NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from a different player, though I believe related to the previous incident:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7907200&postcount=31

Vastiva has been flaming a large number of players in the other thread related to the repeal on the UN floor. I've *not* responded to his posts, but I see that he has been for some time essentially following me and accusing me of many inappropriate things in multiple places. Basically my charge is that by following my posts into various threads that it is kinda like stalking and harassment.

I'd like a moderator to review that post and I can provide many other examples of him directly flaming me or other players, but his attacks on players has gotten out of hand.

All I'm asking is that a moderator ask him to just leave me alone. My advice to Great Agnostica was sincere and I feel that he is doing this in response to the other moderation decision / ruling for me and another player to just keep out of each others way.


Edit:
Here is another example of when it *started*:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7873970&postcount=116

There are plenty of posts between the two timestamps and I can provide plenty of additional examples.

Thank you,
-M

Mikitivity, I'm not a mod, however I hardly see any instance of harassment in the two posts you have linked to. In addition, if there is an ongoing heated debate about a certain issue in the UN forum, it is not unimaginable that you two would show up at the same place often...especially considering that you are on opposite sides of the issue it seems.

Provide links of the direct flaming and get the other players to testify with you. Perhaps then you will have a case...

Finally, the moderators are not babysitters. Just because you two don't get along doesn't mean they have to step in. Take it upon yourselves, as reasonable and respectable people, to settle your differences together...even if all that comes from the "meeting" is an agreement to ignore each other.

Vastiva is somewhat abrasive, but the same can be said of you.

I see no flaming in those two posts. Though I will have to ask Vastiva, unofficially, what section of the FAQ he's talking about when he says: *adds Mikitivity to the list of names of people who didn't read the FAQ*

Unless you want to provide further examples, no Moderator action will be taken.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Vastiva is somewhat abrasive, but the same can be said of you.

I see no flaming in those two posts. Though I will have to ask Vastiva, unofficially, what section of the FAQ he's talking about when he says:

Unless you want to provide further examples, no Moderator action will be taken.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

My concern here is future behavior ... namely at what point can a player demostrate that another player is essentially following that player around and attempting to upset that player?


What can't I post?
Any content that is:

- obscene
- illegal
- threatening
- malicious
- defamatory
- spam

This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Also prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you.


I'm convinced that he is going to continue to harass me, and at some point I think a very strong case for griefing can be made.

While it sounds like I can just sit and wait, and then bring a series of posts here after that has happened, I've seen this type of behavior in the past and would rather prevent it this time.

What is the best way to avoid harassment?

My concern here is future behavior ... namely at what point can a player demostrate that another player is essentially following that player around and attempting to upset that player?

Not wanting to get too far from the point... but I've seen other players claim the same against you to no sucess, given that you were simply arguing your point of view. Now I'm assuming that if he's sticking within the basic rules and simply arguing legitimately against your point then it's not really a rule violation, it's something you have to defeat in arguement.

Not wanting to get too far from the point... but I've seen other players claim the same against you to no sucess, given that you were simply arguing your point of view. Now I'm assuming that if he's sticking within the basic rules and simply arguing legitimately against your point then it's not really a rule violation, it's something you have to defeat in arguement.

The link above wasn't an argument against my point, it was an argument against me (he is basically saying, if Mikitivity says this it must be wrong):

*cough*choke* Ahem. You are talking about treating others with respect? Should I attach links, or are you going to apologize for your earlier actions elsewhere?

After all, should not ones actions match with ones words? Particularly with words so flowery as these?


That was in response to me giving the following advice to another player (in a thread that Vastiva had not yet shown any interest in):


Great Agnostica,

My government has always liked your government because you will change your mind and listen to nations, but I think we all should care about all votes, even if they are just 1, like my nation's.

I'm not trying to be mean or negative, but just because an ambassador is not a delegate doesn't mean you shouldn't treat them the same when talking to them. In many regions the Delegates change, and who knows if that "1" vote today doesn't become 10 or 30 votes in a few months.

I understand that after your resolution and the number of personal attacks you got (and I'm guessing you got many more via telegrams) that you are a bit stressed. So my advice is slow the process down here.

It took a few of us two full weeks to work out a draft for the tsunami network we want to see become a resolution and be voted on. And that draft proposal still needs to be reviewed by two of us whom were working on the idea!

