NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow, I was just going to let the 'gay rights' argument go, but it seems others can't find it within themselves.

I just got this in the ol' telegram box:'b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide to stop hosting a UNGA, at which time the UNGA will close immediately and UN personnel will remove UN equipment and themselves from the nation in a timely manner'

UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect.
I think that's really funny because not only has this proposal text been on the UN floor since, forever ago (giving Hack or GMC--doubtless the mod who did this--every opportunity to raise this concern before). But also because Mod precedent suggests the type of opt-in service "UN Gun Anmesties" provides--the same the mods allowed in "Microcredit Bazaar" and "UN Small Business Classroom"--is legal.

Now, I know that the passage of a proposal does not necessarily mean its legal. But there never was any significant questioning of those two by the moderators after their passage (which I assumed meant they were clearly legal). It would seem that understanding this assumption, if moderation questioned this proposal's legality, they'd raise the question publicly, consult with other mods, give me a chance to voice my side, etc.

Nope none of that. Shoot first, ask questions later, it seems.

Here's the proposal campaign thread, it has a copy of the proposal in it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463346

Please get this resolved so that those of us not trying to exact personal vengeance by abusing the power entrusted to us can get back to the business of passing legislation and playing a game that should be (and used to be) fun.

To add to the list of greivances, my sig.

It had a list of quotes about dictatorship which, believe it or not, had nothing to do with the dispute with Hack and GMC (Like I said, I was going to drop it). Those quotes are gone now, replaced with a "Give it a rest".

Am I the only one who feels that someone's picking on me?

You know, many of us like a discussion of legality and a discussion that furthers our understanding of that game. However, that discussion isn't going to happen if you continue to bait the mods (as you did in your signature and you're doing now in this thread).

Please get this resolved so that those of us not trying to exact personal vengeance by abusing the power entrusted to us can get back to the business of passing legislation and playing a game that should be (and used to be) fun.

If you left these kinds of comments out of your posts, you'd likely get a lot further at discussing these issues with the mods. That is, if you're actually trying to discuss the issue as you claim and not simply enflame the situation. I know we disagreed in the thread and, in truth, I still disagree with you, but this is a friendly suggestion of how you might actually have a discussion rather than a pissing contest.

You know, many of us like a discussion of legality and a discussion that furthers our understanding of that game. However, that discussion isn't going to happen if you continue to bait the mods (as you did in your signature and you're doing now in this thread).

If you left these kinds of comments out of your posts, you'd likely get a lot further at discussing these issues with the mods. That is, if you're actually trying to discuss the issue as you claim and not simply enflame the situation. I know we disagreed in the thread and, in truth, I still disagree with you, but this is a friendly suggestion of how you might actually have a discussion rather than a pissing contest.
Yeah that part is a little pointed, but I think that whether or not this becomes a worthwhile discussion is entirely in the mods' hands. I mean, I've been told by the mods plenty of times just to ignore things that are offensive to me, if those insinuations of personal vendetta offend them, I'm sure they can ignore them. Or, better yet, they can refute them with good, solid evidence.

And I did not bait anyone with my sig (the most recent one). To think my quotes on dictatorship were about the mods is more than a little short-sighted, given that I live in the US: a nation which is about to put another 'untouchable' justice on its highest court, a nation which is spying on its citizens, a nation which is enforcing its military might on other sovereign nations. Does it really make more sense that I'm "denouncing a mod dictatorship", or that I'm responding to the RL world around me (especially after being directly told that baiting mods in my sig would earn me a forumban)? C'mon, give me some credit.

Yeah that part is a little pointed, but I think that whether or not this becomes a worthwhile discussion is entirely in the mods' hands. I mean, I've been told by the mods plenty of times just to ignore things that are offensive to me, if those insinuations of personal vendetta offend them, I'm sure they can ignore them. Or, better yet, they can refute them with good, solid evidence.

Refuting an assertion requires exactly the same level of evidence offered when making it. In this case, you've offered none.

And I did not bait anyone with my sig (the most recent one). To think my quotes on dictatorship were about the mods is more than a little short-sighted, given that I live in the US: a nation which is about to put another 'untouchable' justice on its highest court, a nation which is spying on its citizens, a nation which is enforcing its military might on other sovereign nations. Does it really make more sense that I'm "denouncing a mod dictatorship", or that I'm responding to the RL world around me (especially after being directly told that baiting mods in my sig would earn me a forumban)? C'mon, give me some credit.
If your sig was edited twice and the second was different than the first, then I didn't see it. I did, however, see the first one. I did see your unsupported assertions of corruption in this thread. If your actually attempting to foster a discussion, you're going about it the wrong way.

To add to the list of greivances, my sig.

It had a list of quotes about dictatorship which, believe it or not, had nothing to do with the dispute with Hack and GMC (Like I said, I was going to drop it). Those quotes are gone now, replaced with a "Give it a rest".

Am I the only one who feels that someone's picking on me?

No, I think you have a fair reason to be upset.

It is highly unprofessional and abusive for a moderator to change another players signature file. The standard advice is to email the admin, and you should go ahead and do so in a short and polite email.


As for your proposal, was there an official action taken against you? If so, then changing your signature file after the fact is a much more likely a personal dig. If not, you might want to consider the new ruling to be in effect and consider those older resolutions grandfathered.

As for the telegram

"'b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide to stop hosting a UNGA, at which time the UNGA will close immediately and UN personnel will remove UN equipment and themselves from the nation in a timely manner'

UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect."

Plenty of UN resolutions use statements such as: RECOMMENDS, SUGGESTS, CALLS UPON. When the game categories have allowed us, proposal authors of weak languaged resolutions (i.e. optional impacts) have used the MILD strength.

What was the category and strength of the deleted proposal? If it was a MILD strength, I would think that the Moderator statement "UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect" should be discussed.

No, I think you have a fair reason to be upset.

It is highly unprofessional and abusive for a moderator to change another players signature file. The standard advice is to email the admin, and you should go ahead and do so in a short and polite email.


As for your proposal, was there an official action taken against you? If so, then changing your signature file after the fact is a much more likely a personal dig. If not, you might want to consider the new ruling to be in effect and consider those older resolutions grandfathered.

Moderators often change sigs that are violating the rules in some fashion. One might even consider it their job, if one considers enforcing the rules to be the job of the moderators. Oh, wait...

Moderators often change sigs that are violating the rules in some fashion. One might even consider it their job, if one considers enforcing the rules to be the job of the moderators. Oh, wait...
Hold on. Weren't you just lecturing me about how it's better to catch flies with honey than vinegar?

Moderators often change sigs that are violating the rules in some fashion. One might even consider it their job, if one considers enforcing the rules to be the job of the moderators. Oh, wait...In my opinion, if someone's signature is violating rules and 1) it's egregious enough to not wait or 2) the player has been told to change and doesn't, I have no problems with a moderator changing a signature to comply with rules.

If moderators change a signature because they don't like what someone says, for instance if a mod edited my "Sic semper tyrannis" because they didn't like why I have that in my sig, I'd have a problem with it, especially since I don't consider that phrase to be a rule violation.

No, I think you have a fair reason to be upset.

It is highly unprofessional and abusive for a moderator to change another players signature file. The standard advice is to email the admin, and you should go ahead and do so in a short and polite email.
No actually, it isn't. Changing sigs when deemed necessary has always been in the realm of Moderator Control, and is neither 'highly unprofessional' nor 'abusive' unless you can prove that it had been done maliciously.

Of course he's free to email the admin. Anyone who feels they've been unfairly dealt with has always had this option - it isn't a big secret. However, given his past history and tendency to get inflammatory himself even when presented with answers to his questions (which in the previously mentioned situations he refused to accept, which is not the mod's problem but his), I wouldn't hold my breath for disciplinary action on whichever moderator handled this particular situation.

He also has no proof of which moderator changed his sig, or sent the tg. Perhaps it would be good to get actual clarification on that before flinging about accusations carelessly, all bias aside.

As for the telegram

"'b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide to stop hosting a UNGA, at which time the UNGA will close immediately and UN personnel will remove UN equipment and themselves from the nation in a timely manner'

UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect."

Plenty of UN resolutions use statements such as: RECOMMENDS, SUGGESTS, CALLS UPON. When the game categories have allowed us, proposal authors of weak languaged resolutions (i.e. optional impacts) have used the MILD strength.

What was the category and strength of the deleted proposal? If it was a MILD strength, I would think that the Moderator statement "UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect" should be discussed.Yes, it was a Mild Human Rights resolution (arguing that it would increase human choices if people could choose to leave violent lifestyles more freely).

The quoted section really doesn't make sense, either. I mean, Here's the basic outline of the proposal (the numbers aren't supposed to correspond with clause numbers):1. Nations can subscribe to this UN service

2. Subscribing nations have these requirements.

3. UN oversight and the host nations have these terms of negotiation (including the quoted section).

4. SUPPORTS national efforts to do the same thing.
My main gripe is that, examined closely, Microcredit Bazaar does the same thing (including having similar clauses to the quoted clause). It has an optional service, and it has some soft clauses (like the SUPPORTS) for similar national or international services.

It was ruled, I believe, that Microcredit Bazaar was legal because it wasn't "optional" in that those nations that fit into the "consenting" category had certain requirements enforced upon them. Differentiating "consenting" nations from "non-consenting" nations was seen as no different than differentiating between democracies and dictatorships in other proposals (such as Small Business Education, which applies certain market based recommendations only to free-market nations, since applying them to command economies wouldn't make sense), I thought.

That nations can opt-out of the UNGA (the quoted section) is merely fleshing out the ‘negotiations’ implied in Microcredit Bazaar and the expression of how one is defined as a "consenting nation" or a "non-consenting nation". And I could've made this case, and discussed this about the proposal at any time during the discussion of the proposal, or during the campaign thread.

Honestly, if the mods planned to delete it, they’d have all the time in the world. There are something like three proposals waiting, with quorum, in the list right now. So, even if my campaign gained the proposal quorum, it wouldn't be out of the moderators' power to delete until about a month from now. That's plenty of time to examine precedent, see if the rules were broken with Microcredit Bazaar, and Small business Education, and likely even change the ‘Optionality’ rules, if it came to that.

I mean, This is a close call, that seems to defy precedent and warrant discussion at the least: why would a mod rush to delete it, but an hour after it were submitted?

As an associate of PC, indirectly, I think all of this is a shame. Ultimately, though, I don't think he and whoever are likely to reconcile their differences, now, or probably ever. Oh well. As a UN forum regular, I am very interested in this proposal, and the legality ruling. Sig fiddling is one thing, but I'd really rather the discussion returned to whether or not clause 3b rendered the proposal illegal.

No actually, it isn't. Changing sigs when deemed necessary has always been in the realm of Moderator Control, and is neither 'highly unprofessional' nor 'abusive' unless you can prove that it had been done maliciously.

Did you read the signature???

The *fact* that it now reads "Give it a rest" indicates, that whatever was there before was changed to something to personally annoy the Powerhungry Chipmunks. It is not a helpful change. In fact, the current signature and the player complaint should be enough proof that the change was malicious.

A helpful change (and responsible moderation action) would be to simply delete an offensive signature.


