NationStates Jolt Archive

iv. a timeframe of ten years from the passage of this Resolution for the complete implementation of (i.-iii.), though not precluding any states from completing implementation more rapidly, or of ten years from the point of entry into the United Nations of states joining the body after the passage of this Resolution;

I'm drafting a chemical weapons ban, and had included this clause. It was noted that this might cause problems with people who left and rejoined the UN. Is it legal to create a precondition for entry into the UN as having implemented the resolution? In other words, maintaining the ten year timeframe, and further mandating that any nations joining the UN after that time must be in compliance with the resolution. Here's how that clause might look:

iv. a timeframe of ten years from the passage of this Resolution for the complete implementation of (i.-iii.), though not precluding any states from completing implementation more rapidly, and further demanding that any states joining the UN after this period already have implemented (i.-iii.).

That doesn't constitute a games mechanics violation, does it?

Probably. I'd leave out references to timeframe altogether, since time flows at variable RP rates in some sections of the game and in real time in others. People are going to argue that 10 years = 10 days, or 240 days, or what have you. Just say "it must be done" and let time take care of itself.

Probably. I'd leave out references to timeframe altogether, since time flows at variable RP rates in some sections of the game and in real time in others. People are going to argue that 10 years = 10 days, or 240 days, or what have you. Just say "it must be done" and let time take care of itself.

Sorry...probably would be illegal, or probably would be legal? In any case, I understand the point about fluid time, but by giving a timeframe, it would at least make sure people didn't 'dawdle' in their rate of decommissioning. It might be easier to drop the whole clause, but then that opens a loophole. Well, anyway, that's a question for the UN, not moderation. But, to check, is it illegal to include a stipulation that states joining the UN after the passage of the resolution must already have implemented the legislation?