NationStates Jolt Archive

hi,

The following proposal had been submitted:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=dolphins
Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #106


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: UN Resolution #106: Protection of Dolphins Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: 1): COMMENDING the goals of United Nations Resolution #106, Protection of Dolphins Act;

2): NOTING the passage of United Nations Resolution #119, UNCoESB;

3): FURTHER NOTING article 7 of UNCoESB which bans all hunting of endangered species, in addition to other provisions which ensure the survival of endangered species;

4): CONVINCED that Resolution #106 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;

5): BELIEVING that the removal of unnecessary legislation is in the best interests of the member nations of the UN;

6): HEREBY repeals United Nations Resolution #106, Protection of Dolphins Act.

Voting Ends: Wed Oct 26 2005

We would like to remark that:
- #119 “UNCoESB” deals with endangered species but offers no guarantee for non-endangered species, and
- Most dolphin species are not endangered
=> #119 "UNCoESB” don't protect most dolphin species

Or #106 "Protection of Dolphins” protects dolphins

=> We think the UN cannot be “CONVINCED that Resolution #106 "Protection of Dolphins Act" is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119 ”UNCoESB"", [paragraph 4]

Thanks for your time

#106 "Protection of Dolphins Act"
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/59944/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=105
#119 "UNCoESB”
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=118

This belongs in the UN forum, not Moderation. Moderation is for reporting people who break the rules

Furthermore, if you believe the proposal is actually illegal - and I can't see that you are arguing it is - then you should report it via the Getting Help Page (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help), not the Mod forum.

Furthermore, if you believe the proposal is actually illegal - and I can't see that you are arguing it is - then you should report it via the Getting Help Page (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help), not the Mod forum.


thanks, i didn't know about this page
the report has been sent

I think this is getting exceptionally sidetracked, but that is still not a Moderation or Getting Help request.

Either of the above options is for rules breaking, in other words, anything illegal.

The clashing of one UN resolution to another is a UN Forum issue. It's a UN gameplay, not Moderation or Getting Help. Take this to the UN Forum, that's what they're there for.

I think this is getting exceptionally sidetracked, but that is still not a Moderation or Getting Help request.

Either of the above options is for rules breaking, in other words, anything illegal.

The clashing of one UN resolution to another is a UN Forum issue. It's a UN gameplay, not Moderation or Getting Help. Take this to the UN Forum, that's what they're there for.

i already open this thread and send a "Request for Moderator Intervention" for "inappropriate UN proposal"

i prefer not to do more, i think it's ok now, no?



Furthermore, if you believe the proposal is actually illegal - and I can't see that you are arguing it is - then you should report it via the Getting Help Page (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help), not the Mod forum.


We think it's an "honest mistake" violation as, the repeal states :

4): CONVINCED that Resolution #106 is rendered redundant by the protections provided in Resolution #119;

but #106 protect dolphins
and #119 don't protect dolphins
(as #119 protect only non-endangered species, and
most dolphin species are not endangered)

I think it is ok, but I should probably just clarify. I wasn't suggesting that this was a mod-issue: just that, should something be worthy of mod consideration, it should be handled by GHR rather than forum request. I was not commenting on whether this specific proposal is illegal, but simply making a point of procedure for future reference.

I think it is ok, but I should probably just clarify. I wasn't suggesting that this was a mod-issue: just that, should something be worthy of mod consideration, it should be handled by GHR rather than forum request. I was not commenting on whether this specific proposal is illegal, but simply making a point of procedure for future reference.


thanks, GHR=Getting Help request ?("Request for Moderator Intervention" for "inappropriate UN proposal")?
i've done that
sorry for having opened this thread

thanks, i didn't know about this page
the report has been sent

Since the report is sent, I'll lock this.

Not to step on Euro's toes, but I'm going to pop this back open.

There is nothing illegal about this Proposal. The endangered/nonendangered status of "most" dolphins is not a matter for Moderator discussion, but is something that would need to be brought up in UN Forum as discussion; especially since arguing the endangered status of any animal is more than a little iffy on NS Earth.

Not to step on Euro's toes, but I'm going to pop this back open.

There is nothing illegal about this Proposal. The endangered/nonendangered status of "most" dolphins is not a matter for Moderator discussion, but is something that would need to be brought up in UN Forum as discussion; especially since arguing the endangered status of any animal is more than a little iffy on NS Earth.


so i should post this in the UN forum?

