NationStates Jolt Archive

Having read the ensuing debate that has erupted over Hersfold's Olympic proposal, I'd like to submit a piece of my own legislation for moderator review. I, too, feel like there's a rift between the moderation staff and the UN forum regulars, in that our assumptions about resolutions are different from your own. This in of itself isn't a bad thing, but something that should be resolved quickly to ensure that the United Nations can continue to operate smoothly in the forums, and that a prolonged debate between the two parties.

This is the United Nations Funding Act, a resolution to establish a system of dues to ensure funding for current and future resolutions. In the past, several resolutions, a number of them well-written and clearly thought out, have met significant resistance in the forums because they called for some kind of monetary investment by the United Nations. It was my intention to rectify this problem.

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five random UN member nations, selected annually, from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee will oversee the UNGAO and its outside auditors, as well as provide regular reports to the General Assembly for their approval.
b. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
c. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

I'm not entirely clear as to why Hersfold's proposal was deleted. The moderator gave a quick response that provided no explination, and things being said in that thread are coming from non-moderators. As I understand it, the Olympic proposal was deleted for attempting to establish an in-forum entity, and for limiting other nations from role-playing their own Olympic Games. Seeking to avoid a similar fate for my own resolution, I'd like a moderator to look over this and discuss its clauses.

Has it ( Hersfold's ) been put in " Cogs Big List of Stuff I Killed " yet ?

* Checked, no it has not, and it would be most good to see a as much detailed as possible explaination for this ... sad event. So, no doubt, the proposal may be re-written to suit the regulations, and go on to prosper, again.

I haven't had a lot of time to Mod, recently, so I haven't been sweeping the list on as regular a basis as I'd like*. None of the other Moderators post to my "Killed Proposals" topic, so proposals deleted by them wouldn't show up.

* I hope to rectify this, soon, but it's not guaranteed.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I understand that you're busy, and that's fine. This proposal isn't exactly earth-shattering business. I'd just like to get some authoritative commentary on the text and its legality before I find myself in Hersfold's position.

Nothing? No one?

Considering the mods seem very busy right now, I'm throwing in my opinion for your consideration.

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

It is impossible to modify previous resolutions (though overruling them by deciding differently on the same issue is ok). This might be interpreted as a modification of a previous resolution, so my suggestion would be to say "1. Interprets the..." So you're not changing it but merely explaining how you interpret a previous resolution. You might even go bolder and simply state something like "recalling that resolution ... only applied to taxation of individual citizens..." And you could even not mention it at all, because if there's any conflict the later resolution simply overrules it.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five random UN member nations, selected annually, from each assessment bracket.

Since you state a procedure on how this committee is to be formed, you're veering close to a Game Mechanics issue. I can't say whether or not this crosses the line (judgment call is up to a mod), but you could avoid it by leaving out that procedural bit.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

No resolution can place limitations on future resolutions, as there's nothing in place to enforce this. Mods will certainly not do so. I know there's already resolutions on the books that violate this, from back in the days when things slipped by. (Those are not enforced either, BTW)

Ballotonia

As no mod has officially commented on the legality of this proposal, I'd like to bump it back into actionable territory. I'm hoping the two additional Forum mods have eased the workload crunch a bit.

I haven't cross-referenced to see if Sophista's posted version above is exactly the same as his current version, so here's a link:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725

I'm hoping the two additional Forum mods have eased the workload crunch a bit. *twiddles her thumbs and wonders when the Jolt admins are going to decide she's cool enough to get moderator powers*

sorry for posting, I can't really give you an official opinion on this.

sorry for posting, I can't really give you an official opinion on this.
Ehh, it's nice to know you're there anyway. Besides, we all know you're cool enough.

Since you state a procedure on how this committee is to be formed, you're veering close to a Game Mechanics issue. I can't say whether or not this crosses the line (judgment call is up to a mod), but you could avoid it by leaving out that procedural bit.



No resolution can place limitations on future resolutions, as there's nothing in place to enforce this. Mods will certainly not do so. I know there's already resolutions on the books that violate this, from back in the days when things slipped by. (Those are not enforced either, BTW)


Your first point ... sounds more like a justification that UN committees should always be left vague ... what is to stop a proponent then from during the debate when somebody asks, "Hey how many nations on your UN committee of the week?" from replying, "Five in each tax bracket as defined in clause X."