He also has no proof of which moderator changed his sig, or sent the tg. Perhaps it would be good to get actual clarification on that before flinging about accusations carelessly, all bias aside.

He might not have proof, but you just accused the Powerhungry Chipmunks at having caused problems in the past, and thus it is likely that a particular moderator has shown a disliking towards him in the past as well ... meaning his guess probably isn't just a random accusation.



The moderators should simply look into *who* sent the telegram and discuss in private about who changed his sig.

I have no problem with moderators, but they shouldn't "fix" things in a way that might still bother a player.

As a UN forum regular, I am very interested in this proposal, and the legality ruling. Sig fiddling is one thing, but I'd really rather the discussion returned to whether or not clause 3b rendered the proposal illegal.I agree. Here, I'll quote the sections of Microcredit Bazaar I feel do the same things as "Gun Amnesty":.ESTABLISHES “The Microcredit Bazaar”, which will set up chapters in all interested member nations for the purpose of This has a level of optionality in the same way "Gun amnesty" does. Nations, once they stop being "interested member nations", no longer have an Bazaar chapter "ESTABLISHED" in their nation. Both this and 3b operate on the same assumption. 3b just spells out how such a "de-establishment" goes down without the UN losing resources and personnel.4.EMPOWERS “The Microcredit Bazaar” with the authority to negotiate with national governments the location, length of stay, and extensiveness in presentation of 'Bazaar' chapters within member nations;You don't negotiate with someone that has no choose but to do what you say. This negotiation is just spelled out further in "Gun Amnesty" Clause 3 (including subclause b):a)The UN may disallow or allow any practices...

b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide to stop hosting a UNGA...

c) Funding for the UNGA facilities, non-UN personnel...and any other UNGA expenditure is the responsibility of the host nation or the UN or both as determined by negotiated agreement between both parties
In short, if Mirocredit Bazaar is legal, which every mod review (or possibility of review) I remember of it seemed to say, then "Gun Amnesty" seems legal, too.

And I submit further--if Microcredit Bazaar is illegal, and the UN saying "here's a service that we're not going to make you take" is ruled a violation of "optionality"--that the ‘optionality’ rules need to be changed. Surely there's no good reason that UN resolutions must have universal effect and unilateral decisions. That's, in fact, the characteristic of the infantile resolutions of yesteryear. Not only have we grown out of it in practice, but we should grow out of it by way of rule as well.

I have no problem with moderators, but they shouldn't "fix" things in a way that might still bother a player.
Think about that statement for a moment. Every fix we make should theoretically bother at least one player: the player violating the rules.

So I take it we should just sit on our hands then, to avoid bothering anyone?

Moderators 'shouldn't upset people', you say? Players ought to behave better as well, yet we can't manage that it seems. *shrugs* People are going to be upset regardless, as we've seen illustrated in this forum and others time and again. If they had put in a nicer statement, it's almost certain someone would have called it sarcasm and wailed about that. It's a judgement call on their parts - one they're well within their rights to exercise. If you don't like it, take your concerns to an admin. If you still don't like the answer you get, I suppose you're presented wtih two choices: go on with your game, or go play somewhere else.

We've yet to have a moderator respond here, so you can't very well go about saying what they should and shouldn't do in regards to their response here as if they're somehow being negligent. You can't pull the 'you just accused' card with me either, given I made a statement based on fact, not idle supposition - which is entirely different from what PHC id with the 'it must be them because they don't like me'.

edit: ok, so Scolo beat me to posting. Just gonna wait and see what happens here.

Ok - here's the difference between this and say UNSA, Nuclear Armaments, etc. Those ones protected NatSov - they provided various backings and the area that they actually may have been in conflict with would have been the limitation of future resolutions (so let's stop trying to hide behind previous NatSov resolutions and move on). Additionally, my comment before about "Opt-in" suggests even before you read the resolution that it's an optional thing. Optionality is bypassed only by using things like "ENCOURAGES", etc. So, in my opinion, any mod would be dieing to try and find the part that is optional (which is what I was getting to on the official thread and cringing at it when I first read it).

That said, I disagree completely with the ruling. 3b is only a problem if the wording of 1 is a problem:
1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one, for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements

The reason I say this is 3b is basically only reversing the request of 1, and 1 is where the optionality truly is - just as the optionality in most other "optionality" resolutions that are legal is at the word "encourages", etc.

Regardless - PC, you come in here with both barrels blazing complaining about mod bias. You are so completely out of line it isn't funny. I TOLD you that I thought the mods were going to delete it and then you just jump on the opportunity to call mod bias. Please settle down. We can address the issue of the legality now - and we can worry about the reasons behind the deletion later. You are definately the person who's shooting first. Mods jobs are to remove any proposals they think are illegal - and if the mod was mistaken, the warning will get reversed, your proposal will be able to be resubmitted, and your campaign will be delayed by a few days. If you keep bitching at them about bias, they won't even CONSIDER your case, you might get a forum warning or ban and your warning will stand. Settle down.

Ok - here's the difference between this and say UNSA, Nuclear Armaments, etc. Those ones protected NatSov - they provided various backings and the area that they actually may have been in conflict with would have been the limitation of future resolutions (so let's stop trying to hide behind previous NatSov resolutions and move on). Additionally, my comment before about "Opt-in" suggests even before you read the resolution that it's an optional thing. Optionality is bypassed only by using things like "ENCOURAGES", etc. So, in my opinion, any mod would be dieing to try and find the part that is optional (which is what I was getting to on the official thread and cringing at it when I first read it).

I don't think those are relevant examples: much more pertinent, in this case, are his MB and UNSBE resolutions, but also others, such as the IT Education Act (which I wigged out about, so I'm not saying *I* support all these forms of resolution). Besides, the title really shouldn't matter, so long as it's not misleading (which this isn't) or offensive (and I can't see how this would be the case). I remember there was some discussion of whether it should be called The Microcredit Bazaar, or the Market, or Mall, or similar, so clearly some choice is required. I suspect, though, given the concerns raised by Vastiva in the original thread on this project, that here, he was making it explicit to nations with very lax gun laws that this wasn't something which would force them to relinquish that right.

I don't think those are relevant examples: much more pertinent, in this case, are his MB and UNSBE resolutions, but also others, such as the IT Education Act (which I wigged out about, so I'm not saying *I* support all these forms of resolution). Besides, the title really shouldn't matter, so long as it's not misleading (which this isn't) or offensive (and I can't see how this would be the case). I remember there was some discussion of whether it should be called The Microcredit Bazaar, or the Market, or Mall, or similar, so clearly some choice is required. I suspect, though, given the concerns raised by Vastiva in the original thread on this project, that here, he was making it explicit to nations with very lax gun laws that this wasn't something which would force them to relinquish that right.

The thing is that encourages skirts the line of optionality, but is made legal because of it's purpose. Thus you need to be worried about wording - and a title is included in that. The title is only misleading as far as rules are concerned - it suggests it violates optionality when it does not (hence my comment that the moderaters would be hunting for an optionality clause, and picked up on that one). Personally, I suspect it's one of the moderators who frequents the UN less often than GMC or Hack - actually, I'm almost dead certain it's not Hack.

Edit: I should note that the issue, IMO, is psychology, not legality

Hold on. Weren't you just lecturing me about how it's better to catch flies with honey than vinegar?

Sarcasm and accusing people of being corrupt are not quite equal. Besides I'm not trying to foster a discussion, I was trying to make a point. You suggest you're trying to foster a discussion, ergo...

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

I'm not sure what's obscure or confusing about this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1

Also, just to help, below is a link to the UN discussion thread and the proposal that was deleted.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463346

Those that are affected by the proposal are not selected, they are given the choice. You give them permission to opt-out of the proposal. In other words, you made it optional. Regardless of what's passed in the past, it is clear in the rules that proposals may not be optional.

"You can ask the UN to leave and take their stuff with them regarding this proposal" = Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want,"

Showing that past proposals got through that violate the clause shows a mistake on past proposals not on this one.

Think about that statement for a moment. Every fix we make should theoretically bother at least one player: the player violating the rules.

So I take it we should just sit on our hands then, to avoid bothering anyone?

Please stop putting words in my mouth.


Moderators should be around to MODERATE a situtation, not inflame it.

Changing a questionable signature (which nobody has come forward to even claim that the Powerhungry Chipmunks had a questionable signature before it was changed), to "Give it a rest" is inappropriate. It doesn't defuse the situtation.

Was a warning issued to PC for an inappropriate signature?
What was the signature in question?
And how in the world would changing it to "Give it a rest" help?


It is clear to me that somebody altered the sig in order to take a dig at him. It was an immature thing to do.

Showing that past proposals got through that violate the clause shows a mistake on past proposals not on this one.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There has to be some degree of precedent involved in UN resolution rules. However 'simple' you find the Optionality rules, they have been enforced in one way on resolutions [which were submitted for approval by the mods before submission] in the past; why the sudden change? (And no, I'm not saying the 'change' was because of anything outside the proposal; I just think this proposal was more explicit, whilst employing the same basic system as many other legal ones.)

I'm not sure what's obscure or confusing about this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1

Also, just to help, below is a link to the UN discussion thread and the proposal that was deleted.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463346

Those that are affected by the proposal are not selected, they are given the choice. You give them permission to opt-out of the proposal. In other words, you made it optional. Regardless of what's passed in the past, it is clear in the rules that proposals may not be optional.

"You can ask the UN to leave and take their stuff with them regarding this proposal" = Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want,"

Showing that past proposals got through that violate the clause shows a mistake on past proposals not on this one.


I think the point about the optionality of a resolution should only be factored into a deletion when all of the activating clauses of a resolution (the actions, not justification) come across as extremely weak languaged.

If you look at a number of existing NationStates "Mild" resolutions *and* real-life UN resolutions, you will see that URGES and RECOMMENDS are nothing but statements of international will / purpose, but that in practice most nations have minor reservations with individual clauses.

The telegram sent to PC specifically cited *1* subclause. I think it could be useful to actually look at all the numbered (activating clauses) to see if there is an overall theme or tone in this proposal that is similar to multiple other existing Mild resolutions.

An example of a Mild "optional-like" resolution would be #67 "Needle Sharing Prevention".

It ... 1) Affirms ..., 2) Encourages ..., 3) Stresses ..., 4) Commends, and 5) Requests ... in short, it is never forcefill in its intent, but clearly the resolution attempts to move all nations in a direction that would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS and other blood-born dieases via the adoption of a series of *domestic* programs.

The question is, when you look at how individual clauses work together in the Powerhungry Chipmunks's proposal, did it seem to mildly encourage some sort of international action.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There has to be some degree of precedent involved in UN resolution rules. However 'simple' you find the Optionality rules, they have been enforced in one way on resolutions [which were submitted for approval by the mods before submission] in the past; why the sudden change? (And no, I'm not saying the 'change' was because of anything outside the proposal; I just think this proposal was more explicit, whilst employing the same basic system as many other legal ones.)

The mod who deleted this proposal had ample reason to do so according to the posted rules that specifically state in the posting that they are binding. So you are asking for a change in the rules to reflect how you believe it was moderated in the past (and for which you have evidence). Regardless it's a change in the posted rules which are also listed as binding.