Cheers,
10kMichael

The two are completely unrelated. He isn't questioning my post, but me ... that is why I consider this harassment.

I honestly think it is good advice, and it was sincere. But how can I expect to do anything under this screen name if he continues to stalk me and slander me?

If he wanted to contradict my point, that would be one thing. But a top post just attacking the author???

{Edit: I do recognize that Cog has ruled in this case and determined that the above behavior is fine, but I want to ask experienced players how to discourage this type of post. I'd like this to stop before it does cross a line and become worse.}

{Edit #2: I do see what you and Cog are saying ... that I've attacked individuals based on their prior actions instead of just looking at their POST in the past too. :(

Though I'd like it if Vastiva would just leave me alone, I think the take home message is really one for me, that I wouldn't be subjected to these attacks if I hadn't have been guilty of them in the past as well.

What is a bit depressing here is how we all focus on negative actions. I feel as though I've added many positive contributions to the game, and they always seem to be disregarded based on past mistakes I've made. I honestly try to encourage activity in the forums and feel that I'm helpful to many newbies, but that sort of behavior never balances out things.}

Personally I would resolve that arguement he has against you personally as soon as possible in order to stop it from being brought up constantly.

I feel he shouldn't be bringing an old arguement into a new thread, though to be honest alot of nations have to deal with similar and it can be valid depending on the situation. In this case he seems to be working against your arguement by bringing an earlier example of what he conciders to be bad examples of your ability to do what you are criticising someone else for.

Yeah, it's not on topic and it's veering towards something I may concider harassment. However it does seem to be, as the moderator has ruled, a legitimate point.

If he continues to use the same arguement then it will eventually ware thin and become a much more weak. My advise is to work this out now... get it out of the way and get it behind you. You could reason with the player, or simply prove him wrong or simply ignore it and continue with what you are doing.

Personally I would resolve that arguement he has against you personally as soon as possible in order to stop it from being brought up constantly.

If he continues to use the same arguement then it will eventually ware thin and become a much more weak. My advise is to work this out now... get it out of the way and get it behind you. You could reason with the player, or simply prove him wrong or simply ignore it and continue with what you are doing.

OK this is solid advice, and very much appreciated.

It seems like my choices are to ignore it and hope that in time it will go away or try and resolve it.

I'd rather try and resolve it, largely because I fear if this is ignored it will continue.

How would something like the following be taken if I were to post it in that thread:

"Vastiva,

I will be the first to admit that in the past I've been incredibly hostile to a number of players in the past, and for that I'm truly sorry. This is something that I'd like to put behind me, but I'm also asking that others judge me based on the positive contributions I've made and my more recent conduct. If I fall out of line in the future, I'll expect a reminder that I'm being an incredible jerk.

There are some players with whom I've had disagreements, you included. Some of them I've come to terms with, others I've not. I'd rather this forum remain open to opposing views, and as much as my advice is valid to Great Agnostica, I certainly plan on applying it to myself.

Sincerely,
10kMichael"

???

I don't want this to seem like a cheap shot at anybody. I've tried to remove anything that would put others on the defensive. Would it be better to make this a general address? I'm trying to keep it short.

My concern here is future behavior ...

There's some tom cruise movie out there about arresting people for crimes they're going to commit. While I forget the title, I can assure you that it is not NationStates, and that such actions will not be taken here.

What is the best way to avoid harassment?

Treat other how you want to be treated...lol. Sounds stupid and cliche I know, but if you stay away from trouble, trouble has a way of staying away from you as well.

There's some tom cruise movie out there about arresting people for crimes they're going to commit. While I forget the title....

Minority Report.

Minority Report.

Good movie too.

Though I'm actually looking for feedback on how to repair / advoid these things. I'm not planning on shaving my head and sitting in a tank and forecasting which nations will be causing a ruckuss in the next 3 months. <-- though perhaps there is a UN proposal in the making there for a FutureTech region (j/k) ;)

Cog, I'd ask that you consider reviewing your decision again, in light of the following post Vastiva made:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7931343&postcount=883

It has nothing to do with the topic, but is clearly a flame directed at me.

That you seek to be a "guiding force" is noble, but let us not believe you are coming to see yourself as the "saviour" or "director" of the UN.