I think the ruling with respect to Hersfold's proposal wasn't that we can't iron out the details of committee tasks and composition, but we can not promise that an official NS mechanism will later see to it that the committee is formed.

Here again, two examples worth noting:


http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/unciat/

http://invisionfree.com/forums/Texas/index.php?showforum=45

These two committees were in fact created by UN resolutions, and neither of them was zinged on a game mechanics issue. Personally I think it is a RESTRICTION of game play to force UN resolutions to never create any simulation of UN committees via a creation process, provided that the resolution doesn't promise something that can't be delivered.


As for your second point, future resolutions can not repeal nor amendment previous resolutions. If we create a tax structure, stating that other resolutions won't redo this is a statement of current game policy.

If we later have the ability to amend or repeal resolutions, that particular clause will be subject to the same amendment / repeal process as both the entire resolution and future resolutions. I think a number of us would like to see that clause in place, but would not argue that the clause in question is a rule, but a suggestion. In other words, if you allow amendments, and somebody wanted to come up with a resolution to basically remove the UN of a budget, I'd argue that goes contrary to this resolution ... but I wouldn't report them to the moderators for violating the no amendment rule if the mods said there could be one. The clause is in reality a roleplaying tool ... all UN resolutions are in fact. They have no real meaning other than the silly game stats changes, and each resolution category I'm assuming has similar impacts on game stats.

The claims that The Most Glorious Hack made against my proposal, were, I believe, as follows:


It created an entity on the Forums (something which, as usual, was not covered in the FAQ, but now is - second addition I've been responsible for)
It "restricted the role-playing ability of others" (Which, in my opinion, it did not, especially since the Games would have only been open to the UN as a resolution)


I believe those were the only comments he made on it, however, they were not explained at all, and if they were, inadequately. I would wait to submit your proposal until a Senior Game Moderator or Administrator clears it, since the taxing might throw up some red flags in their minds. The main thing there would be that part of the government's budget would have to be devoted to the UN - something which is NOT currently in the XML feed, and therefore would probably have to be coded in. I see your arguments with this amount being miniscule, and probably not worth a code, but the bigger the economy gets, the bigger that amount gets... and if taxes are low, it could still account for a large budget percentage. It's really up in the air.

Edit: BTW, off topic, but I have continued with the Olympic Games, and elections for the IOC have been completed. The committee includes myself, Starblaydia, Vilita, Menelmacar, and Tomzilla. There is still a tie between Mikitivity, Esth, and Castillanos for the 6th and 7th positions, which is awaiting a decision from the definite committee. The games, once they begin, will be open to all. (We might be able to abuse Menelmacar's mod powers to check for double entries as well... hmmm...)

BTW, Menelmacar, should you happen by this, go to this link and register: http://s7.invisionfree.com/NS_IOC/index.php

Okay just a quick note about committees: The in-game United Nations does not care about your roleplays. If you want to roleplay nations sitting on committees, then go right ahead. However, you cannot talk about nations sitting on committees in UN resolutions as that's presently considered a game mechanics violation; we'd have to program in the committees and then program some ability for nations to sit on them.

So, at present, any committees are assumed to be staffed by people who magically pop out of the ground fully-formed and are loyal only to the UN.

I really should find the time to analyze this. Bump this during the weekend if no other Mod gets to it by then.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

So... Cog... If I were to re-write my proposal so that it had no reference whatsoever to the forums, I would be able to re-submit it?

I see your arguments with this amount being miniscule, and probably not worth a code, but the bigger the economy gets, the bigger that amount gets... and if taxes are low, it could still account for a large budget percentage.
The maximum amount suggested (and this amount is based on RL UN dues) was set at 0.00005 * GDP. That's five thousanths of a percentage point of the national budget. In addition to that, we've made the scale progressive. That's the MAX rate. Miminum could be as low as 0.0001% (one-ten-thousanth of a percent).

The reason I think it's important to include a figure is to keep it from going higher. If we leave the numbers out of the proposal, nations will assume that the big bad UN is going to steal them blind ... and they'd be right. Folks routinely suggest 2% of research dollars or 5% of energy budgets and have no clear idea what they're suggesting. Those numbers, magnified to nation level, are astonishly HUGE.

