NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently ejected from the United Nations for making a resolution that called for a UN Peacekeeping force. Evidently, this is against the rules, which I was unaware of. I received a telegram that said that I had been ejected, and I could appeal this ruling in the "Help page." Unaware of where this said help page is, I decided that this should be the appropriate channel.

I apologize for posting the proposal that called for UN Peacekeeping forces. I was unaware that this was against the rules, and it will not happen again. Many of the people in my region were also unaware of this rule. Being the former UN Delegate, I feel that I somewhat represent the region still. I hope that the UN reconsiders its decision and re-admits us, as we have many concerns with international politics. Again, I apologize on behalf of the people of the Federation of the Appalaichans.

Thank you for the consideration.

The "Getting Help" page can be found here: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/55376/page=help

I think this sort of thing should be filed under the option of "Other: Response to Moderator"

Also, you can rejoin the UN with a different nation. It is highly unlikely that a UN ban on the original nation will be lifted. So create a new nation and apply with that.

App, I would not be surprised if anyone had heard of the rule before - the only problem I have with the moderators is their... inconsistency with UN rulings. I did not exactly find anything illegal when I read your proposal, but then I am not a moderator. Good luck with your appeal.

I'd think it's for proposing changes to game mechanics.

A UN Peacekeeping force, IMHO, would be a type of UN army without the use of the actual word, and that is considered a game mechanics type of proposal. It would force members to send "citizens" to patrol, which cannot actually be done, only role-played.

the only problem I have with the moderators is their... inconsistency with UN rulings.
I've seen no inconsistencies in the rulings, only in when and whether a mod got to the proposal before it fell out of queue. Given that, of the Game Mods, only Cog, Hack, and GMC are taking much of an interest in the UN these days, and given also that all three of them seem to have lives, this is not at all unreasonable.

The ruling itself is crystal clear, and is located in an obvious place ( Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176)), which is stickied to the top of the UN forum as well as linked from the [Submit a Proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/45574/page=UN_new_proposal)] page. I'll grant you it's a long first post, but it's a complicated topic. Cogitation even went so far as to post the relevant bits in bold, red text (one of only two such warnings) to make it obvious as he could be.
Do not use these categories to establish a UN military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.
No ambiguity there, and there's also no excuse for people to post serious, thoughtful proposals without checking the rules first. I appreciate The Appalaichans' position, but I just can't work up much sympathy.

Warned: UN Warning (mechanics) November 1st, 2004 -MGH | Level 2 (real world). November 5th, 2004 -MGH | REMOVED UN Multi (the_appalaichans, the_promiseland, old_north_church, lamp_monsters) November 5th, 2004 -MGH

The bold section is why you were removed, not the proposals, which is why you also got this telegram:

'Fri Nov 5 09:41:16 2004 From: !United Nations Intelligence Committee
This nation has been determined to be in breach of UN rules, which allow you to only have one nation in the UN at any given time. It has thus been ejected and barred from re-joining.

Please note this is the most lenient punishment. Further breaches will be punished with nuclear strikes against all offending nations, destroying them.

If you wish to appeal this decision, please contact the game moderators via the Help page.'

Please note this is the most lenient punishment. Further breaches will be punished with nuclear strikes against all offending nations, destroying them.


I told ye that the UN is "evil" :p

Ok, Fris, thanks.

What I was referring to with the inconsitencies is the "no amendments" rule, which has changed over the years - examples are "RBH Replacement", which passed, and my "Amendments to the UNEC" proposal, which was deleted. It was only after some debate that I was allowed to re-submit that, but under a different name.