Your strength is in your ability to refocus and play a resolution into sensibility. Attempting to "take all the spotlight" reduces your effect - we are certain you see the mechanism by which this is true.

In short - any may do as they will by their own timetable. They are free to do so. Your inclusion or lack thereof is not germaine to the existance of new legislation.

You asked that I provide other links, the pattern of behavior leading up to my requestion is long, and here is a sample of the posts from one single thread that I consider many of which to not address or argue a point, but rather are attacks on my character (none of these I replied to, in order to not encourage more of these posts from him):

#1: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7873970&postcount=116
#2: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7874015&postcount=119
#3: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7874037&postcount=124
#4: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7895500&postcount=266
#5: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7895719&postcount=284 <-- this one I really object to, because calling me full of hot air (and in the current post he now flames me for actually following through on something he said I wouldn't)
#6: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7897382&postcount=317 <-- again implying I’m lying
#7: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7898503&postcount=326 <-- there is an outright flame at the bottom there
#8: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7906051&postcount=503
#9: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7906119&postcount=505 <-- “So apparently you're obfuscating the truth for a reason?”, that sounds again like he is telling me what I'm thinking, not what he is thinking, and I consider this a flame as well.

{edit: "requestion" means request / question. It is a made up word, but I'm requesting both action now and also opening this for comments / advice, because I'm very convinced he will not stop unless a moderator asks him to}

While I will pass this to the attention of Cogitation, having reviewed the evidence you have provided, I would have to say that there is nothing there that could be considered a flame.

~ Tsar the Mod.

I agree... while it's an agressive way to argue about the matter, it's clearly not flaming as that would require him insulting you personally instead of simply arguing about your motives.

We all generally have to deal with something of the sort, where another player will tell us our advise isn't needed, possibly because they don't like us. It's not flaming so long as they don't get personal about it... and for it to be harrassment I feel it would require him to actually telegram you with these arguements when you don't want it.

As said previously, the UN and General forums are ulimately public forums in which you can't silence the opposite point of view unless they break the rules... in RP it can get to the point where two people ignore one another and you can demand that someone never enters you're thread... but due to the more public nature of UN/General forums, it would be against everyone interest if the opposition could be silenced when they aren't breaking any rules.

Yeah, he's not being very polite about it and ulimately that harms his own arguement... but he's not really, as far as I can tell, breaking any rules. You'll just have to either resolve it with him, ignore his comments or debunk his arguements with examples proving otherwise.


Note: Calling someone full of "hot air" isn't a flame, if it is I'll be amazed because it's refering to your arguement and isn't what I would concider an insult to you personally.

Note 2: The "outright" flame where he points out what he thinks you do in a arguement again, isn't a flame, or I have trouble seeing it as a flame.

I agree... while it's an agressive way to argue about the matter, it's clearly not flaming as that would require him insulting you personally instead of simply arguing about your motives.


Note 2: The "outright" flame where he points out what he thinks you do in a arguement again, isn't a flame, or I have trouble seeing it as a flame.

The griefing policy (posted above) on the game FAQ includes intentionally trying to upset and harass a player.

In the links, he called me a liar and suggested that I wasn't planning on drafting new resolutions dealing with prostitution. Several times in fact.

I think flames shouldn't be limited to calling people "assholes" or other nasty words, but that the TONE of the post should be considered.

Now in another thread, which I can provide, myself, RomeW, _Myopia_, and others are all working together. That thread was linked in the post or two above mine by the Powerhungry Chipmunks, to which Vastiva also saw.

Now Vastiva is flaming my character and ignoring my post for actually working on a resolution.

He has a long history of ignoring my comments and attacking the messenger. Telegrams can be blocked, but I really think at some point that even public attacks that aren't vulgar can clearly demonstrate a pattern of behavior that a player is posting and following another player with the intent to harass. The problem here is that sort of behavior is what promotes the vulgar posts, and at some point in time this needs to stop.

I've replied only to this lastest post, and I can link to that. I wasn't rude about it, but I did call his recent post a flame, because it is a personal attack.

Thank you for blowing your own arguement out of the water - if there are ways of getting around resolutions if you really apply yourself to it, then there is no reason to repeal.
Vastiva, incorrect.