We've taken the time to research and justify this in both game and real world terms. Here's a Yale (http://www.library.yale.edu/un/burdnshar/b-I.htm) page with some revealing studies:More importantly, the United States, the largest single economy of the United Nations, does not attach strategic economic importance to a total sum of less than $10 billion. When a $50 billion economic stimulus for the US alone was being debated in 1992, critics often dismissed the total as being too small to be significant. It is less than 1.0% of US gross domestic product (GDP). At present, the statistical discrepancy in the national income and product accounts of the US is far in excess of $50 billion (it borders on $100 billion), yet it goes practically unnoticed in contemporary discussion of the macroeconomy.
With an average Government Waste value of 2% to 20% (as seen in a couple of economy calculators, and I have no idea how they arrive at that figure), this tiny percentage is totally insignificant.

To answer Hersfold's last (and quite legimate) point, we've even included a system for hardship waivers. Frankly, if anyone was annoyed enough to want to RP not paying, what the hell. Let 'em slide. People like to fight about money anyway.

Of course, it is a budget proposal, and nobody like those. Even if we get mod approval, it's going to be a really tough sell.

A bit of a stretch. A bit of a bump. Maybe now they'll comment on its legality.

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five random UN member nations, selected annually, from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee will oversee the UNGAO and its outside auditors, as well as provide regular reports to the General Assembly for their approval.
b. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
c. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

Item #1: The proposal refers to a past resolution, which reads
UN taxation ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

You may not apply a definition that wasn't part of the previous resolution. In this case, though, the definition that you have in mind matches how the "UN Taxation Ban" proposal reads. You may simply alter this to say "Recognizes that the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, applies only to individual citizens and not to member states,"

Item #2: In compliance with NationStates rules.

Item #3: Item 3-proper and item 3-c are in violation of NationStates rules. You may "create" UN committees, but you may not have nations sit upon them. Removal of the clauses in red will bring this proposal into compliance with NationStates rules.

Item #4: In compliance with NationStates rules.

Item #5: You're putting a restriction on future UN resolutions, so I have to check with other NationStates Mods about this. I know that it's flat-out illegal for any proposal to dictate what kinds of proposals the UN may or may nto consider, and this looks like this skirts that line. If you want to keep Item #5, then you'll have to wait for another Mod ruling. If you're willing to drop Item #5 altogether, then you can make the required changes and submit this.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Thank you for being so clear. The red text *really* helps. You've convinced me on the first, and though I see some wiggle room on item 5 -- as once a resolution is passed it can't be changed, and that it really what item 5 is just saying ... I'm mostly concerned about the following:


Item #3: Item 3-proper and item 3-c are in violation of NationStates rules. You may "create" UN committees, but you may not have nations sit upon them. Removal of the clauses in red will bring this proposal into compliance with NationStates rules.


Example one:

Reduce Black Market Arms Sales
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Galdago

Description:

2. REQUESTS an independent council be formed to continue to consider the matter and report to it at its subsequent sessions on the implementation of this resolution and to seek and consider the views of all Member States on the objective, scope, agenda, dates and venue of an international conference on the illicit arms trade;

This has happened:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/unciat/

Galdago is doing a pretty good job with this, despite being busy with school. And bear in mind that Frisbeeteria and Sophista are both long-term players ... they aren't about to vanish without some other nation like mine picking up the torch (though at present I'm busy with Tuesday Heights and getting the United Nations Association off the ground).

In the above example, Galdago has really done a wonderful job of bringing a UN resolution and turning it into a roleplaying tool.

Example 2:


UN Space Consortium
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Rixtex

Description:

Let it be resolved, that an agency to be named the United Nations Space Consortium (hereafter referred to as “U.N.S.C.”) is hereby created. The purpose of the U.N.S.C. shall be to establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources. The U.N.S.C. shall be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and entirely funded through the sale of stock to any desiring nation, regardless of their affiliation to the United Nations. Non-participating nations are free to pursue their own space objectives, but would not reap the rewards of the investors. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution. A Provisional Board of Directors (“Provisional Board”) shall be composed of a representative from each nation participating in the U.N.S.C. immediately following the passage of this resolution. The Provisional Board will then proceed to elect a permanent Board of Directors (“Board”). No sale of stock shall occur before the seating of the Board. Full operational control, design, development, priorities, and administration will be assigned to the Board whose service will remain subject to the will of the stockholders, as provided for in the Articles of Incorporation. Let the nations of the world move forward together to a new frontier.