If you want, be my guest; just like any other Proposal trying to hit quorum.

If you want, be my guest; just like any other Proposal trying to hit quorum.


Ok i will put it on the UN forum, then

It seems to me, its not legal to write in repeal FALSE argument discrediting the resolution to be repealed?

We read the following in your "Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]"

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't

Last time I looked, NationStates provided no information about what animals are endangered. It is therefore a real world reference (and thus any Proposal dealing with endangered species would be illegal), or it is a matter of role-play. I choose to consider it a role-play issue.

The author views the protections in 119 to be sufficient enough that specific protections are not needed for dolphins. If you disagree, debate them. It's not a matter that requires Moderator interferance.

ok i posted in the UN forum

Last time I looked, NationStates provided no information about what animals are endangered. It is therefore a real world reference (and thus any Proposal dealing with endangered species would be illegal), or it is a matter of role-play. I choose to consider it a role-play issue.

The author views the protections in 119 to be sufficient enough that specific protections are not needed for dolphins. If you disagree, debate them. It's not a matter that requires Moderator interferance.


To answer to your comment:

We cannot say if Dolphins are endangered in NS or not, so we cannot say if they are protected by UNCoESB, so we cannot say anyway if there is a redundancy

The repeal states that the UN is convinced that Dolphins are undangered in NS

The repeal states that the UN is convinced that Dolphins are undangered in NSDoesn't much matter.

There is nothing to state the status of dolphins one way or the other, it's up to the UN to decide. "Replanting Trees" shows that the UN is concerned about deforestation. "Ballast Water" shows that the UN is concerned about invasion of foreign organisms. "End Slavery" assumed that slavery was a big problem in UN nations.

Kind of like how your Resolution assumed that in some UN nations, "Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children."

Every Resolution makes certain assumptions about the status of the NS world and it is up to UN members to decide if A) they agree with the stated status, and B) if they feel the Proposal is a good way to handle it. This Repeal is no different; it is just making an assumption that you happen to disagree with.

Doesn't much matter.

There is nothing to state the status of dolphins one way or the other, it's up to the UN to decide. "Replanting Trees" shows that the UN is concerned about deforestation. "Ballast Water" shows that the UN is concerned about invasion of foreign organisms. "End Slavery" assumed that slavery was a big problem in UN nations.

Kind of like how your Resolution assumed that in some UN nations, "Same sex couples and non married couples are discriminated against, for they are not allowed to adopt children."

Every Resolution makes certain assumptions about the status of the NS world and it is up to UN members to decide if A) they agree with the stated status, and B) if they feel the Proposal is a good way to handle it. This Repeal is no different; it is just making an assumption that you happen to disagree with.


So the UN made the assumption that dolphins are undangered?

also, please may you consider the following:

under #106 alone, dolphins are protected endangered or not

under #119 alone, dolphins will be protected only when endangered

=> #106 is not rendered redundant

and repeal don't have to include false argument

Love and esterel, I really don't think this is a mod forum issue. Nonetheless - and I'm clearly not speaking for the mods here - yes, it did; well, this repeal does. It assumes dolphins are protected by UNCoESB. If you assume they are not, then you must also assume they do not need protection, as they are evidently not endangered.

It assumes dolphins are protected by UNCoESB. If you assume they are not, then you must also assume they do not need protection, as they are evidently not endangered.


this is not the position of the UN until #106 is repealed

#106 is a law in UN at the moment, even if dolphin are not endangered, you like it or not, they are protected by #106

this is not the position of the UN until #106 is repealed

#106 is a law in UN at the moment, even if dolphin are not endangered, you like it or not, they are protected by #106

Yes, I know it is. We're discussing a repeal to remove it. Hence 'it assumes'.

I hope you will forgive my last intervention on his topic, but sorry, i think the dealing about RL reference is strange

The Most Glorious Hack: about dolphin endangered status or not

"There is nothing to state the status of dolphins one way or the other, it's up to the UN to decide"

Frisbeeteria: about solar panel

"the most economically catastrophic UN proposal ever voted on by this body".

We don't uderstand why there is something to state that solar panel would have been the most catastrophic UN proposal ever in NS, if NS can be so different than RL

That's because my comment was about the economic roleplay consequences. As far as the in-game consequences, they would be identical to any other resolution with the same Category and Strength.

Since this has been REPEATEDLY pointed out as a non-moderation topic, iLock again.