Seems like this change is something that should have been argued before the fact, not after.

I'm not sure what's obscure or confusing about this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913201&postcount=1

Also, just to help, below is a link to the UN discussion thread and the proposal that was deleted.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463346

Those that are affected by the proposal are not selected, they are given the choice. You give them permission to opt-out of the proposal. In other words, you made it optional. Regardless of what's passed in the past, it is clear in the rules that proposals may not be optional.

"You can ask the UN to leave and take their stuff with them regarding this proposal" = Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want,"

Showing that past proposals got through that violate the clause shows a mistake on past proposals not on this one.

Precedence since the Most Glorious protocols have gone into place indicates that the optionality rules set is rather complex to deal with. Add on what the moderator explicitly said was that you can't have resolutions which are fully optional - which is absolutely false. Many resolutions which have nothing but encourages, etc, clauses have been passed without legality battles.

Why is that important?

3b refers to 1. 1 says that nations can REQUEST this service. It is not automatically implemented - especially since some nations don't even have gun registration services. In fact, considering the very nature of the resolution, it's setting up an institution that any nation can call upon. 3b is stating that even after a nation has called upon that institution, they can change their mind and request the institution to no longer operate.

This is, without question, an extremely logical conclusion. This resolution doesn't deal with what guns can or cannot be used by the public within different nations. Thus some of them don't have ANY guns banned - so what's the point. Others just want to call upon such institutions such that it gives people a grace period after a new law is in place - not because they want the facility to remain within the nation. It's not so much an opt-out but rather "we could use your services currently". It's like being able to tell the IRCO "We need assistance" and "we don't need assistance anymore"

I'd say it's legal.

Did you read the signature???

The *fact* that it now reads "Give it a rest" indicates, that whatever was there before was changed to something to personally annoy the Powerhungry Chipmunks. It is not a helpful change. In fact, the current signature and the player complaint should be enough proof that the change was malicious.

A helpful change (and responsible moderation action) would be to simply delete an offensive signature.

The moderators should simply look into *who* sent the telegram and discuss in private about who changed his sig.

I have no problem with moderators, but they shouldn't "fix" things in a way that might still bother a player.

Honestly...

The fact that it now says "Give it a rest" only shows that whatever mod changed it wants PC to "give it a rest" with the modbaiting. Sure, PC can claim it means whatever he wants, but with the current situation at hand, no mod is naive enough to believe his, excuse me, bullshit. It was not meant to personally annoy PC, and if he is still annoyed regardless, he can simply change it himself. It's really not that complicated. The fact that the mods changed his signature and PC whined about it proves nothing.

The mods don't have to hold some secret meeting to find out who changed the sig. Mod activity is registered, so they all know who did it. It's not some vast conspiracy...PC broke the rules with his sigs and a mod changed it. Basic stuff. Besides, them discussing it in private is a worthless suggestion, because what good would possible come to PC from it? Ok the mods talked about it...now what?

As per your "not bothering players" ending, as many others have said, that is, once again, bullshit. You know what bothers mods? Players breaking the rules. Are mods not players in their own right? Don't they have the right not to be bothered? The mods represent the good of the message board. They are preventing the majority of players from being "bothered." I'm sure murderers are bothered with their life sentence...but so be it, ya know?

And how in the world would changing it to "Give it a rest" help?

It is clear to me that somebody altered the sig in order to take a dig at him. It was an immature thing to do.

For god's sake give it a rest. Oh wait...did I just...ya I did.

You see, when someone tells someone else to give it a rest, it's normally because the person told cannot get over a situation and feels it to be their job to repeat themselves over and over again. PC couldn't get over his interaction with the mods; you apparently can't get over one simple phrase put into PC's sig.

Whether it's clear to you what the mod's intentions were or not doesn't matter at all, and frankly neither does your interpretation of what "give it a rest" means. How in the world would it help you ask? It's the words of a mod instructing a player to do something. Same as "Do not spam." or "quit flaming." Since there was no thread debating PC's sig, the mod chose to put it there. It has happened many times in the past.

That being said, calling the mods immature, spiteful, questioning their judgement time and again, and implying that whatever you would do as a mod really has no place at all in this thread. In fact, PC himself complained about content being taken out of his sig, not what was put in it as a replacement.

Nevertheless, you seem to feel the need to beat this dead horse time and time again for a reason that escapes everyone else. Perhaps you are the one with the vendetta, Mik.

The mod who deleted this proposal had ample reason to do so according to the posted rules that specifically state in the posting that they are binding. So you are asking for a change in the rules to reflect how you believe it was moderated in the past (and for which you have evidence). Regardless it's a change in the posted rules which are also listed as binding.

Seems like this change is something that should have been argued before the fact, not after.

Actually, precedence shows that precedence is used to decide legality IF THE SAME RULE SET WAS USED for both proposals in question. Where was this: UNSA (Res 110) which was deemed illegal because they had let National Systems of Tax and Nuclear Armaments go through. Hack's ruling on UNSA was "I'd like to delete all three, but that's not fair".

Considering that UNSA more explicitly than either of the other two limited future proposals as pretty much it's primary function and effect, Hack was overriding what would seem like a simply worded rulesset for what he felt was precedence.

Now, all examples presented so far (well....with exception to IRCO) fall under the Most Glorious Protocols, so I think all arguments using them are valid as long as they're relevant.

I think the point about the optionality of a resolution should only be factored into a deletion when all of the activating clauses of a resolution (the actions, not justification) come across as extremely weak languaged.

If you look at a number of existing NationStates "Mild" resolutions *and* real-life UN resolutions, you will see that URGES and RECOMMENDS are nothing but statements of international will / purpose, but that in practice most nations have minor reservations with individual clauses.

The telegram sent to PC specifically cited *1* subclause. I think it could be useful to actually look at all the numbered (activating clauses) to see if there is an overall theme or tone in this proposal that is similar to multiple other existing Mild resolutions.

An example of a Mild "optional-like" resolution would be #67 "Needle Sharing Prevention".

It ... 1) Affirms ..., 2) Encourages ..., 3) Stresses ..., 4) Commends, and 5) Requests ... in short, it is never forcefill in its intent, but clearly the resolution attempts to move all nations in a direction that would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS and other blood-born dieases via the adoption of a series of *domestic* programs.

The question is, when you look at how individual clauses work together in the Powerhungry Chipmunks's proposal, did it seem to mildly encourage some sort of international action.

The rule says that it is open to interpretation by the mods to a degree, but specifically makes the point that mild language is acceptable, while allowing the a nation the explicit option of being affected by the proposal is in the words of the rule itself "right out". This clause gave the explicit option to the nation as to whether the nation would be affected by the proposal or not.

The mod who deleted this proposal had ample reason to do so according to the posted rules that specifically state in the posting that they are binding. So you are asking for a change in the rules to reflect how you believe it was moderated in the past (and for which you have evidence). Regardless it's a change in the posted rules which are also listed as binding.

Seems like this change is something that should have been argued before the fact, not after.

The Most Glorious Hack wrote the rules.

The Most Glorious Hack approved The Microcredit Bazaar as legal, and later commented it was one of his favourite resolutions, which he 'almost campaigned for' [that was, I appreciate, likely a statement made as a player, not as a mod, so I'm not taking that as a 'ruling', but merely as an indication that he'd clearly read it, and knew what it was doing].

If, then, it's still to unclear, and if people aren't willing to read passed resolutions and exercise a degree of judgement, then I suppose a 'change' - although I'd still argue it is a valid interpretation - might need to be reflected.

Incidentally: every state is given the right to participate in a UN-backed gun amnesty. It affects all states. Their level of participation, of course, is another matter.

The Most Glorious Hack wrote the rules.

The Most Glorious Hack approved The Microcredit Bazaar as legal, and later commented it was one of his favourite resolutions, which he 'almost campaigned for' [that was, I appreciate, likely a statement made as a player, not as a mod, so I'm not taking that as a 'ruling', but merely as an indication that he'd clearly read it, and knew what it was doing].

I would agree with you on the Microcredit Bazaar thing. I think it directly calls the rule into question, and should have raised a hackle or two as to how the current rule is written. Still doesn't change the fact that the way the rule is written the mod who deleted the proposal was following the posted (and "binding") rules.

If anything the deletion of this proposal isn't evidence of any mistake or misbehavior on behalf of the mods, but Microcredit Bazaar is.

If, then, it's still to unclear, and if people aren't willing to read passed resolutions and exercise a degree of judgement, then I suppose a 'change' - although I'd still argue it is a valid interpretation - might need to be reflected.

Incidentally: every state is given the right to participate in a UN-backed gun amnesty. It affects all states. Their level of participation, of course, is another matter.
It still makes participation explicitly optional which is said in the rules to be right out.

Your argument is not really that this proposal should not have been deleted, but why did Microcredit Bazaar pass given the posted rule? How are they different?

Alright. TMB was one of the finest resolutions this body has ever passed. I would hate for it to be in anyway threatened by anything I've said in an unrelated thread. So forget I mentioned it.

The IT Education Act. How is it compulsory?

And I repeat the point that this resolution affects all member states, in giving them an equal right to a new service (in fact, it makes clear this right is not discriminated based on national firearms laws). Furthermore, it establishes the central agency: no state can deny the existence of that. The effects thereof are of course optional. Why should that be a problem, given the first?

The reason for this difference (I believe) is the intent and purpose of the rule. The rule was (I think) designed for resolutions which did things like:

"MANDATES that all guns cannot be owned by civilians

NOTES that this resolution can be ignored by any nation that wants to"

Which is just stupid. However, this resolution didn't come in with the intent of having a committee that was imposing any laws, suggestions, mandates, etc on a specific nation but to be there to assist the nation if the nation needs it. It's acting as an international toolkit - just as MB did, just as IRCO did. Unlike the UN resolutions, mod laws are open to interpretation and discussions of intent (and yes, you are right, by some interpretations, this resolution does indeed defy the written Most Glorious Protocals). However, that's where legality discussions like this one come into play. I'm not calling foul play - I can easily see where a mistake could be made (which is also why I feel it was someone who's less experienced with the UN). I am calling for the call to be reversed as I think a mistake was made because of what precedent has shown.

And I repeat the point that this resolution affects all member states, in giving them an equal right to a new service (in fact, it makes clear this right is not discriminated based on national firearms laws). Furthermore, it establishes the central agency: no state can deny the existence of that. The effects thereof are of course optional. Why should that be a problem, given the first?

Couldn't that be said of any optional proposal? It would nullify the rule completely.

Couldn't that be said of any optional proposal? It would nullify the rule completely.

(Has suspicion he's been put on the ignore list)
(Knows others are reading this so they can be persuaded by these arguments)

Personally, I think it dictates a style so you don't have resolutions looking like the one I posted above.

Couldn't that be said of any optional proposal? It would nullify the rule completely.

But there's a clear difference between creating a UN agency, which states can partake in, and creating a rule, which states can implement. The first is not possible without a resolution establishing that agency.