If there are ways to get around a resolution, then there is at least one reason to repeal it: To replace it with a better resolution.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7874037&postcount=124
We will leave it to you - swallow the truth, or force us to drop proof all over you in large steel cannisters?
Vastiva, avoid condescension.
Here's a good reference on consensual crime, I neither expect you to look at it nor read it in entire. Either action might cause thought about the nature of consensual crimes, and the ridiculousness caused by making such things "crimes".
Vastiva, avoid condescension.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7895500&postcount=266
Mikitivity, I don't see a problem here.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7895719&postcount=284
So then we can expect you to be at the forefront of getting a resolution with protections passed? Or is this alot of hot air?

Then do explain why a repeal is the necessary first step, rather then adding the new, then getting rid of the "badly written" one. We're curious as to your logic.
Vastiva, first, avoid condescension, cut the "hot air" comment.

Second, NationStates rules prohibit double legislation and amendments. If a new resolution is to build on an existing resolution without repealing the existing resolution and without amending the previuos resolution, then it would have to be done with considerable care or an official warning for submitting a bad UN proposal (and the threat of UN ejection) would ensue. One possibility is to have a resolution that says "Prostitution shall be legal in all UN member nations" and another resolution that says "In UN member nations where prostitution is legal, the following regulations shall be observed...." That way, neither resolution requires the existence of the other, but if both exist, then they work together.

Related to this: You may not have a UN resolution that requires the existence of another UN resolution; either resolution must be repealable at any time, and you can only repeal one-at-a-time. Some people would rather reduce the chances of drawing Mod-wrath and just repeal the old resolution; that's generally much safer.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7897382&postcount=317
Mikitivity, I don't see how he's implying that you're lying.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7898503&postcount=326
Mikitivity, he's saying that you're exhibiting a certain pattern of behavior. He seems to be stating it as civilly as possible, so at first glance, I don't think this qualifies as flaming.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7906051&postcount=503
Mikitivity, he's merely redirecting you to an earlier post (post 331 of that thread) where he gives a civil rebuttal to a particular point. I don't see a problem, here. Did you link the correct post?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7906119&postcount=505
No, it's not. Graceofseppuku stated quite clearly first add new legislation then repeal the old one. That is entirely within the rules, and is precisely the method to use.
Vastiva, incorrect. This constitutes double-legislation and is a violation of NationStates rules. If a proposal to be submitted would cover the same exact material as an existing resolution, then you must repeal the old resolution first.
Yes you can. You've seen multiple examples of resolutions adding legislation to earlier resolutions. So apparently you're obfuscating the truth for a reason?
Vastiva, what examples are you talking about? Also, you should familiarize yourself with NationStates rules before accusing someone else of lying about the rules.

This reminds me, I need to talk to the Admins, again, about giving Mods the ability to remove passed resolutions and to remove resolutions on the floor of the UN. Remember: Just because it passed doesn't mean it's legal; we Mods may merely have missed it.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7931343&postcount=883
Questionable. I need to discuss this with another Mod.

...

Overall, my conclusions are as follows:

Mikitivity, I don't think that Vastiva is following you around. You need to remember that there is only one United Nations in the game. Unlike the myriad of roleplays in "NationStates" and "International Incidents", that's a rather limited field of interaction, so you're going to be bumping up against the same people all of the time. You claim "[Vastiva] has a long history of ignoring my comments and attacking the messenger", but I need more than what you've provided me with so far before I can take action.

Vastiva, some of your comments are condescending and border on being flamebait. You need to tone down your comments and refamiliarize yourself with NationStates proposal rules before proclaiming what one can or cannot do with resolutions; some of the friction seems to have resulted from your not correctly understanding NationStates proposal rules, particularly about double-legislation and amendments. Now, it's possible that I misunderstood some of your posts, but that's what ti sounds like to me, at the moment.

All around, I'm just posting an official advisory. No warnings are being issued.

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

This reminds me, I need to talk to the Admins, again, about giving Mods the ability to remove passed resolutions and to remove resolutions on the floor of the UN. Remember: Just because it passed doesn't mean it's legal; we Mods may merely have missed it.

Thanks, on that note, when you talk about removing old resolutions, if at all possible, it would be interesting (and educational) for the reason for their removal to be added to a case study.