I left everything but the first two preambulatory clauses in the above example. I don't have the link to the UNSC page, but it not only exists, but when there was a vacancy created, Galdago and Rixtext came to the UN forum and adversted for a new nation to join the board ... and one did.

Again, the point of the resolution in question is to aid in #1 role-play, and #2 deflect the budget debates that sometimes pop up in the UN forum.

I don't see the harm in claiming that five nations will be elected to the committee, especially when there are clear rules for its operation.

I'd like you to reconsider your opinion.

I don't see the harm in claiming that five nations will be elected to the committee, especially when there are clear rules for its operation.
Mik, I don't think it needs to be appealed. I can't speak for Sophista, but I never expected to form such a committee or sit on it. The committee composition language was strictly for added realism, and the proposal langauge isn't significantly damaged by its removal.

Besides, it's not the fact that a committee be formed, it's how that committee gets selected that Cog is dinging. There exists such a committee, and that's enough. Forum readers can appoint themselves at will to any RPed hardship requests. Besides, we never defined a NS UN fiscal year, so we don't even have to recognize requests when they happen. "Sorry, the Committee is on hiatus. The Wizard says, 'Go away.'"

Cogitation, you got an earlier draft of clause 5. The latest version eliminated the final sentence and reads5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. Does that make any difference?

First, I'd like to thank Cog for giving up the time to go over this proposal. The UNFA thread has gone to be one of the longest-living and most-visited discussions that isn't a sticky, and I appreciate that you recognized the value of this proposal to those of us United Nations regulars who vigilantly attempt to steer the forums and proposals towards well-written and well-thought-out proposals.

The changes for the first clause are easy to implement, and leave the purpose of the clause intact. I'll be happy to change the language to reflect the moderation staff's wishes.

Mikitivity has already covered the bases I would've taken on clause three, so I'll you refer to that for the argumentation. I agree that this appears to be an ambiguous area where the intents of the resolution don't line up with the moderation's interpretation.

As for the fifth clause, I think that the argument on limiting future resolutions is unnecessary. Were this resolution to focus on a different issue and limit the UN from tackling a specific policy area or global issue, I would understand and agree with your decision. However, this clause does neither. This resolution effectively nullifies the debate on funding, and makes it so no future proposal would ever have to ask the question of where the money comes from. This isn't so much a limit as it is a service to anyone who ever gets tied up in the debate of, "Oh yeah? Well, that's going to cost a lot."

I eagerly await your response, but would like this debate to be as clear as possible before the proposal makes any more progress. If you would, please delete the proposal from the queue to avoid a Hersfold-esque incident.

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/unciat/

Before we begin talking about NationStates business again, I'm just going to make a web design suggestion. This disclaimer...
DISCLAIMER: Please note that this site has been created in tandem with roleplaying avenues being persued at NationStates.net and has no affiliation whatsoever with the United Nations. The UN Committe on Illicit Arms Trafficking represented here is completely fictitious and for roleplaying purposes only. If you were looking for the actual United Nations site, please click here. For more information on the roleplaying game associated with this site please visit:
...is good, but you should probably include something a little more visible a little closer to the top in addition to this disclaimer. For example, right underneath where it says "UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON ILLICIT ARMS TRAFFICKING", you may want to add "A NationStates.net roleplay venture" with a NationStates.net logo underneath the United Nations logo.

This should make it clear to any dumb-as-logs people that your site isn't part of the real-life United Nations.

Just a suggestion.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

...

I'm mostly concerned about the following:
Item #3: Item 3-proper and item 3-c are in violation of NationStates rules. You may "create" UN committees, but you may not have nations sit upon them. Removal of the clauses in red will bring this proposal into compliance with NationStates rules.
<snip>

I don't see the harm in claiming that five nations will be elected to the committee, especially when there are clear rules for its operation.

I'd like you to reconsider your opinion.

I will again reiterate something: Roleplay can borrow whatever it likes from UN resolutions, but the UN proposal rules will not acknowledge this. Now, you can say that committees exist, but UN proposals may not act on specific nations; this includes having nations sit on committees. You can roleplay having nations sit on committees, but as soon as you start talking about forum roleplay, you are leaving the domain of what UN proposals and the UN proposal rules are concerned with.

