NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to know if this is illegal before I submit it.



Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Flibbleites

REALIZING that UN members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGEING the fact that UN resolutions only affect UN members,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards UN members,

REALIZING that the UN members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

RESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

I'd say probably not. It seems to be limited future Resolutions and giving UN nations the ability to ignore future Resolutions. But... I'm half asleep here, so I'd hold out for a second opinion.

I don't see it as being any more limiting as any other resolution. Especailly when you consider that several other passed resolutions declare that nations have certain rights, most noteablely the most recently passed one National Systems of Tax.

And Wegason no there is no UN resolution banning nukes, and I posted it here to get an official ruling from the mods.

I reckon it's OK, but I hardly see how a resolution sanctioning the possession of nuclear weapons is 'mild'.

I reckon it's OK, but I hardly see how a resolution sanctioning the possession of nuclear weapons is 'mild'.
I listed it as mild because it doesn't force nations to possess them.

Absent any current law to the contrary, UN nations already HAVE the right to own nukes. While (IMO) legal, this strikes me as pointless.

I believe Flib's reason for doing this is an attempt to get rid of the omnipresent "BAN NOOKS" proposals. Can't say I blame him.

I'd suggest that the reference to non-UN members be removed, for a few reasons. Some non-UN members actually choose to RP following many UN resolutions ... and in fact are not UN members because of multi rules. Second, that ratio is subject to change -- so while the resolution might be correct in spirit, I think the number should be avoided.

I'd suggest you also *number* your activating clauses (i.e. the two last fragments).


I think Flib is just trying to enshrine (?) the status quo via a resolution, and all resolutions restrict something the minute they grant something, that is the way all "laws" work. As proposed, Flib's proposal seeks to restrict the UN's ability to regulate nukes, but there are work arounds. There is nothing in Flib's proposal that says nations have the right to *use* nukes. I like to think what he has done is just like what we've all read about in Dune, namely that the planets can stockpile nukes.

I think it is legal, though agree it doesn't do much. That said, it has been a while since the nuke debate hit the UN floor, and it would be *fun* to see how nations respond. I'd ask that the mods rule this legal and let Flib fight for it.

(Of course, I'll be voting against any proposal that increases proliferation.) ;)

The main reason this is here is because of my interpretation of the Game Mechanics section in which it explicitly bans limiting the UN's ability to make future proposals on a subject, which I interpreted to be a ban on resolutions that do just that and have no other action to them.

The main reason this is here is because of my interpretation of the Game Mechanics section in which it explicitly bans limiting the UN's ability to make future proposals on a subject, which I interpreted to be a ban on resolutions that do just that and have no other action to them.

I disagree with that opinion.

Three moderators have stated somewhat different opinions:

Hack -- likely not (but wants time to think)
Fris -- probably OK (but not sure of the point)
sirocco -- OK, but not mild

Personally, I think Flib is dead right ... *all* resolutions build laws and regulate (including limiting future action) what can and / or can't be done.

The issue is less about limiting future actions (which Hack said might be the case), but more about spelling out where "political" power goes: to the UN or individual nations. To be honest, we've never had a category that deals with this, but Fris himself used the Political Stability category last year to show how nations can give up rights to the UN via his Rights and Duties resolution. Flib is doing the opposite with a different subject.

This is where the debate on this proposed resolution *should* go.

Take out nukes and think of this as a Gun Control resolution. Gun Control resolutions in this game can restrict or lessen domestic gun control regulations. The problem is, Flib's proposal wouldn't really be doing either, because what it really is is a reaffirmation of sovereignty on *one* issue: possesion of weapons of mass destruction. So what if somebody made a gun control resolution that gave nations the *right* to pass along to their citizens the right to own guns. Personally, I'd say that this would be a "lessening" of international gun control laws. So for Flib's resolution I think he / she is trading international political say on nukes and handing that authority directly to nations ... perhaps a restriction on the UN in the interest of international defense (and the game impact will bump up International Def spending a bit, which seems pretty reasonable).

However, the moderators make a decision, I do think it is something that they should try to cast as other proposals in other UN categories. It is an important question.