Take my Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution. It included a reference to a real world report and a real world conference in the preamble. By today's rules that is against the rules. Though I'd ask that what should be done, is those two sections be changed to a strike throught font (I'd hate to see the rest of the resolution deleted), if it is removed, I think explaining why would be helpful. :)

On NSWiki, I've added this note on either the Tracking Near Earth Objects and/or the footnotes I added on the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution (I'd have to double check to see what I did). But as players we do often look at the old UN resolutions and consider them good examples of what to make new proposals like.

The Law of the Sea may have been in the wrong category. I honestly haven't looked over it recently, but I remember a number of players raised objections to it on those grounds.



http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7931343&postcount=883
Questionable. I need to discuss this with another Mod.

...

All around, I'm just posting an official advisory. No warnings are being issued.


Thanks again Cog and Tsar. And to Vastiva's credit, on forum he did also post that he was going to ignore me, which I think will really help things.

I also appreciate Iuthia's advice. I'd like to still post my response (draft posted here) in the Global Library Part 2 thread, but I don't want matters to blow up ... rather to just say that I *am* sorry for my past behavior and wish to make amends. My fear is I don't want something like that to make matters worse or come across as rude.

(paring down a bit to respond)


Vastiva, avoid condescension.


Will attempt.


One possibility is to have a resolution that says "Prostitution shall be legal in all UN member nations" and another resolution that says "In UN member nations where prostitution is legal, the following regulations shall be observed...." That way, neither resolution requires the existence of the other, but if both exist, then they work together.

This was the sort of example I was referring to.



Related to this: You may not have a UN resolution that requires the existence of another UN resolution; either resolution must be repealable at any time, and you can only repeal one-at-a-time. Some people would rather reduce the chances of drawing Mod-wrath and just repeal the old resolution; that's generally much safer.

Query: Is using the phrase "In view of resolution (whatever)" still legal, even after the referenced resolution is removed, if the proposal does not require the existance of the referenced resolution?



No, it's not. Graceofseppuku stated quite clearly first add new legislation then repeal the old one. That is entirely within the rules, and is precisely the method to use.


Vastiva, incorrect. This constitutes double-legislation and is a violation of NationStates rules. If a proposal to be submitted would cover the same exact material as an existing resolution, then you must repeal the old resolution first.

Addressed above: I was thinking about a clarification, or addition of restrictions (putting, for example, rules on prostitution under moral decency, following a resolution allowing prostitution - but not connected directly, nor requiring the existance of the first).



Yes you can. You've seen multiple examples of resolutions adding legislation to earlier resolutions. So apparently you're obfuscating the truth for a reason?

Vastiva, what examples are you talking about?


The first would be #17 "Required Basic Healthcare", being overridden by #20 'RBH Replacement'. This is a direct modification.

#3 "Education for All" was reinforced with #14 "Child Labor" (The "Believing" clause) and the idea was extended to age 18 by #28 "Free Education".

#22 "Outlaw Pedophilia" was strengthened by #25 "The Child Protection Act" (particularly Article 2.1).

#19 "Religious Tolerance" was strengthened by #26 "The Universal Bill of Rights", in Article 1, and the idea expanded.

I'm sure there are more, but this should suffice to get the idea across.

In the case of the whole prostitution discussion, the thought was to add a resolution addressing the specific lacks seen in the original without first repealing the resolution itself.

In other words - you can add additional legislation to an idea without having to remove the earlier resolution. You can't amend the resolution itself, but you can "continue on a theme" or "clarify an idea", or however it is put.



This reminds me, I need to talk to the Admins, again, about giving Mods the ability to remove passed resolutions and to remove resolutions on the floor of the UN. Remember: Just because it passed doesn't mean it's legal; we Mods may merely have missed it.

Sounds good.



Overall, my conclusions are as follows:

Mikitivity, I don't think that Vastiva is following you around. You need to remember that there is only one United Nations in the game. Unlike the myriad of roleplays in "NationStates" and "International Incidents", that's a rather limited field of interaction, so you're going to be bumping up against the same people all of the time. You claim "[Vastiva] has a long history of ignoring my comments and attacking the messenger", but I need more than what you've provided me with so far before I can take action.