I see the optionality rule in serving a purpose, in gameplay terms. Lots of optional proposals would, frankly, be boring. Further, it has potential for abuse: 'pro-life' states pass an optional abortion law, which would then preserve their right to ban abortions, rather underhandedly. But I don't see what the problem is with setting up an agency which is very useful for some states, and which others won't particularly have need for, and thus not forcing the latter to waste their time with that.

EDIT: Forgottenlands, I agree with you. I was just so shocked to see you defending a PC proposal, I couldn't think of a way to respond.

The reason for this difference (I believe) is the intent and purpose of the rule. The rule was (I think) designed for resolutions which did things like:

"MANDATES that all guns cannot be owned by civilians

NOTES that this resolution can be ignored by any nation that wants to"

Which is just stupid. However, this resolution didn't come in with the intent of having a committee that was imposing any laws, suggestions, mandates, etc on a specific nation but to be there to assist the nation if the nation needs it. It's acting as an international toolkit - just as MB did, just as IRCO did. Unlike the UN resolutions, mod laws are open to interpretation and discussions of intent (and yes, you are right, by some interpretations, this resolution does indeed defy the written Most Glorious Protocals). However, that's where legality discussions like this one come into play. I'm not calling foul play - I can easily see where a mistake could be made (which is also why I feel it was someone who's less experienced with the UN). I am calling for the call to be reversed as I think a mistake was made because of what precedent has shown.

I think your delving into the shades of gray. Use being defined by need and being defined by choice are slightly different. When one explicitly chooses it appears to violate the rule as written. When one implicitly chooses, less so, and when use is defined by need, not at all. Nothing in the clause suggests use is defined by need, but instead by which option the nation chooses (to engage in the services or not), i.e. optional.

If nothing else this highlights how the rule could perhaps better define the issue.

But there's a clear difference between creating a UN agency, which states can partake in, and creating a rule, which states can implement. The first is not possible without a resolution establishing that agency.

I see the optionality rule in serving a purpose, in gameplay terms. Lots of optional proposals would, frankly, be boring. Further, it has potential for abuse: 'pro-life' states pass an optional abortion law, which would then preserve their right to ban abortions, rather underhandedly. But I don't see what the problem is with setting up an agency which is very useful for some states, and which others won't particularly have need for, and thus not forcing the latter to waste their time with that.

EDIT: Forgottenlands, I agree with you. I was just so shocked to see you defending a PC proposal, I couldn't think of a way to respond.

While I agree that the examples you state would be more clear violations, I still hold the rule as written says that this proposal is illegal. Again, I think it's clear that if the rule is intended to only prevent the type of optionality you guys say it is, it should say so. As written, it is no surprise this proposal was deleted, and the deletion can clearly be justified by the written and binding rule.

Honestly...

That being said, calling the mods immature, spiteful, questioning their judgement time and again, and implying that whatever you would do as a mod really has no place at all in this thread. In fact, PC himself complained about content being taken out of his sig, not what was put in it as a replacement.

Nevertheless, you seem to feel the need to beat this dead horse time and time again for a reason that escapes everyone else. Perhaps you are the one with the vendetta, Mik.

You're missing the points entirely.

Powerhungry Chipmunks himself complained about the signature and way he felt he was being treated, so I chimed in because I think he is right to be angry. Pretty straight forward stuff really.


You might also take note that I've participated in some of the discussion about the legality of the proposal itself, though I personally agree with what Forgottenlords and Gruenberg have been saying. :)

I think resolutions should be allowed to "encourage" nations to participate in international programs on a voluntary basis (though they should be "mild") -- I already pointed to one of my previous resolutions (#67). Personally I'd don't feel that this proposal really should have been deleted based solely on the clause cited in the telegram to the Powerhungry Chipmunks. I'd love to see this all resolved.

I think your delving into the shades of gray. Use being defined by need and being defined by choice are slightly different. When one explicitly chooses it appears to violate the rule as written. When one implicitly chooses, less so, and when use is defined by need, not at all. Nothing in the clause suggests use is defined by need, but instead by which option the nation chooses (to engage in the services or not), i.e. optional.

If nothing else this highlights how the rule could perhaps better define the issue.

However, that wasn't the reason given for deletion, which was that 'UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect'.

I agree that perhaps the rule could be better defined, but I still favour using a bit of precedent. I know that can be dangerous - did #48 mean we could actually just submit essays? - but there's nothing wrong with also going for the spirit of resolution #30.

While I agree that the examples you state would be more clear violations, I still hold the rule as written says that this proposal is illegal. Again, I think it's clear that if the rule is intended to only prevent the type of optionality you guys say it is, it should say so. As written, it is no surprise this proposal was deleted, and the deletion can clearly be justified by the written and binding rule.

Again - why were aren't calling foul. We're calling for the decision to be reversed because we don't believe this is what precedent shows. We are not saying the mod who did it was unjustified in doing so. We are just saying that this proposal should be ruled legal as it actually doesn't break any rules that the mods normally follow.

However, that wasn't the reason given for deletion, which was that 'UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect'.

I agree that perhaps the rule could be better defined, but I still favour using a bit of precedent. I know that can be dangerous - did #48 mean we could actually just submit essays? - but there's nothing wrong with also going for the spirit of resolution #30.

Actually...I take that back - the exact statement used by the mod is incorrect. Administrative resolutions have time and again been scrutinized by the mods and ruled legal - so that statement is completely bogus (the line quoted was the right line, but the explanation attached was not).

(Has suspicion he's been put on the ignore list)
(Knows others are reading this so they can be persuaded by these arguments)

Personally, I think it dictates a style so you don't have resolutions looking like the one I posted above.

I've been reading. :)

There is a general (long-standing) rule that proposals must be worthy of the UN's consideration. An example of that rule being invoked was on the Bare Chests proposal (though it had a different name).

Since we are talking about the optionality of resolutions, my personal opinion has always been that there always should be some benefit to the international community via international cooperation or standardization, thus the opt out no-no rule could mean that if a resolution is really going to be implemented by a minority of UN members, then we shouldn't consider it. However, if a majority of UN members are interested in something like an international blood bank or exchange student program, then it is in the UN's interest to promote / coordinate the program (if the resolution should pass).

Thoughts on that?

Again - why were aren't calling foul. We're calling for the decision to be reversed because we don't believe this is what precedent shows. We are not saying the mod who did it was unjustified in doing so.

Actually, the original complaints and the statements in the thread suggests that the mod who deleted it, did so out of corruption.

We are just saying that this proposal should be ruled legal as it actually doesn't break any rules that the mods normally follow.
"Normally follow" is where we part ways. If it's not a rule, call for a rule change. If it is a rule, follow it. However, being lax on the rules at one point does not mean one should expect them to be lax on the rules at all points.

However, that wasn't the reason given for deletion, which was that 'UN resolutions may not be entirely optional in effect'.

I agree that perhaps the rule could be better defined, but I still favour using a bit of precedent. I know that can be dangerous - did #48 mean we could actually just submit essays? - but there's nothing wrong with also going for the spirit of resolution #30.

I still disagree. I understand your reasoning and it's sound, I just don't agree. They have a rule that states such and they enforced it. Suddenly everyone is surprised. If a sign outside a bar says no hats and I wear one in every day and ignore the rule, should I act shocked when the bouncer suddenly clamps down? The rule says no hats. I'm wearing a hat. He made me take it off. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Actually, the original complaints and the statements in the thread suggests that the mod who deleted it, did so out of corruption.

We don't care. We don't have to agree that the mods were 'corrupt': we're just arguing the proposal should have been legal. I don't really give a toss who deleted, or any reasons for that extraneous to the optionality ruling: that, and that alone, is what we're discussing.

"Normally follow" is where we part ways. If it's not a rule, call for a rule change. If it is a rule, follow it. However, being lax on the rules at one point does not mean one should expect them to be lax on the rules at all points.

Of course not. And given they were not being lax, but were making an implicit ruling, when they ruled other proposals legal, or illegal. If there's no concept of precedent - if we really are just shivering in the dark, waiting on the whim of some unaccountable arbitor [and I DON'T think we are] - then it wouldn't be much of a game for us. Yet we still play, because we know that no set of rules, however expansive, could possibly cover every proposal, but that there are certain laws that must be obeyed; everything else follows to be interpreted. I see nothing wrong with discussing that.

I still disagree. I understand your reasoning and it's sound, I just don't agree. They have a rule that states such and they enforced it. Suddenly everyone is surprised. If a sign outside a bar says no hats and I wear one in every day and ignore the rule, should I act shocked when the bouncer suddenly clamps down? The rule says no hats. I'm wearing a hat. He made me take it off. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

But you see, I see it in exactly the same way.

They have said "this sort of proposal is fine". Now they're not. This is why we're surprised.

I've been reading. :)

There is a general (long-standing) rule that proposals must be worthy of the UN's consideration. An example of that rule being invoked was on the Bare Chests proposal (though it had a different name).

Since we are talking about the optionality of resolutions, my personal opinion has always been that there always should be some benefit to the international community via international cooperation or standardization, thus the opt out no-no rule could mean that if a resolution is really going to be implemented by a minority of UN members, then we shouldn't consider it. However, if a majority of UN members are interested in something like an international blood bank or exchange student program, then it is in the UN's interest to promote / coordinate the program (if the resolution should pass).

Thoughts on that?

I think the moderators have always cringed at the "Unworthy of UN's attention" trump card. It is something that can and is fully admitted by them as being fairly arbitrary. However, sometimes they have to use it. That said, I think the other rules aren't so much to modify that trump card's field but to give explicit details of what they consider to be legal and illegal. Yes all proposals that are deemed illegal could easily be put under "Not worthy of UN consideration" - but there are many that would dispute it.

Heck - there are many that dispute an explicity defined rules set.

So basically, I'd say that's only there so they have room to expand the rules set if need be or if they overlooked a type of proposal.

I don't really agree with your interpretation of the rule either. The problem I have with it is it doesn't deal with the Silly Proposals we know were deleted because of their optionality aspect (which is actually where the concept of the two lines above comes from). Additionally, this would be the first committee resolution I've ever heard an attempt to delete due to optionality. Maybe I'm a bit ignorant to the dozens of resolutions that mods have to throw out every day, but still.

At the risk of accusations of puppeteering... ;)

I agree that the Gun Amnesty proposal is not deserving of deletion, given past precedents like "Microedit Bazaar".

Furthermore, clause 3b gives nations certain freedoms, something the UN has done a number of times in the past, beginning with "Rights and Duties of UN States". As I recall, a positive statement to the effect that nations are free to do something is legal, while a negative statement to the effect that the UN cannot force them to do a thing is illegal. The former seems to be in play here, so I'm not sure why clause 3b is even an issue. :confused:

But you see, I see it in exactly the same way.

They have said "this sort of proposal is fine". Now they're not. This is why we're surprised.

Again, I don't know that precedent says that exactly. Unless they said ignore the sign on the wall that says no hats, becuase we don't actually have a rule about that, I don't think suddenly choosing to clamp down on a rule that has been long posted should be surprising. I would be shocked if a warning or something was issued for such a thing, but to start enforcing a rule that's been posted for seven months is not only surprising, it should be expected. "We don't, at this time, feel this violation is severe enough to warrant enforcement of the rule" != "this sort of proposal is fine". Mods occasionally decide not to take action when someone flamebaits, does that mean they think flamebaiting is fine? Nope. It just means that in that instance, at that time, for that mod, it didn't appear to be severe enough to warrant action. They're human, not a hive brain.

