Reformentia
27-06-2005, 21:19
The repeal of the Eliminate Bio Weapons proposal is pretty much a certainty at this point and I'm preparing my proposed replacement resolution. There have been a couple mutterings about possible illegalities in it and I wanted to vet it before submitting it to make sure it didn't run afoul of moderation.
The full proposal is here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427821
One complaint was that article 6 violated the "no UN army/world police" rule. I don't see how it does. It doesn't create any army or police force whatsoever. It doesn't give the UN command of any existing army or police force but leaves them firmly at the sole direction of the individual nations they belong to. And on top of that it's only an "urging" clause requesting member nations to lend military support to any fellow UN nation which is attacked by biological weaponry, entirely at the discretion of each individual nation. I'm almost 100% certain there's no illegality there but I'd like confirmation.
The other complaint was about the prohibition on military partnerships with nations who are known to be possessing/using/etc... proscribed biological weaponry. It was claimed this would fall under "gameplay". I don't think it necessarily does but I'm not quite as sure on this one. I suppose it could if moderators ruled that this would require removing nations from regions they were located in and such in order to enforce it... however if the ruling was that this applied only to roleplayed conflicts (since "military partnerships" in the sense of regional invaders and defenders don't exactly involve the concept of weaponry anyway) and was simply one more article of the UN resolutions that anyone roleplaying as a UN member nation has to keep in mind to avoid a godmodding charge for ignoring the laws to which all UN members are supposed to be subject, then I wouldn't see the problem with it since no moderator intervention to gameplay is required.
The third claim was that making UN members conform to anything like the clauses in the proposal was "restricting roleplaying" and thus illegal. This one I really didn't understand. If you're roleplaying as a UN member then wouldn't every single one of the UN resolutions restrict roleplaying in that you are expected to roleplay AS a UN member who is subject to those resolutions? I also could find no rule in the UN proposals sticky which referred to "restricting roleplay". Clarification here would be appreciated.
So... do I have to rewrite something or am I legal? I'd rather know now than get a warning for something after the submission.
The full proposal is here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427821
One complaint was that article 6 violated the "no UN army/world police" rule. I don't see how it does. It doesn't create any army or police force whatsoever. It doesn't give the UN command of any existing army or police force but leaves them firmly at the sole direction of the individual nations they belong to. And on top of that it's only an "urging" clause requesting member nations to lend military support to any fellow UN nation which is attacked by biological weaponry, entirely at the discretion of each individual nation. I'm almost 100% certain there's no illegality there but I'd like confirmation.
The other complaint was about the prohibition on military partnerships with nations who are known to be possessing/using/etc... proscribed biological weaponry. It was claimed this would fall under "gameplay". I don't think it necessarily does but I'm not quite as sure on this one. I suppose it could if moderators ruled that this would require removing nations from regions they were located in and such in order to enforce it... however if the ruling was that this applied only to roleplayed conflicts (since "military partnerships" in the sense of regional invaders and defenders don't exactly involve the concept of weaponry anyway) and was simply one more article of the UN resolutions that anyone roleplaying as a UN member nation has to keep in mind to avoid a godmodding charge for ignoring the laws to which all UN members are supposed to be subject, then I wouldn't see the problem with it since no moderator intervention to gameplay is required.
The third claim was that making UN members conform to anything like the clauses in the proposal was "restricting roleplaying" and thus illegal. This one I really didn't understand. If you're roleplaying as a UN member then wouldn't every single one of the UN resolutions restrict roleplaying in that you are expected to roleplay AS a UN member who is subject to those resolutions? I also could find no rule in the UN proposals sticky which referred to "restricting roleplay". Clarification here would be appreciated.
So... do I have to rewrite something or am I legal? I'd rather know now than get a warning for something after the submission.