And, thus, the problem is highlighted: The rules, under the way they are worded on that issue, only give an idea of what it does cover (and not even a complete one) but don't even begin to deal with what it doesn't. Is this only a case of a proposal including a section saying it cannot be repealed? Or is this a case of extending to ban all proposals that attempt to do nothing but limit the UN's power to legislate? Even on here and with three mods ruling, we get differing opinions on it. Worse, the most recent example is far from the best, as it was itself the hotbed of a near-flamewar during its vote time and has varying interpretations about whether or not it actually does anything, while all of the past examples can be overruled as viable due to how far back in the past they are.

Basically, the final ruling on this matter will be setting a precedent on which interpretation of the rule is correct.

Is this only a case of a proposal including a section saying it cannot be repealed?Would you care to tell me just where in this proposal does it say that it can't be repealed?

Even on here and with three mods ruling, we get differing opinions on it.

Read their posts again.

Hack said he was leaning towards: no, but admitted he needed time to collect his thoughts. Fris and sirocco actually both essentially said, "OK, but why do you want to do this?"

I think the mods aren't that concerned about the game mechanics issue, but that they've questioned the need for this proposed resolution -- this is a subtle, but important difference.

As for your point that this resolution doesn't allow repeals, there is NOTHING in Flib's proposal that remotely suggests that. Speficially I'm talking about when you wrote:

Is this only a case of a proposal including a section saying it cannot be repealed?

I think you are misreading the resolution ... so I've added numbers to the only two activating clauses:

1. DECLARES that UN members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. RESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons.

The first statement says nations can own nukes. The second statement reiterates this by saying they don't have to, but it is their sovereign right.

If the resolution is repealed, both clauses go away. It could be that in two years from now, enough NationStates players (hopefully I can talk more of my European friends into playing) will decide that MAD is a bad policy and "give back" the UN the ability to decide on this issue and repeal the resolution -- assuming it even passes. That is the way NationStates works, and nothing in Flib's proposal suggests that it is going to be an exception to this rule.

Now, if this *is* the source of your misunderstanding (I am just guessing here), I think Flib may want to reword the second clause so that other NationStates players don't make the same mistake.

Instead of "RESERVES", I'd recommend "2. REITERATES the sovereign right of nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons or not." But this isn't to say that the word "Reserves" is bad or inappropriate. I see it in international treaties / UN resolutions all the time.

I'll again point out, I'm so voting no on this proposal. It seems legal and well written to me, but my RPed nation will have NOTHING to do with nukes. :)

I think it is partially my fault for the misinterpretations. I wasn't intending to get across the idea that the resolution actually had that in it, but was intending it to come across as dealing with what the rule bans and only what the rule bans.

As for the mods: Hack cited the same rule I used in my interpretation, Frisbeeteria asked what the point of it is, and Sirocco cited strength. Three different interpretations of the rules present, if you assume they used all of the rules at the same time.

The rules, under the way they are worded on that issue, only give an idea of what it does cover (and not even a complete one) but don't even begin to deal with what it doesn't.

I disagree. I believe the rules are pretty clear about this. Here's the Game Mechanics section of Hack's rules:Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.
[emphasis added]

So a proposal can't change which types of proposals are considered, or, I should say "forbid" future action by the UN--beyond that already done by game mechanics now (since Hack’s rules are allowed to limit what proposals can be submitted).

Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)


Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.


So, all resolutions limit future UN proposals by making it illegal for duplicate and contradictory proposals to be submitted(once Definition of Marriage passed, you can no longer submit proposals banning gay marriage, etc.). So, proposals which would limit future proposals in this way (and don't attempt to change the game mechanics rules) are legal. Proposals which try to change the proposals the UN considers (without using the already standing Hack’s rule) are illegal.

When I read Flib's proposal, it seems to me the only reason future proposals that would ban nukes wouldn't be allowed is because they are contradictory or duplicating to Flib's proposal--not because they violate a clause in Flib's proposal which changes Game Mechanics to not allowing nuke ban proposals to be submitted (since such a clase is non-existent). As such, I really don't see how Flib's proposal, or “National Systems of Tax” for that matter, are illegal or attempt to change Game Mechanics.

Worse, the most recent example is far from the best, as it was itself the hotbed of a near-flamewar during its vote time and has varying interpretations about whether or not it actually does anything

Actually, to call it a "near-flamewar" is a misnomer. A "war" really needs two sides. Some posters flamed me. I didn't reciprocate. Only one side was flaming. Therefore, it wasn't a "flamewar" (or even a "near-flamewar"). It was, at best, "half-of-a-flamewar".