If it's not a rule it should be deleted. Otherwise, people who are new and not aware of discussions that happened when you and I were new on the board believe it is a rule they must follow, while you and I and others need to adhere to the rule at all and know it. Rules should apply to everyone equally. I take the fact that the rule is still posted to mean that they could choose to begin enforcing it an any time. However, when one chooses an arbitrary time (assuming they did), it would be unreasonable to punish people for not knowing they were going to enforce the rules all of the sudden.

This rule was available for all to see and read, regardless of any claimed precedents, and it is posted in a thread that says the rules are binding. The proposal was deleted for violation of the posted and binding rules. Enforcement of a posted and binding rule should be expected. Not enforcing it is what should be surprising. I suspect nobody was in here claiming the mods were corrupt at that time though.

It still makes participation explicitly optional which is said in the rules to be right out.

Interesting. I've heard fairly well-argued claims that compliance is not optional, but participation being obligatory is not something that I recall being seriously argued. Perhaps you could clarify to help me understand?

Actually, the original complaints and the statements in the thread suggests that the mod who deleted it, did so out of corruption.

I should clarify "we". Gruen and I have yet to call foul - and Mik hasn't called foul on the deletion either (though he did on the sig). It's also why I told PC to settle down in my first post here.

"Normally follow" is where we part ways. If it's not a rule, call for a rule change. If it is a rule, follow it. However, being lax on the rules at one point does not mean one should expect them to be lax on the rules at all points.

It's not a matter of being lax, it's a matter of understanding. I also think the mods have not done anything but crowd control so far because they too realize that the agreed understanding of the rules is followed normally, not the letter of them. Since Hack first posted the new rules set, several things have apparently changed in the way things are done as the interpretation of the rules changes ever so slightly and precedences - accidental and intentional - have come through. Yet Hack hasn't changed the actual text of his work. I don't think the expectation is unreasonable

That said, you might have a point about the text needing to be changed.

Interesting. I've heard fairly well-argued claims that compliance is not optional, but participation being obligatory is not something that I recall being seriously argued. Perhaps you could clarify to help me understand?

The rule is quoted in the thread and a link is provided. The rule states, in so many words, that UN regulations cannot be optional.

I still disagree. I understand your reasoning and it's sound, I just don't agree. They have a rule that states such and they enforced it. Suddenly everyone is surprised. If a sign outside a bar says no hats and I wear one in every day and ignore the rule, should I act shocked when the bouncer suddenly clamps down? The rule says no hats. I'm wearing a hat. He made me take it off. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

That is a wonderful example:

What if that rule is *only* applied by a bouncer, when a guy whom is dating the bouncer's ex-girlfriend tries to come into the bar. And what if that guy can point to 3 other dudes wearing cowboy hats in the bar?

Rules are wondeful things, but the reason there are *impartial* judges to oversee them, is to make sure that they are fair to all.

The flip side, is the bouncer in your example didn't beat you. Instead he simply asked you to take your hat off.

So back to this case, was a warning issued?

That is a wonderful example:

I don't think this was because of partiality, necessarily. I simply think in this case it was an especially colourful hat, that caught the bouncer's eye.

Did not just say that did not just say that did not just say that.

I should clarify "we". Gruen and I have yet to call foul - and Mik hasn't called foul on the deletion either (though he did on the sig). It's also why I told PC to settle down in my first post here.

Fair enough. You're right. You are not everyone who agrees with you. I should have ignored that part as you didn't say it.

It's not a matter of being lax, it's a matter of understanding. I also think the mods have not done anything but crowd control so far because they too realize that the agreed understanding of the rules is followed normally, not the letter of them. Since Hack first posted the new rules set, several things have apparently changed in the way things are done as the interpretation of the rules changes ever so slightly and precedences - accidental and intentional - have come through. Yet Hack hasn't changed the actual text of his work. I don't think the expectation is unreasonable

That said, you might have a point about the text needing to be changed.

I realize that there are nuances to the rulesets for behavior and even rules that aren't written, but in terms of behavior it's pretty clear that if one is respectful of other posters, one rarely goes afoul of the moderators.

Game rules are different, because the game isn't as simple as be respectful. Again there are nuances, but there should be at least an attempt to make the rules posted to reflect the rules the mods and admin wish us to abide by. Because I hold that view, I expect to follow the rules as posted and that everyone should and may be called to the carpet if they don't. Also because I hold that view, I would hope that if the rules we are expected to follow are different than those posted, that the rules posted would be amended to reflect the reality of the game rules.

That said, I hope this either results in a rule change or an understanding that we are expected to abide by the game rules as posted, despite what we think precedent leads us to. Another lesson I would hope we learn is that if what a mod says is legal and what we see in the rules conflict, we respectfully bring it to them in an effort to make an understanding of the game rules available, at least on moderate level, by reading the stickies and FAQs.

I'm done here. I don't wish to elongate the thread unnecessarily or waste anyone's time. Thanks for helping understand the rules better, Gru, Miki, FL and PC.

I don't really agree with your interpretation of the rule either. The problem I have with it is it doesn't deal with the Silly Proposals we know were deleted because of their optionality aspect (which is actually where the concept of the two lines above comes from). Additionally, this would be the first committee resolution I've ever heard an attempt to delete due to optionality. Maybe I'm a bit ignorant to the dozens of resolutions that mods have to throw out every day, but still.

Disagreement is fine. :)

Though I think that anything that could be nailed as being "Silly" (sadly even the ol' Zombie rights proposal), could also be nailed as really not being of interest to the majority of UN members.

In the past, the moderators have suggested that sometimes proposals that have a snowballs chance in hell at reaching quorum aren't deleted. While proposals that seem to collect endorsements at an alarming rate are given much more attention.

If I had the power to delete stuff out of the queue, I'd probably do the same thing ... that and I'd remove any RL bigotted proposals (which the mods thankfully do).

My concern is that resolution authors shouldn't feel the need to include a clause that must apply to all members in order to avoid being bumped on the "no opt-outs" rule. That is why I like the idea that resolutions simply should be considered legal (via a mod judgement call) if they are clearly trying to promote international cooperation on something that is even remotely an international issue.

The rule is quoted in the thread and a link is provided. The rule states, in so many words, that UN regulations cannot be optional.

Hmmmm. After looking at your recent responses it seems you want the rule clarified or enforced exactly as stated, not to debate the issue. I'll leave you to that.

That is a wonderful example:

What if that rule is *only* applied by a bouncer, when a guy whom is dating the bouncer's ex-girlfriend tries to come into the bar. And what if that guy can point to 3 other dudes wearing cowboy hats in the bar?

Rules are wondeful things, but the reason there are *impartial* judges to oversee them, is to make sure that they are fair to all.

The flip side, is the bouncer in your example didn't beat you. Instead he simply asked you to take your hat off.

So back to this case, was a warning issued?

First, so long as he didn't beat me, I think he's free to enforce the rule. And again it is implied that the reasoning for a mod enforcing this rule is bias without any support for such a thing. Prove your assertion or stop making it.

First, so long as he didn't beat me, I think he's free to enforce the rule. And again it is implied that the reasoning for a mod enforcing this rule is bias without any support for such a thing. Prove your assertion or stop making it.

While I agree there is a heck of a lot of "grey" in everything we are talking about, I don't think that the fact that the bouncer didn't beat you justifies differential treatment. I think the key is how he tried to treat you with respect (he just asked you not to wear the hat, right?). I do agree that "bouncers" need to have some freedom to deal with similar situations as they see fit, but just believe they need to be careful to not make one action seem like it is tied to something else ...

Which leads back to "Why was the signature changed?"

I've seen many UN players upset when their proposals were deleted. Been there myself -- Cogitation helped me calm down back in Oct. 2004 when my International Disaster Assistance proposal was deleted. He helped point out what was legal and what was illegal in that proposal. He's had my respect since. :)

Now, if somebody had tinkered with my signature or game text at the same time that I had a proposal deleted (and was issued a UN warning), I would have been upset. In fact, I think most of us would under those circumstances! :/

While I agree there is a heck of a lot of "grey" in everything we are talking about, I don't think that the fact that the bouncer didn't beat you justifies differential treatment. I think the key is how he tried to treat you with respect (he just asked you not to wear the hat, right?). I do agree that "bouncers" need to have some freedom to deal with similar situations as they see fit, but just believe they need to be careful to not make one action seem like it is tied to something else ...

Which leads back to "Why was the signature changed?"

I've seen many UN players upset when their proposals were deleted. Been there myself -- Cogitation helped me calm down back in Oct. 2004 when my International Disaster Assistance proposal was deleted. He helped point out what was legal and what was illegal in that proposal. He's had my respect since. :)

Now, if somebody had tinkered with my signature or game text at the same time that I had a proposal deleted (and was issued a UN warning), I would have been upset. In fact, I think most of us would under those circumstances! :/

Yeah, except there's a lot more to it than that. Still not evidence of corruption, so not the basis for an assertion, implied or otherwise. The original signature and warning, I did see. The signature clearly baited the mods and a warning was issued. If the next signature was related to the first, it's not unusual that it would be changed again (and from PC's complaint it sounds to me like it was very related despite his protests).

Now, the proposals are seperate unless you can provide a link. PC has had one proposal deleted before the signature issue and one after, both for being illegal. Unless the first was deleted by a psychic mod, evidence suggests the signatures have nothing to do with the deletions.

Yeah, except there's a lot more to it than that. Still not evidence of corruption, so not the basis for an assertion, implied or otherwise. The original signature and warning, I did see. The signature clearly baited the mods and a warning was issued. If the next signature was related to the first, it's not unusual that it would be changed again (and from PC's complaint it sounds to me like it was very related despite his protests).

Now, the proposals are seperate unless you can provide a link. PC has had one proposal deleted before the signature issue and one after, both for being illegal. Unless the first was deleted by a psychic mod, evidence suggests the signatures have nothing to do with the deletions.

The only signature I've seen is the "Give it a rest". Not saying the others weren't there. But it doesn't take a "psychic" of any flavour to realize that putting *anything* back into a signature file is just a different type of baiting.

Let's say I'm at that imaginary club, and I start a fight ... while the bouncer is responsible for breaking up the fight (even if that means grabbing a hold of me and in the worst case, bopping me with a baseball bat), the minute I *stop* and no longer present a danger, if the bouncer then just hits me because he / she I *had* (past tense) caused trouble, he or she has lost his / her impartiality and at many clubs that bouncer could end up looking for a new job.

Now I've never been a bouncer before, but I have broken up a few fights at seedy clubs (when I was younger, I'd hang out at industrial and goth venues). One time a cowboy lifted me up and was about to throw me across the room in the middle of a concert, when a bouncer came up from behind and simply put the guy into some sort of head lock. Instead of angering the guy (or anybody else), the bouncer simply said, "Folks, just calm down and come outside." (I wasn't rounded outside, as all I did was put my body between the cowboy and the punk he was about to hit.)


