NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like a ruling on whether the second operative clause of my recent draft proposal violates the metagaming rule for UN Resolutions. The proposal reads as follows:
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Resolution Name: Ex Post Facto Law

Description: The General Assembly,

NOTING that the retroactive criminalization of an action which was legal at the time of commission, or the imposition of a stronger penalty than was permitted at the time of commission—known as ex post facto law—is injust and a violation of basic human rights,

ALSO NOTING that there are actions which are considered universally to be criminal in nature, regardless of domestic statutes,

1. ENJOINS member nations from the creation, and from the enforcement of, ex post facto law;

2. ENCOURAGES all other nations to do the same;

3. ALLOWS for the creation of a committee to determine and define as necessary those actions which are universally abhorrent and criminal, and which shall be exempt from the prohibitions of this resolution.
The discussion thread is located here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444745). Thank you.

Without reading the referral thread, first glance for me says "looks ok"

Question (which was initially the explicit point I recommended mod ruling on), can we recommend things to non-UN members, so long as we don't force them to do anything?

Bump

can we recommend things to non-UN members, so long as we don't force them to do anything?
If you state in the proposal anything that specifically points to non-UN nations, we'd most likely kill it.

If you proposed a NS Olympics and stated that "it is open to all nations", that's suffiently vague as to be interpreted as "All NS nations" or "All NSUN nations". That's acceptable. If you specifically invite Non-UN nations, it's not acceptable.


Forgottenlands, you're spending an inordinate amount of time trying to nail down rulings on abtruse points of law in the UN. I don't like defining precedents that are likely to be used on proposals that have nothing to do with the original ruling, and I suspect I speak for the rest of us on that. We'll deal with situations when they come up. In the meantime, Hack's Proposal Rules was hammered out over a long period of time with an awful lot of input, and will have to suffice.

We actually DO have quite a bit to do that isn't UN rules-lawyering. I for one would appreciate it if you kept your hypotheticals in the UN forum for now.

This came up as a debate point between several members within the thread regarding this draft. I know before that people have debated it and no one actually seemed to understand what the rules were regarding encouragement of non-un members, explicitly or implicitly. In more than one case that I can think of, a person had decided to abstain on including a certain wording because of the possibility the mods might strike it illegal due to the metagaming. As such, I was curious to what the actual rules are. If I can't find them here, where can I find them? IMO, there are a lot of areas in Hacks laws that can be misinterpreted, and the fear is that if someone submits something of questionable legality, they're going to get it deleted.

In many ways, I'm wondering how my question was out of line? I specifically brought the point forth that was the main reason people circulated "take it to the mods" and wasn't mentioned by the proposer in his initial request for a ruling. My concern was that perhaps you had missed something that Hack or Cog or another moderator might have caught and felt was in violation of the rules.

*looks quickly through list of topics with my name on them

There are 5 topics in the last month that have my name on them, and I'm pretty sure that is my entire collection of topics (as thread starter). Amongst them are Seperation of Church and State (alright, perhaps that was more of an obvious one), Resolution 110 appeal - which was basically a continuation of the appeal started by Reformatia but looking for an actual answer other than "I don't have time to read all the arguments", a request for a lock on a thread, a question about whether Labeling standards was misclassified (which came up as a debate in the un forum), and a request for a clarification on a mod action on me - which ended up being my stupidity. With exception to Church and State, how is this an inordinate amount of time looking for mod rulings.

Hold on a sec, there's no need for this to get out of hand. I'm planning to submit the final draft in the next few days, and if no moderator has said by then that the encouragement clause constitutes a violation of the rules, it will be included in the resolution. I've done what I can to make sure the proposal is legal; Hack posted in the draft thread and didn't mention any violations; Frisbeeteria has said in this thread that it looks okay. As far as I'm concerned the matter has been dealt with. I appreciate your help, Forgottenlands. If you have something further to discuss with Frisbeeteria I suggest you do it privately or in another thread.