Vastiva, some of your comments are condescending and border on being flamebait. You need to tone down your comments and refamiliarize yourself with NationStates proposal rules before proclaiming what one can or cannot do with resolutions; some of the friction seems to have resulted from your not correctly understanding NationStates proposal rules, particularly about double-legislation and amendments. Now, it's possible that I misunderstood some of your posts, but that's what ti sounds like to me, at the moment.

All around, I'm just posting an official advisory. No warnings are being issued.

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

My official reply to Mikitivity has been this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7931563&postcount=885). As far as I'm concerned, he no longer exists.

As to the allegation of "attacking the messenger and not the message", would it be germaine to post the times he has done this, in view of his complaint and my reply, or can this be considered "done with"?

As for his allegation I was "following him around" :rolleyes: but as I've put him on IGNORE, and will be ignoring his existance completely, I don't see any possibility of a reoccurence - you can't interact with someone who doesn't exist as far as you're concerned.

I officially request that he not respond to anything I post, period. As the UN is limited in scope, there will have to be threads I start which I do allow him to respond in as a member of the UN - however I will not be reading his posts nor responding to them.

Thank you.

Query: Is using the phrase "In view of resolution (whatever)" still legal, even after the referenced resolution is removed, if the proposal does not require the existance of the referenced resolution?
I'll have to take some time to study past resolutions and then discuss this with the other Mods. As real life limits my time, this will take quite some time.

This was the sort of example I was referring to.

Addressed above: I was thinking about a clarification, or addition of restrictions (putting, for example, rules on prostitution under moral decency, following a resolution allowing prostitution - but not connected directly, nor requiring the existance of the first).
Okay, then your posts were merely misread. You have to be very careful about how you talk about related resolutions, or it sounds like you're suggesting something that's illegal under NationStates rules. I'm going to have to eventually get around to reexaming the proposal rules and discussing it with the other Mods, but proposals should avoid interdependence. Any one resolution has to be able to stand regardless of what earlier resolutions get repealed.

You could have one resolution that makes prostitution legal everywhere, a second resolution that establishes certain legal rights for prostitutes wherever it is legal, and a third resolution that taxes prostitutes.

The first would be #17 "Required Basic Healthcare", being overridden by #20 'RBH Replacement'. This is a direct modification.
Resolution #20 constitutes an amendment of #17 and is illegal under NationStates rules. If I remember correctly, Resolution #20 escaped Moderator attention and would have been deleted had it been caught.

/me makes a note to himself to ask the Admins to have #17 removed.

#3 "Education for All" was reinforced with #14 "Child Labor" (The "Believing" clause) and the idea was extended to age 18 by #28 "Free Education".
Resolution #14 does not overlap with Resolution #3. There's no issue here. Resolution #28 was illegal because of double-legislation and probably escaped Moderator attention. I also note that #28 was filed as "Human Rights", which I don't think is correct; it should be "Social Justice".

/me makes a note to himself to ask the Admins to have #28 removed.

#22 "Outlaw Pedophilia" was strengthened by #25 "The Child Protection Act" (particularly Article 2.1).
First, Resolution #25 quotes the "Charter of the United Nations". This Charter does not exist in NationStates, and that alone is enough to declare the resolution illegal. In addition, Article 2.1 (which you pointed out) constitutes double-legislation. At the time, the mention of the Charter and Article 2.1 needed to be removed. If it had been first proposed after repeals became legal, then the Charter reference would still have to go, but you could either drop Article 2.1 or repeal Resolution #22.

/me makes a note to himself to ask the Admins to have #22 removed.

#19 "Religious Tolerance" was strengthened by #26 "The Universal Bill of Rights", in Article 1, and the idea expanded.
Article 1 of Resolution #26 constitutes double-legislation.

/me makes a note to himself to ask the Admins to have #19 removed.

I'm sure there are more, but this should suffice to get the idea across.

In the case of the whole prostitution discussion, the thought was to add a resolution addressing the specific lacks seen in the original without first repealing the resolution itself.