You also just mentioned *two* proposals ... I've been talking about *one* proposal, namely the one he is referencing in response to the moderation telegram (it was about guns). What is the other deleted proposal?

Interesting. I've heard fairly well-argued claims that compliance is not optional, but participation being obligatory is not something that I recall being seriously argued. Perhaps you could clarify to help me understand?The way I remember it, someone wanted to RP his country ignoring a UN regulation and even went so far as to create a fairly lengthy thread in which he outlined his government's reasons for not complying with UN regulations and the thread got locked.

My memory may be faulty, but I seem to remember the tenor of that discussion being to the effect of "even if you put out a well-planned RP detailing your reasons for ignoring UN regulations, you can't ignore them and you must comply with them and your thread will be locked."

It's possible I'm interpreting the ages-old post wrong and it's possible that I may be reading into it the wrong way, but I remember it being told in no uncertain terms that you couldn't ignore the UN even if you wanted to. And I was thinking of all the potentials for RP that were flushed down the toilet because of the rule.

It's possible I'm interpreting the ages-old post wrong and it's possible that I may be reading into it the wrong way, but I remember it being told in no uncertain terms that you couldn't ignore the UN even if you wanted to. And I was thinking of all the potentials for RP that were flushed down the toilet because of the rule.

That may be the case, but Sophista and others did a pretty decent job of RPing "The Great Dodgeball War", in defiance of a UN resolution. I think Knootoss may have RPed non-compliance with "The 40 Hour Workweek", although the thread I'm getting that from isn't fully clear. I don't think the idea of non-compliance is looked on especially favourably by the mods, simply because if everyone did it, the whole exercise would become rather pointless, but I really don't see why the principle of 'not moderating RP' wouldn't apply to UN RP too. We're forced to recognise a ruling on a proposal; we're not forced to recognise the existence of the Gnomes.

Jocabia: What was the first proposal? I only know of one that was deleted - the UNGA one.

The only signature I've seen is the "Give it a rest". Not saying the others weren't there. But it doesn't take a "psychic" of any flavour to realize that putting *anything* back into a signature file is just a different type of baiting.

Let's say I'm at that imaginary club, and I start a fight ... while the bouncer is responsible for breaking up the fight (even if that means grabbing a hold of me and in the worst case, bopping me with a baseball bat), the minute I *stop* and no longer present a danger, if the bouncer then just hits me because he / she I *had* (past tense) caused trouble, he or she has lost his / her impartiality and at many clubs that bouncer could end up looking for a new job.

Only he didn't stop (presumably, since they deleted the sig twice). They deleted the sig and put a warning to "give it a rest". It's a direction to stop. Considering they'd asked him once, give it a rest seems appropriate (again, I didn't see the second signature, but it's not hard to extrapolate).

Now I've never been a bouncer before, but I have broken up a few fights at seedy clubs (when I was younger, I'd hang out at industrial and goth venues). One time a cowboy lifted me up and was about to throw me across the room in the middle of a concert, when a bouncer came up from behind and simply put the guy into some sort of head lock. Instead of angering the guy (or anybody else), the bouncer simply said, "Folks, just calm down and come outside." (I wasn't rounded outside, as all I did was put my body between the cowboy and the punk he was about to hit.)

Again, that assumes a direction to cut it out or give it a rest is an attack of some sort instead of a direction. What would you have required them to say so they wouldn't "end up looking for another job"? "I know we've asked you this before, but would you mind discontinuing your actions we view to violate our rules provided it doesn't disrupt your day too much"? "Give it a rest." Seems to me to be a rather succint way of asking him to, dare I say, give it a rest.

You call it flamebaiting... have you ever seen anyone at any time warned officially or unofficially for telling someone to give it a rest?

By the way, I'm not making fun of your argument in my points, I just don't view "give it a rest" as an inappropriate thing to say when it's an issue that has gone on in two signatures and two threads over several days. In fact, it seems to me to be a farily patient response. To be fair, not all the responses given PC were so patient, but the point is this doesn't seem to be an issue to me.

You also just mentioned *two* proposals ... I've been talking about *one* proposal, namely the one he is referencing in response to the moderation telegram (it was about guns). What is the other deleted proposal?

Repeal "Gay Rights" That was where the first signature came from (the one I saw).

Actually, though this is pointless. There's not much point on any of us speculating when the mods can answer themselves. I'm just offering up what I saw since some of the assertions in this thread seem to unfounded and counter to what I've seen.

Actually, though this is pointless. There's not much point on any of us speculating when the mods can answer themselves. I'm just offering up what I saw since some of the assertions in this thread seem to unfounded and counter to what I've seen.

Ok. But some of us weren't especially interested in 'countering' PC's arguments, but rather in the rule itself. Shouldn't there be player discussion of that? It seems increasingly like there is a slight dichotomy between the explicit proposal rule and interpretation. We're in the UN; we're affected by its provisions; we can get ejected from it for violating its rules. I'm not advocating a democratic process in proposal legality, at all, but I am saying, while we play this game, I don't see why we can't express an interest in its rules. I am genuinely interested in the Optionality prohibition; I have no desire to win or lose debate points, and expect to do the latter, not especially caring. I'm not a good debater, at all.

But I like playing the UN game, and I take heart that on previous occasions - the drafting of the revised rules, for example - the moderators sought player input. They haven't sought it here yet, but that's not going to stop me from discussing the interpretation with other people. If all you're interested in is PC's sig, then yes, this probably is pointless. I'd suggest that initial interest is fairly pointless. But, given we play the UN game nearly every day, discussing in the UN forum and writing proposals which we hope to make law, then isn't it rather more pointful for us to be discussing how we interpreted the Optionality line, and then seeing how that related to this case, and in general?

You call it flamebaiting... have you ever seen anyone at any time warned officially or unofficially for telling someone to give it a rest?


Of course not. :)

But it isn't what was said, but where it was placed that rubs me wrong. I moderate on a few invision forums, and I dislike those warning bars they include. The warning bars seem like they are used to "discourage" rule breaking instead of to help maintain a friendly environment. I consider them "naughty bars". :/

I've honestly never seen a NS warning issued via a signature file. Have they done this before??? Is it really the best way to do things?


Compliance / Optional Implementation???

On the issue of compliance and UN resolutions, Fris was one of the participants in the "Law of the Sea" / "Great Dodgeball Wars" RP. He can offer up his own opinions about non-compliance and roleplaying, but I've posted many times in the UN forums that I feel limited non-compliance should be considered legal. Like any story telling, if the story is fun (as judged by others), I don't see the harm. If it begins to stray from being fun, then I think it is time for our moderators to find a way to prevent folks from being upset -or- it is time for folks to just ignore it and move along. But the coolest thing about NationStates is that it frequently encourages people to think creatively ... building an interactive story is probably why so many of us interact on the forums.

Well, we're back to accusations-you-have-no-proof-of regarding dark and shady moderator conspiracy, I see. My telegram was too short admittedly, and didn't explain the problem fully enough. I apologise: this is a more lengthy explaination:

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Now, the preface to section 1 and 3(b) in your proposal are the kickers:

1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one, for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements:

b)A host nation may, at any time and for any reason, decide to stop hosting a UNGA, at which time the UNGA will close immediately and UN personnel will remove UN equipment and themselves from the nation in a timely manner;

and also

MAINTAINS the right of the UN to deny requests from nations concerning UNGAs

A UN resolution's mechanical effect on the game is uniform: were your proposal to have passed, every nation in the UN would have recieved a mild boost to human rights. The problem is this in no way matches the proposal text: it isn't boosting human rights when the national government decides if it happens or not and can kick it out at any time. No human has any more rights afterwards than they did before.

The thing which affects the legality of this versus the other two passed resolutions is it lacks a 'CREATES' or 'ESTABLISHES' line.

2.ESTABLISHES “The Microcredit Bazaar”, which will set up chapters in all interested member nations

4. CREATES “The United Nations Small Business Classroom” (“The UNSBC”), which may operate branches in consenting member nations

Versus:

1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one

Now, there's an important difference there: in the first two, the agency is established within the resolution itself. UNGA would only exist upon being requested by a nation, which means the entire text of the resolution is optional [and therefore illegal]. The Microcredit Bazaar and the UNSBC still exist as agencies whether the nation chooses to use them or not. Therefore, they are not full 'optional compliance' because the nations that choose to opt out cannot un-create the entire agency. Even if every nation in the UN opted out of the UNSBC or Microcredit Bazaar, the agencies themselves would still exist: UNGA would not exist at all until someone opted in.

All this proposal would do is establish a concept which member nations would then choose whether to apply or not. This doesn't correspond to an across-the-board rise in human rights at all. It'd be legal with a slight rewrite to make it so the UNGA is a coordinating agency for UN gun amnesties rather than something that only comes into being if requested, but it's not a legal resolution worded like this.

Security at UN facilities is maintained by UN personnel;

This is also dubious: since UN army, security force, police force, etc resolutions are illegal, this would effectively require personnel that cannot exist within the bounds of a legal resolution.

It had a list of quotes about dictatorship which, believe it or not, had nothing to do with the dispute with Hack and GMC (Like I said, I was going to drop it). Those quotes are gone now, replaced with a "Give it a rest".

You just happened to put a stack of quotes talking about people making laws behind-the-scenes with 'unjust' at the top right after making those exact complaints yourself in a thread that was locked. Please, credit us with the ability to put two and two together, at least?

I've honestly never seen a NS warning issued via a signature file. Have they done this before?

Yes. It's been policy for a long time: especially for sig length violations, sig warnings go in the sig.

Is it possible to perhaps clarify this in the rules as posted? The explanation you just gave is perfectly logical and explains how this is different than the resolutions that have passed in the past. However, the rule as posted seems less forgiving than your explanation just was. It seems like a specific article allowing member nations to opt-in or opt-out of a resulution would explicitly violate the rule as worded. The currently posted rules say they are binding and as they are more restrictive than the ruling it makes it so someone unfamiliar with the history of some of these proposals and wanting to adhere to the rules would be more restricted then some aware of the history.

Is it possible to perhaps clarify this in the rules as posted?
My inclination is to say "no".

The more detailed we make the ruleset, the less people read it. (This is why the One Stop Rule Shop is not linked in the FAQ or Welcome telegram, as it's close to 10,000 words, and da bossfella wanted to keep it simple.) All rules have to be interpreted by mods virtually every session, so we try to make it clear that mod judgement always plays a role.

If you can come up with a phrasing that is as short as the current phrasing, but encompasses the points you want included, post the original and the replacement here. We'll review it.

This is also dubious: since UN army, security force, police force, etc resolutions are illegal, this would effectively require personnel that cannot exist within the bounds of a legal resolution.


Do consider that Hack's rules require that ALL UN created committees (which you've basically said the Powerhungry Chipmunk's resolution is illegal because it didn't create a central UN committee, but distributed UNGAs throughout only willing member states) be staffed by imaginary UN personnel.

Anybody reading UN forum debates will be able to confirm that if you create a building with stockpiled guns *and* make it a UN committee (which clearly he was trying to do), that unless you talk about the security of the facility, people are going to cry, "You can't just lock those guns away!" and use that as a reason to vote against an otherwise "legal" idea.


