proposals may be submitted without qualm. If a resolutional clarification is worthy enough to reach quorum and then pass, I think it unreasonable to hack it off the proposal list before even being given such a chance, most especially in the case of the UNEC "amendment." Hersfold is a worthy delegate teeming with many wonderful ideas for resolutions (most of which often find themselves plastered all over the North Pacific forums)

I'd agree with Ms. Stephanie here that the proposal certainly IS quite well done, but the one thing that I can't quite see eye to eye with her on is a sudden turn-around in the nature of proposal clarification policy. It's still a bit unprecedented and I would much rather that "amendments" be tolerated, though I would warrant necessarily that this is more of a "clarification." On the separate note of amendments themselves, it may be found that a resolution didn't go "quite far enough" in the scope of the original text, and I would think that amending it to include other provisions would necessarily be worth allowing, MOST ESPECIALLY considering game mechanics. If it makes an actual addition to the scope of the proposal, these new mandates would have some tangible effect on the "civil rights," "military/police budget," "political freedoms," and other attributes of a state's administration. I hardly think it appropriate to be dismissing these sorts of proposals as inappropriate for the UN proposal docket. But these are simply my opinions, in hopes that you can see that perspective and hopefully find some veracity in its reasonings.

Let's keep this policy consistent and allow expansion and revisiting of past proposals.

I agreww with Galdago.

While game mechanics can't change, it's not hard to submit a proposal that states it's main purpose is to hash out previous resolutions. They just don't reach quorum that often, sadly.

On the separate note of amendments themselves, it may be found that a resolution didn't go "quite far enough" in the scope of the original text, and I would think that amending it to include other provisions would necessarily be worth allowing, MOST ESPECIALLY considering game mechanics. If it makes an actual addition to the scope of the proposal, these new mandates would have some tangible effect on the "civil rights," "military/police budget," "political freedoms," and other attributes of a state's administration. I hardly think it appropriate to be dismissing these sorts of proposals as inappropriate for the UN proposal docket.

I agree with this perfectly, and could not say it any better myself.

Enodia stated on several occations that "RBH Replacement" would not have survived to quorum had it been submitted under current UN rules.

Ammendments are not permitted. It doesn't matter how justified or why you think it's necessary.

It's impossible to ammend a resolution because the precise effects of the resolution cannot be undone or changed; they've already taken effect and are part of a nation's stat profile. There is no distinction as to what stats were changed by what proposal. The tricksey nature of the stats and how UN proposals affect them mean that it's impossible to ammend or repeal a proposal. Therefore, ammendments and repeals are against the rules.


Pretty much, yeah.

While we have been kicking around the idea of allowing something like this in the future, there is currently no mechanism for this.

getting away from the question of amendments and clarifications, i'm not sure i follow the train of thought on repeals. it seems to me that repeals are already built in to the un's game mechanics. for example, a couple of the possible categories for un proposals contain their own repeals (gambling, recreational drugs, and gun control). and the others each have a category that is more or less its opposite.

maybe i'm off base here, but i assume that stats are represented in the game by a set of numbers. un resolutions (and issues in general) nudge some of those numbers one way or the other. a repeal resolution would merely push the stats back the other way (even if they aren't exactly the same ones or quite the same amount). mechanically it would be no different than two unrelated resolutions that just happen to have basically opposing effects - an international security one and and global disarmament one, perhaps. you wouldn't have your stats put back exactly as they were, but why would you expect them to be?

for example, let's say there was a un resolution outlawing gambling. now i don't know exactly how the stats would be affected, but let's say that the effect of outlawing gambling is fairly significant for those with large gambling sectors. catastrophic in my case - we fall quite far from our lofty position in the top 1000 as our gambling industry is systematically shut down and dismantled. awhile later the resolution is repealed; gambling is legalized again. i wouldn't expect my gambling sector to go back to what it was - we'd have to start over again. but we would get a nudge back the other way.