Now, you cited the "UN Space Consortium" as an example.

UN Space Consortium
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Rixtex

Description:

Let it be resolved, that an agency to be named the United Nations Space Consortium (hereafter referred to as “U.N.S.C.”) is hereby created. The purpose of the U.N.S.C. shall be to establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources. The U.N.S.C. shall be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and entirely funded through the sale of stock to any desiring nation, regardless of their affiliation to the United Nations. Non-participating nations are free to pursue their own space objectives, but would not reap the rewards of the investors. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution. A Provisional Board of Directors (“Provisional Board”) shall be composed of a representative from each nation participating in the U.N.S.C. immediately following the passage of this resolution. The Provisional Board will then proceed to elect a permanent Board of Directors (“Board”). No sale of stock shall occur before the seating of the Board. Full operational control, design, development, priorities, and administration will be assigned to the Board whose service will remain subject to the will of the stockholders, as provided for in the Articles of Incorporation. Let the nations of the world move forward together to a new frontier.

The first to parts that you labeled in red are thing I think we Mods can turn a blind eye to.

The third part that you labeled in red (which is the part I labeled in blue) is something I think we Mods can turn a blind eye to as you're taking representatives from a general set of nations that meet a certain criteria, rather than taking representatives from only a select few nations. With that distinction made, the example you cite here no longer applies.

The part I'm concerned with is the part I labeled in red (and this is not related to the present discussion). UN proposals are not supposed to have effects on non-UN-member nations; this is a game mechanics violation. However, as this is a passed resolution, there's nothing I can do about it. I'll talk to Max, [violet], and the rest of the Mod Squad about having it yanked from the Passed Resolutions list. However, this is going to be very low priority as the Admins To-Do List is long enough, but do NOT construe its presence on the "Passed Resolutions" list as an official statement by NationStates Moderators that it's acceptable under NationStates rules. It merely means that we missed this the first time around.

Cogitation, you got an earlier draft of clause 5. The latest version eliminated the final sentence and reads

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding.

Does that make any difference?

As for the fifth clause, I think that the argument on limiting future resolutions is unnecessary. Were this resolution to focus on a different issue and limit the UN from tackling a specific policy area or global issue, I would understand and agree with your decision. However, this clause does neither. This resolution effectively nullifies the debate on funding, and makes it so no future proposal would ever have to ask the question of where the money comes from. This isn't so much a limit as it is a service to anyone who ever gets tied up in the debate of, "Oh yeah? Well, that's going to cost a lot."

Ehhh.... It's the "Prohibits any future resolution...." part that bothered me. However, I have given this some thought since I last posted here, and I'm going to let this slide; it's not limiting what proposal categories the UN may consider. You may use the original form or the current form of clause 5; I declare both to be in compliance with NationStates rules.

If you would, please delete the proposal from the queue to avoid a Hersfold-esque incident.
Proposal deleted. No official warning issued.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Before we begin talking about NationStates business again, I'm just going to make a web design suggestion. This disclaimer...

Just a suggestion.


It is a wonderful one. I'll telegram Galdago.



The part I'm concerned with is the part I labeled in red (and this is not related to the present discussion). UN proposals are not supposed to have effects on non-UN-member nations; this is a game mechanics violation.

However, as this is a passed resolution, there's nothing I can do about it. I'll talk to Max, [violet], and the rest of the Mod Squad about having it yanked from the Passed Resolutions list.


First, everything you've said here makes logical sense to me.

Though I'd hope that resolutions that passed stay in the queue. Don't take them away, even if there is a problem.

Here is how I'd suggest you might want to handle it ... in your case study of deleted proposals, talk about how if you had caught this when it was a proposal, that *that* particular clause would have caused you to delete the proposal. You will establish the rule, and we all know that rules are constantly being created and can understand that sometimes old resolutions are grandfathered in.

Though in this case all the text was saying is that the UN controlled space commission would sell stock to any nation. Since the sale of stocks is optional, my government didn't buy any. The only "game stat" impact I felt Mikitivity had was from the UN administration and communication of a "Free Trade" agreement with respect to exploring space, i.e. we benefitted.

I'd say even this case could slide by.