I've always believed that the point of the prohibition on UN armies and police isn't to prevent imaginary security forces for UN assests (say an imaginary headquarters like in Geneva or New York -- I've been to both facilities, and there are plenty of security guards there), but to prevent players from using NationStates resolutions to engage in warefare or police actions.

I think this is an important enough point that Hack and Fris (the two active mods most familiar with the NS UN) be given a chance to clarify this point.

to prevent players from using NationStates resolutions to engage in warefare or police actions.
Maybe, but more to the point: A UN army or police force would be expected to perform certain actions as part of their role. Players and UN members would demand it, and would bitch about it if it didn't respond the way they wanted it to. Since such a force cannot be run by players impartially, it would need to be managed by mods or (dare we say) game mechanics.

Any proposal that requires certain activity from either the game, the forums, or the mods, is considered Game Mechanics. This includes a UN Army.

Maybe, but more to the point: A UN army or police force would be expected to perform certain actions as part of their role. Players and UN members would demand it, and would bitch about it if it didn't respond the way they wanted it to. Since such a force cannot be run by players impartially, it would need to be managed by mods or (dare we say) game mechanics.

Any proposal that requires certain activity from either the game, the forums, or the mods, is considered Game Mechanics. This includes a UN Army.

Would a proposal saying, "This UN facility will be protected by guards" really require any activity?

To me, a blue helmet security force charged with *watching* guns in a UN facility isn't technically a UN army, but more like a committee staff, whom are charged with keeping the physical assets of the UN under guard. To me, this is what the proposal in question (UNGA program) was doing.


The key here being that if we could have super long rules, the prohibition on a UN standing army could explain that the point behind that rule is to prevent players from *using* that army (due to game mechanics issues as you've suggested), but pretending that the UN headquarters might have a security force loyal only to the UN could be ruled OK. But long rules just mess things up, thus I think the intent of the proposal / resolution is key.

A RL example of a police force that has only *one* mission: the Pope's Swiss Guard. The Swiss Guard are provided to the Vatican by the Swiss people, but they are loyal *only* to the Pope, and the Swiss have never used them for anything else.

Ok, I completely accept GMC's explanation of the proposal deletion; I was wrong, and that's fine. But was it really necessary to lock the UNGA thread in the UN forum? Why can't we help PC reword his proposal until it's legal?

Do it in a new thread without all the baiting and hysterical conspiracy-mongering.

Do it in a new thread without all the baiting and hysterical conspiracy-mongering.

I didn't say anything! I wished him luck on getting it into a legal state. I understood and agreed with the explanation. I wasn't baiting anyone.

Nonetheless, ok. I'll wait for PC to start a new thread.

I didn't say anything!I wasn't talking about your posts.

I didn't say anything! I wished him luck on getting it into a legal state. I understood and agreed with the explanation. I wasn't baiting anyone.

Nonetheless, ok. I'll wait for PC to start a new thread.

PC baited in the proposal's thread - along the same lines as his first post here....

Now, there's an important difference there: in the first two, the agency is established within the resolution itself. UNGA would only exist upon being requested by a nation, which means the entire text of the resolution is optional [and therefore illegal]. The Microcredit Bazaar and the UNSBC still exist as agencies whether the nation chooses to use them or not. Therefore, they are not full 'optional compliance' because the nations that choose to opt out cannot un-create the entire agency. Even if every nation in the UN opted out of the UNSBC or Microcredit Bazaar, the agencies themselves would still exist: UNGA would not exist at all until someone opted in.Okay, that I understand (and Forgottenlands, I also understand that it's not at all what your post in the UN forum was saying :p). I sincerely wish there had been little more open discussion and that GMC had discussed it with another mod (recusing himself, due to the possible appearance of injustice), and had that mod perform the deletion.

Or, better yet, that distinction could've been made clear after Microcredit Bazaar, or during the drafting of UNGA. One little post would've prevented this whole affair (even a post by you Forgottenlands, before it was submitted).

You just happened to put a stack of quotes talking about people making laws behind-the-scenes with 'unjust' at the top right after making those exact complaints yourself in a thread that was locked. Please, credit us with the ability to put two and two together, at least?
If that's the line you take, then you can have no complaint with me thinking you're out to get me. I (according to a lot of posters, apparently) have no proof you're trolling me, but that I've "put two and two together" (put the deletion of the proposal and the deletion of the signature) and concluded that you're trolling after me--you seem to have canonized as fair logic.

So, I'll continue to maintain the claim that you're trolling me (not in my sig, obviously, but ruleful opposition is still allowed on this site last time I checked), since that seems to be what you'd do if you were in my shoes.

Now, if a mod would be so kind, can my thread about the UNGA be unlocked, so I can get around to redrafting and resubmitting this puppy (without cluttering up the forums with a new thread)?

Well, we're back to accusations-you-have-no-proof-of regarding dark and shady moderator conspiracy, I see. My telegram was too short admittedly, and didn't explain the problem fully enough. I apologise: this is a more lengthy explaination:

And a pretty good one, I think. But I disagree with parts of it.

A UN resolution's mechanical effect on the game is uniform: were your proposal to have passed, every nation in the UN would have recieved a mild boost to human rights. The problem is this in no way matches the proposal text: it isn't boosting human rights when the national government decides if it happens or not and can kick it out at any time. No human has any more rights afterwards than they did before.

This seems a legitimate reason to rule the proposal illegal. It's a pretty straightforward "this doesn't do what matches the category" point. Fair enough. I would recommend International Security for the UNGA category.

Now, there's an important difference there: in the first two, the agency is established within the resolution itself. UNGA would only exist upon being requested by a nation, which means the entire text of the resolution is optional [and therefore illegal]. The Microcredit Bazaar and the UNSBC still exist as agencies whether the nation chooses to use them or not. Therefore, they are not full 'optional compliance' because the nations that choose to opt out cannot un-create the entire agency. Even if every nation in the UN opted out of the UNSBC or Microcredit Bazaar, the agencies themselves would still exist: UNGA would not exist at all until someone opted in.

A fine distinction, the one I figured was being made. :)

All this proposal would do is establish a concept which member nations would then choose whether to apply or not.

If I recall correctly, my resolution "Right to Self-Protection" did essentially the same thing. It laid out a principle and urged nations to implement it, which they are free to do or not do, given the wording. It is, in fact, entirely optional from a roleplay perspective, just as UNGA would be. The only essential difference in this case seems to be that UNGA was a little more explicit in it's optionality than "Right to Self-Protection", though UNGA did not go so far as to come out and say "nations can ignore this if they want." UNGA is in between RtSP and the "nations can ignore this if they want" in terms of how it creates an entirely optional roleplay effect. RtSP was legal, and "nations can ignore this if they want" is clearly not. UNGA creates a gray area in which I'm fairly sure proposal should be legal. We can debate that point and try to figure out what an appropriate standard would be. That would be my recommendation.

This doesn't correspond to an across-the-board rise in human rights at all. It'd be legal with a slight rewrite to make it so the UNGA is a coordinating agency for UN gun amnesties rather than something that only comes into being if requested, but it's not a legal resolution worded like this.

I've noticed that with a number of resolutions (especially the complicated and more detailed ones) the text of the resolution (which is roleplay) didn't quite jive with the game mechanics effects. That's pretty normal. The game mechanics aren't really complicated enough to simulate the probable effects of the resolutions on a seriously roleplayed nation anyway, which as a good roleplayer yourself, I'm sure you have figured out by now. In my view, this is because of the separation between the text of the resolution and the Category/Strength fields. The former functions in the realm of roleplay, and the latter functions only partially in the realm of roleplay while primarily creating the game mechanics effects. It's not surprising to me, then, that there may be only a partial connection between the game mechanics effects of a resolution and the roleplayed effects, including when it comes to optionality. Though I can make a case for the game mechanics effects being optional too and take a stronger position on optionality, if that's preferable. ;)

Yes. It's been policy for a long time: especially for sig length violations, sig warnings go in the sig.

This is true, Mik. As you can see, I certainly don't always agree with GMC's decisions or how he presents them, but he's right about this.

I wasn't talking about your posts.
Yeah, I know you're talking about my posts, and I'm somewhat disturbed about it.

First, you aren't punishing me for my baiting or for the hysteria of my conspiracy-mongoring, yet you still bring them up, without mentioning my name, at that. All this seems to do is maintain, in your mind, your superiority over me (“look at him he’s so stupid for going down the slide backwards”) and stir me up to anger. It seems almost like flamebait. I mean, surely you could've found a way to say "we would only discuss that in a new thread" without personally attacking me, or giving the appearance of a personal attack.

Also, if you’re going to let it slide, then let it slide and don’t say anything about it. I'd rather that I get a soft warning (or hard) for doing something wrong now, and it be resolved, than for you to (immaturely, I feel) hold something against me indefinitely.

(even a post by you Forgottenlands, before it was submitted).

I don't read every thread that gets put forth on the UN forum these days - I simply don't have the time. However, the word "opt-in" attracted my attention to the submitted version

Now, if a mod would be so kind, can my thread about the UNGA be unlocked, so I can get around to redrafting and resubmitting this puppy (without cluttering up the forums with a new thread)?

You know, you accused GMC of mod trolling and then go and ask a favor from the mod community? Very interesting method of doing politics

I don't read every thread that gets put forth on the UN forum these days - I simply don't have the time. However, the word "opt-in" attracted my attention to the submitted versionPerhaps I'm wrong to single you out. It just seems a tendency in the UN forum, not to give a rat's ass about proposal's being drafted, but to bear down heavy-handedly on proposals already submitted, even though the latter is so incredibly futile. It's happened a couple of times with a variety of posters.

I mean, I sort of understand the reason for it, economy of time and energy. There are many more drafted proposals than submitted proposals in the forum. And the chances of a proposal that's being drafted actually making it are less than that of a submitted proposal actually making it.

But still, this is twice that whole lines of thought have failed to have a trace of mention in the drafting thread, yet they're the central theme of the submission thread. With Small Business Education, not a one mentioned that maybe it was overreaching to suggest certain legislation regarding small businesses in the drafting thread. Yet that was the whole of the discussion in the submission/debate thread. It just seems (and maybe that's all it is, an illusion) less than fair.

You know, you accused GMC of mod trolling and then go and ask a favor from the mod community? Very interesting method of doing politicsSome might say the same of your calling me "way out of line" then asking me to understand your selective reading of the forum. Besides that, I'd rather your default mode of my posts not be "review and make insinuations on how he's an idiot". If a matter is not really concerning you (this request is kind of between me and the mods--your kibitzing of it is quite irrelevant), I would hope that more often than not that you not respond. Goodness knows my butting into other peoples' affairs has brought me more tears than victories.

And beyond that, yeah, I do hope the moderators are willing to co-exist with me and respond to my requests (yay or nay) regardless of my history with them, or my beliefs about bias. There's a difference between an arbiter believing a complaint is baseless, and an arbiter holding a grudge against the complainer. I mean, if my accussation is wrong, then it is. That really should have no bearing on whether or not they'd unlock the UNGA thread. Which I only suggest because I thought it would be easier (and because I saw no great reason for it to be locked in the first place--actually, I can't find any explicit explanation for the locking). If it isn't easier, I'm fine starting a new thread, or redrafting off-site. A "no" is fine by me (though I would hope they'd explain their thinking).