since all we are doing in the un is an additional layer of stat pushing and the pushes can be made to go in generally opposite directions, i don't see what the problem is. the only thing that seems to be different between resolutions that just happen to have generally opposing effects and resolutions to repeal earlier resolutions is the word 'repeal'. but the text only really matters for roleplay reasons. so it isn't really a game mechanics problem, unless people unrealisticly expect repeals to make their country go back in time to before their stats were changed in the first place. but that's their problem really.

and now if somebody would be so kind as to come and tell me what obvious thing i missed, that would be great. it's ok, i can take it.

I'm not a moderator, just providing my opinion as a player.

Thank you for providing the link.

I think it should be possible to 'revisit' previous topics of a resolution making it possible to make a different choice. Also, I'd like to note that while it is difficult to stay clear of the 'no ammendment / repeal' rule in doing so, you seem to have managed this. At least in my interpretation.

Sadly, I do see a problem with the proposed resolution, which is quite different.

Game Mechanics
"We should make it so that all UN Members can vote on proposals before they reach the floor", "We should be able to vote on 2 proposals at once", "The UN should create <multinational organisation>". All of these proposals propose changes to the Game Mechanics governing the running of NationStates.
I cannot stress this enough, You Cannot Play God Here. Your proposal may well be a useful change to the way the game works, and a few changes to the game (ejection of nations from regions, proposal search function) had their genesis in proposals. The bottom line is that they were not adopted because of the successful passage of a proposal, and neither will your suggestion be.

Note that italic/bold part. While it is IMHO ok to simply refer to some new organization which is left to handle the details of a proposal (like in the UNEC resolution), going into too much detail on how this new entity should be organized gives the impression that something is to be added to the game itself.

The 'voting membership' part, to focus in on the most obvious one, is IMHO way too much detail. There will never be such voting. It won't be implemented unless Max says so. Suggesting it should be implemented as such belongs as a suggestion in the Technical forum, not in a UN Resolution (the game FAQ is very clear on this).

Ballotonia

and now if somebody would be so kind as to come and tell me what obvious thing i missed, that would be great. it's ok, i can take it.

Your suggestion works more or less for nations who have been in the UN from the beginning. That's assuming there are indeed sufficiently close opposites for everything, or that such opposites can be easily created.

What you missed is that the set of nations in the UN constantly changes. Nations would be subjected to a previous resolution being 'reversed' while never having had passed that previous resolution for themselves to begin with as they weren't in the UN at the time or maybe didn't even exist yet. So this 'repeal' wouldn't actually be a repeal only for some nations.

There's more wrong with the UN as implemented, which has to do what happens (or more precisely, what doesn't happen) with their stats as they join/resign from the UN.

I have some ideas on how this could be fixed in a fairly straightforward way, but will bring that up after the move to Jolt has been completed.

Ballotonia

Your suggestion works more or less for nations who have been in the UN from the beginning. That's assuming there are indeed sufficiently close opposites for everything, or that such opposites can be easily created.

What you missed is that the set of nations in the UN constantly changes. Nations would be subjected to a previous resolution being 'reversed' while never having had passed that previous resolution for themselves to begin with as they weren't in the UN at the time or maybe didn't even exist yet. So this 'repeal' wouldn't actually be a repeal only for some nations.

doh! i forgot to cover that part in my original post.

basically, i'm not sure that is really a problem. stats are affected in all un nations everytime a proposal is passed, even if the text of the proposal doesn't technically apply to some particular nation. for example, all the environmental resolutions, the free education resolution, my own rights of labor unions resolution, etc all changed my stats even though my country wouldn't have had to change anything at all to comply with them. that seems to be pretty analogous to a new un nation being subjected to a repealing stat nudge even though there stats were never nudged the other way. odd stat changes are just the well known hazard of the game.

Hell yes, ideas start out as little ideas and grow to become huge ideas.