In other words - you can add additional legislation to an idea without having to remove the earlier resolution. You can't amend the resolution itself, but you can "continue on a theme" or "clarify an idea", or however it is put.
Well, since Resolution #46 has been repealed, this particular case is now a moot point. However, similar cases will probably come up, so I'll point out that when "addressing specific lacks", you have to do it in such a way that the new resolution doesn't require the existence of the old resolution. That is, if Resolution B is written to address the lacks of Resolution A, then Resolution B must still make sense even if Resolution A is repealed. If Resolution B becomes nonsensical upon the repeal of Resolution A, then it's not legal*.

The next time something like this comes up, post here in "Moderation" with a draft.

As to the allegation of "attacking the messenger and not the message", would it be germaine to post the times he has done this, in view of his complaint and my reply, or can this be considered "done with"?
If there are instances that have not yet been addressed by NationStates Moderators, then you may (if you so choose) post links.

but as I've put him on IGNORE, and will be ignoring his existance completely, I don't see any possibility of a reoccurence - you can't interact with someone who doesn't exist as far as you're concerned.
Sounds fine to me.

I officially request that he not respond to anything I post, period. As the UN is limited in scope, there will have to be threads I start which I do allow him to respond in as a member of the UN - however I will not be reading his posts nor responding to them.
If you don't want to respond to his posts, that's fine, but I'm not sure that you can request that he not respond to your posts. I have to discuss this with the other Mods. After all, like you said, the UN is limited in scope.

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

If you don't want to respond to his posts, that's fine, but I'm not sure that you can request that he not respond to your posts. I have to discuss this with the other Mods. After all, like you said, the UN is limited in scope.

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

He may or may not be able to make the request to you as a moderator, but he may make the request to me, and having posted here that *this* is what I wanted, I'm more than happy to honor that request.

Heck, I posted a host of an answered (by me) posts that I felt were very hostile towards me -- however, when people flame me, even if they hide a compliament in a post that is largely an attack, I feel it is certainly within my rights to reply and call that unfair. Certainly if I feel that I am attacked again, I'll report it. I also will use your (Cog's) responses to filter out what is questionable / condescending and what is just debating a point.

I am certainly happy with the resolution here and would like to thank everybody involved.

This isn't to suggest that you should not talk to the other mods about this ... I think good can come of that.

I've only had a brief glance at some of the U.N. stuff raised here, I''d like to remind all concerned that a lot of the specific rules over how / what proposals may or may not do have evolved over time, slow and steady at first apart from basic rules, then a " spike " if you will in the rate while Enodia was the self appointed ( I think ) or main N.S.U.N. Moderator, then a slow steady trend again of more rules as the game, and the players, both adapt to one another and what they can work with ...

Consequently some stuff listed in the last few posts by both parties may not be spot on, unless we apply all rules retro-actively ( do we ? ) I'll try to remind myself to return tomorrow some time and figure out my actual examples, all I got now is fuzzy thoughts.

" Summer heat is my thinking DEAT " ( sigh )

I've only had a brief glance at some of the U.N. stuff raised here, I''d like to remind all concerned that a lot of the specific rules over how / what proposals may or may not do have evolved over time, slow and steady at first apart from basic rules, then a " spike " if you will in the rate while Enodia was the self appointed ( I think ) or main N.S.U.N. Moderator, then a slow steady trend again of more rules as the game, and the players, both adapt to one another and what they can work with ...

Consequently some stuff listed in the last few posts by both parties may not be spot on, unless we apply all rules retro-actively ( do we ? ) I'll try to remind myself to return tomorrow some time and figure out my actual examples, all I got now is fuzzy thoughts.

" Summer heat is my thinking DEAT " ( sigh )

That issue isn't that Cog or others aren't aware that the reason those older resolutions are illegal is because the rules have since changed. I've always maintained that if a resolution like the "RBH" Replacement would not be allowed today that as *players* we should help the mods and just repeal those bad resolutions -- there are many of them, as the Legalize Prostitution was in the wrong category *as written* (It was written originally as a classic Social Justice issue).

But the reason Cog's gone to the trouble to answer what Vastiva is pointing to is because he, Vastiva, was apparently assuming that what was adopted in the past should be grounds for deciding what is legal today.

This is an assumption that we all make.

I've been advocating for some time that those of us that understand that the rules have changed need to use forums like NSWiki and the UNA to flag these rule changes. I also think the moderators simplying putting notes "This resolution would not be legal by current UN regulations" on the resolutions may help players avoid the trap Hersfold and I feel into with the "Amendments to the UNEC" proposal.