And the presence of different interpretations (well, I've actually only seen DLE having an alternate interpretation), doesn't make the resolution better or worse (voted the favorite resolution of 2004 by the forum--"Definition of Marriage" causes more than its fair-share of flames). And all resolutions have various interpretations. I, for example, didn't interpret DLE's ‘IR weapons’ proposal (or whatever it was called) as actually banning nukes. Does that mean it isn't a good lesson on the need to read closer and more carefully consider proposals? No. I think it's important that we remember that a member nations' interpretation of a resolution will only affect that member. I can't tell other UN members how to implement a resolution and they can’t tell me. Disagreement over resolution implication is just part of the game.

Hm. Okay, I've reread this (headache now, but at least I'm awake). I'm going to side with Fris on this. Legal but largely pointless.

And I'd say 'mild' is as strong as it should get as it's not really changing anything.

PC, you will have to excuse me for not bothering to give what you say respect. After all, why would you talk to someone you have previous accused of stalking you, dragging down the entire UN forum, advocating childishness and immaturity, and who managed to be one of the causes of you refusing to post on an entire forum? I would be a bit more civil, but the last post by you that dealt with me is something that I'm still surprised you weren't moderated over.

Hack- Thanks for the ruling.

why would you talk to someone you have previous accused of…
You've accused me of things, too, DLE. And I’ve decided to put those accusations behind me, give your post a respectful response, and refuse to become embroiled in derisive confrontations with you (or to become involved in any opportunities for derision of you, period--onsite or offsite). I would appreciate it if you showed me the same respect. If that's not an option for you (for whatever reason), I think it's best for both of us if you ignore my posts.


Anyway, Flibbleites, congrats on the okay.

Ongoing disputes should not be fought in Moderation. Knock it off, the lot of ya.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Edit: The reply to PC was being typed at the time the moderator decision came. I am not removing it, however, due to a certain problem: I'm incredibly lazy.

PC, I've at least enough honor to accuse you to your face. And enough gall to have evidence to back the accusations ready for if you asked. And unlike you, I didn't throw a hissyfit and leave a forum just because I disliked the mods not ruling in the way I wanted. Hell, you don't see me refusing to post on the UN forum just because the disputes between Mikitivity and myself were not ruled on in a way I would have preferred. There are certain actions that are undeniably undeserving of granting the person who committed them even the basics of respect or dignity. If you hadn't left the UN forum in the way you did, then maybe you wouldn't have to deal with this.

To speak to you is to waste my time and breath, and to assume you'll ever get it is to hold a foolish hope. PC, when you made your decision to leave the UN in the way you did, you pretty much assassinated your own character. All anyone has to do is link to your posts and you are automatically disrespected. It's not because of who you targetted, but how you acted. The who targetted isn't something that matters, as I've been called far worse than you can even begin to imagine, and in more languages than most people speak. At this point you are stuck with a mistake, and attempting to go back to the UN forum now is not an action that will undo any damage.

The only reason I even bothered to waste my time on this is the fact that you butted into something that doesn't concern you. This is a UN matter relating to a proposal being discussed on the forums, and you are no longer of that group. And that is by your decision, not mine or anyone else's. And, yes, I do feel that someone dealing with a matter of their region does have the right to tell me to butt out of it if they post it on here.

Flib- I posted the post on there. We may have to let that thread die and start a new one to undergo a few changes. If not, we could request the arguement about legality be removed from the thread and simply deleted, so as to remove the clutter.

That is QUITE enough, DemonLordEnigma. You've been asked to stop this sniping before, and Frisbeeteria has told you explicitly to stop doing it in the Moderation forum now. Yet 17 minutes after his post, you chose to continue despite the knowledge you'd been told to stop, as evidenced in your first lines:

Edit: The reply to PC was being typed at the time the moderator decision came. I am not removing it, however, due to a certain problem: I'm incredibly lazy.

This is disingenuous, as it logically requires more effort to go back, edit to recognize the ruling, and hit ENTER despite it than it does to abort posting. Since you felt the need to have the last word, you may consider yourself Officially Warned for personal attacks.