Since double legislation has come up on this topic...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029700&postcount=35
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029711&postcount=36

Since double legislation has come up on this topic...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029700&postcount=35
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029711&postcount=36
Geee.... Those resolutions were passed 5 days apart. Resolution #35 must have hit quorum right on the heels of Resolution #34.

It's double legislation, yes, but I wouldn't issue an official warning for it since it wasn't double-legislation when #35 was submitted. Anyway, one of those resolutions will have to be yanked.

We seem to be drifting off-topic. Anyone still wishing to discuss UN proposal rules in "Moderation" should start a new topic for that purpose. Thank you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

This reminds me, I need to talk to the Admins, again, about giving Mods the ability to remove passed resolutions and to remove resolutions on the floor of the UN. Remember: Just because it passed doesn't mean it's legal; we Mods may merely have missed it.


While I understand that resolutions that are being voted on should be removed if they are illegal, would it not potentially cause a problem to remove law that has been passed by the members of the UN?

While I understand that resolutions that are being voted on should be removed if they are illegal, would it not potentially cause a problem to remove law that has been passed by the members of the UN?
Mmmm.... Are you talking about technical problems related to the programming? Or something else?

Keep in mind that I can only suggest such a thing to the Admins (and I'm just thinking out loud, to some degree). It'll be the Admins who decide how or if to do it.

They may very well just tell me "Cog, yer nuts, now get back to work!" :p

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Mmmm.... Are you talking about technical problems related to the programming? Or something else?

Keep in mind that I can only suggest such a thing to the Admins (and I'm just thinking out loud, to some degree). It'll be the Admins who decide how or if to do it.

They may very well just tell me "Cog, yer nuts, now get back to work!" :p

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

First, it might be worth splitting the thread *if* you wanted to do so, since I believe we are all really talking about the following:

Are old adopted NS UN resolutions good examples of what is considered legal with current UN rules?

The answer is no. We've seen frequent decisions in your "A Case Study in Deleted Proposals" (or whatever the actual name is) sticked thread. The Most Glorious Hack also has had the UN Gnomes come in and talk about these decisions as well. (And for those of you who are interested in UN moderation, Hack has done his cleaning on #nationstates in the past, and it very good about explaining *why* he deletes proposals. <--- I highly recommend lurking and just listening to him some evening if you have the time.)


My opinion:
I don't believe we need to really go back and delete "grandfathered" proposals. And there are examples were resolutions that were illegal slipped by moderation and were adopted. For example, the Law of the Sea was considered by some to be submitted in the wrong category. Others suggested that the Eon Convention on Genocide contradicted a UN resolution prohibiting double jepoardy (I think there was some wiggle room here since the original resolution also made "real world" references to a "Grand Jury" -- capitalized on purpose). Heck, these are two of my favorite resolutions.

Basically for players to say, "This is legal, because it was in the past!" is only half of the research necessary. It is a good start, but these arguments can and should be countered by other players by saying, "True, but months later, the moderators ruled {X}, when they deleted this proposal as shown in the Case Study of Deleted Proposals."

This is still worth bringing up to the Admins, but I would not characterize the need to house clean as "pressing". In fact, as UN players you've given us the power of repeal.

The only reason I've not targetted either of the Basic Health Care resolutions, is my political allies are split. Half of them like the first resolution, half like the second. I'm not sure which resolution I feel should go. ;)

Mmmm.... Are you talking about technical problems related to the programming? Or something else?

Keep in mind that I can only suggest such a thing to the Admins (and I'm just thinking out loud, to some degree). It'll be the Admins who decide how or if to do it.

They may very well just tell me "Cog, yer nuts, now get back to work!" :p

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I was talking about the morals of the thing to be honest. If the resolution has become law then (personally) I think it would be better for a repeal to remove it if it is illegal, rather than the "hand of god" coming in and removing it in an instant. My basis for this is it takes a lot of work to get it approved and voted in to law, and it has to have a fair amount of support and a certain amount of scrutiny. Plus it is - again in my view - somewhat undemocratic :}

(I can't imagine the programming side would be that hard. If you can put it in you can take it out just as easily. But what do I know?)