You know, you accused GMC of mod trolling and then go and ask a favor from the mod community? Very interesting method of doing politics

I'd like to suggest it is time to just let that drop.


To steer this thread into something that I think might still be positive, I still am unclear on GMC's suggestion that the proposal was deleted in part because it mandated a standing UN army or police force.

Since the Most Glorious Hack's rule that UN committees will by default be staffed by people loyal only to the UN in combination with the proposal's clause that implies that the United Nations Gun Amesty stockpiles would be protected by UN staff ("Security at UN facilities is maintained by UN personnel;") suggests that one of the two justifications provided by GMC for his decision that the proposal was illegal is actually wrong.

I think that the proposal did not violate the standing UN army rule, because it is reasonable to assume that UN assets are protected by staff loyal to the UN (per Hack's rules).

GMC's other point about opt-ins is valid (though it is incredibly nitpicky -- "ESTABLISHES" vs. "SETS UP"). But I think this proposal is much closer to being legal than has been suggested here, and Gruenberg and I *both* are interested in seeing this proposal reworked into a legal state. Gruenberg and I talked about this a bit last night. :)

With that in mind, it seems to me that the only thing that really needed to be changed to make this proposal legal would be simply to change the wording on the first clause:

"1.SETS UP a “United Nations Gun Amnesty” (UNGA) in member nations which request one, for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements:"

Perhaps to something like:

"1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations Gun Amnesty (UNGA) program which is responsible for setting up stockpiles in all interested member nations for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements:"



Would this then be legal?

Perhaps I'm wrong to single you out. It just seems a tendency in the UN forum, not to give a rat's ass about proposal's being drafted, but to bear down heavy-handedly on proposals already submitted,

Having been active in the UN forum for two years, that is exactly how I'd describe the trends. Though I think this is largely the nature of things.

Voting records compared to UN forum polls actually suggest that UN forum viewers are much more "conservative" than the overall UN voting pool is.

Personally, if somebody managed to get 6% of the UN Delegate endorsements, but has a few typos and errors in their proposal, I let it slide. NationStates is a game, and I don't want to nitpick some kid. I did once though! Hersfold submitted a resolution titled the "UN Educational Committee". The idea itself seemed pretty honorable, but the resolution itself was horribly written -- it had more than the normal amount of typos and there were a few logical flaws.

I came down hard on him, and I was *shocked* when he came to the North Pacific and desparately tried to answer everything a number of us asked. He assured us that he never meant for the typos ... and over the course of the 5 days of UN debate, I gained a huge respect for him as a *person*. I found out that he was in high school and was a referee for youth soccer and active in several other community groups! He simply joined NationStates and wrote what he thought was a good resolution to help people *and* he looked at prior resolutions as examples.

Anyways, after meeting Hersfold online, the way I looked at UN resolutions changed. I cut people slack.

The reason I am mentioning this here, is EVERYTHING in this thread seems to be related to a very legalistic nitpick on a few words in the Powerhungry Chipmunk's proposal.

NationStates was fun in 2004. But at some point in 2005, it become more about the frakking rules. The UN FAQ was batted around too often, the Enodian Protocols were always mentioned, until they were replaced by the Most Glorious Protocols (or as Forgottenlord likes to call them the Hackian Laws). At some point it became the job of UN players *and* NationStates moderators to nitpick things to death. And in doing so, roleplaying and humour took a backseat to litigation.

Fris is right ... the longer we make our rules, the worse off we are.

Gruenberg is also right ... people can and do look to old examples of resolutions when drafting new ones. Just look at how the appearance of resolutions changed over the past 2 years! :)

Finally, there are a ton of people who just want to jump into the fun part of the game ... and that means that proposals will tend to be ignored, while resolutions will get a bit more attention (afterall, you can vote on a resolution, proposals only matter if you are a Delegate, moderator, or proposal author).

Since the Most Glorious Hack's rule that UN committees will by default be staffed by people loyal only to the UN...

Yes, that means pencil-pushers, though, the people on the actual committee. I don't think we've ever had that interpreted as allowing those magic staff-members to include people with guns, and allowing that could potentially open up a nasty can of worms with other proposals. After all, what's the difference between a single imaginary policeman, a dozen, several thousand [as would be the case with a realistic number of UNGAs set up at a given time] and a resolution for a UN-wide police force? After all, the police force could also be argued to consist of imaginary UN-loyal staffers, as could a UN Army.

GMC's other point about opt-ins is valid (though it is incredibly nitpicky -- "ESTABLISHES" vs. "SETS UP").

Well, that's not the point. The passed resolutions set up a committee to run a thing, UNGA sets up the idea of a thing but not a committee to run it; it's like someone in the UN standing up and saying 'I have a marvellous idea!' then describing it and everyone nodding their heads and saying if anyone requested it and the UN wanted to do it, they'd do it...Not really a 'resolution,' because it doesn't actually do anything, it's just a 'good idea that may be implemented later.' It's a somewhat bigger difference than you're implying: the difference is between:

'ESTABLISHES the <committee for gun amnesty> which will run <gun amnesties> in the nations that want them'

and

'SETS UP the <gun amnesties> in the nations that want them'

not just between ESTABLISHES and SETS UP. You could 'ESTABLISH the <gun amnesties> in the nations that want them' and it wouldn't change the legality of the statement.

"1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations Gun Amnesty (UNGA) program which is responsible for setting up stockpiles in all interested member nations for the purpose of receiving guns from citizens, under the following requirements:"

I'd say more

"1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations Gun Amnesty Panel [or whatever] (UNGAP) which will be responsible for coordinating UNGAs in all interested member nations, under the following requirements:"

Or something of that nature. 'Program' doesn't really imply a committee, though that really is a nitpick.

First, you aren't punishing me for my baiting or for the hysteria of my conspiracy-mongoring, yet you still bring them up, without mentioning my name, at that.I thought I was quite clear in saying what I was talking about. And I figured that locking the thread counted as "punishment". Would you prefer a forum ban or ejection from the UN?

All this seems to do is maintain, in your mind, your superiority over me (“look at him he’s so stupid for going down the slide backwards”) and stir me up to anger.Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not what I'm thinking at all. But points for continuing to troll.

It seems almost like flamebait.Locking a thread full of trolling and baseless accusations of mod corruption (after you've been told several times to provide actual proof of said accusations) is flamebaiting? Curious definitions you operate with...

I mean, surely you could've found a way to say "we would only discuss that in a new thread" without personally attacking me, or giving the appearance of a personal attack.Pointing out your wrong doing is hardly a personal attack. I feel I was quite restrained in giving my explination. Perhaps the problem is that you lash out against anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Also, if you’re going to let it slide, then let it slide and don’t say anything about it.Gruenberg asked why the thread was locked and I gave my reasons.

I'd rather that I get a soft warning (or hard) for doing something wrong now, and it be resolved, than for you to (immaturely, I feel) hold something against me indefinitely.Holding something against you? Let me get this straight... Fris says that your complaint is without base. GMC tells you to provide proof of wrongdoing when making such accusations. I tell you to provide proof of wrongdoing being making such accusations. You then make baseless accusations of wrongdoing. I lock a thread because you do what you've been told not to, and I'm the one in error? I'm the immature one? I'm holding something against you "indefinitely" (which is, aparently, 2 days)?

Grow up. I've had enough of this.

Powerhungry Chipmunks, you will either provide hard evidence of moderator bias and corruption (either through the forums or in an email to me (salusa@nationstates.net) or you will drop the topic of bias and corruption now.

Or something of that nature. 'Program' doesn't really imply a committee, though that really is a nitpick.

I don't agree with you that 'programs' doesn't imply 'committees'.

Take a look at the real UN’s organizational chart:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html

The important thing to note is the number of UN General Assembly created committees that are in fact named “Programme”.

Examples:
United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP)
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
World Food Programme (WFP)
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

Now look back over that list to see how many of the functioning UN committees are called committees? The answer is very few (if any at all). There are plenty of commissions, funds, and programs. Each of the committees listed on this chart is staffed by people whom apply for jobs with the United Nations itself and work for the UN. They are *not* appointed by national governments and aren’t politicians by trade. They are exactly the type of people Hack talks about when he talks about imaginary committee staffers.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t UN committees that are called committees. In fact the General Assembly has a number of political committees, which like Congressional committees are designed to divide the political duties of the General Assembly into smaller and more manageable pieces. But these committees are staffed by political appointees that are loyal to their home country ... they are diplomats.

http://www.un.org/ga/60/

From that link, click on the committees pull down … you’ll see a number of bodies that any Model United Nations student should be extremely familiar with. These types of committees are clearly prohibited in NationStates due to game mechanics reasons.

The reason I’m making a deal on this point is I have *always* supported flexibility and a lot of latitude in how players might decide to build our NationStates UN.

In simple terms, for the purposes of our game: program, panel, committee, commission, etc. … they all should be treated the same. Players should have the freedom to choose how they’d like to name these things, and there are plenty of examples to point to that supports this.

Before anybody cries “But NationStates isn’t the real UN!”, let's stop for a second to take a look at how our UN has evolved:

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Committees

Moderators have already allowed the sort of flexibility that I’m asking for. I’m simply asking that players continue to be allowed to name things within this same context. The goal shouldn't be to make rules, but to make the game fun and easy to play!


p.s. I'm using my (it is me Mikitivity -- *waves*) Red Cross puppet, which I sometimes use as a voice for international "non-governmental organizations" (NGOs) to add a bit of fun and flavour into NS UN debates.

Yes, that means pencil-pushers, though, the people on the actual committee. I don't think we've ever had that interpreted as allowing those magic staff-members to include people with guns, and allowing that could potentially open up a nasty can of worms with other proposals. After all, what's the difference between a single imaginary policeman, a dozen, several thousand [as would be the case with a realistic number of UNGAs set up at a given time] and a resolution for a UN-wide police force? After all, the police force could also be argued to consist of imaginary UN-loyal staffers, as could a UN Army.

Who protects our imaginary UN headquarters?

I can assure you that when I checked in both the Geneva and New York UN Headquarters that the UN staff that took my passport and watched me as I walked through the metal detector weren't armed with pencils.

I think the slippery slope argument "but if we let people believe the UN has security guards, they'll then argue for UN peacekeepers" while valid, is also somewhat illogical -- it can be easily dismissed by looking at the *intent* of our NS UN rules.

The *point* of the "no UN army" rule is to prevent players from writing resolutions that target individual nations. This was originally justified because the NationStates game code can't disguish a resolution sending peacekeepers to all nations vs. sending peacekeepers to a small subset of UN member nations.

In real-life, UN armies are used to enforce international will. UN security guards are used, like UN accountants ... to protect and manage UN physical assets. The guys I talked to in Gevena this past May are just as likely to find themselves in Cyprus as you or I (i.e. never).

Fris pointed out that the longer our rules become the less effective they are. So I'm not asking for a rewording on the rules, but for your decision to be overturned.

Common sense and facilitating realism in our rules should factor in game decisions / rulings. Obviously in the real world, buildings have security personnel. It was clear to me (somebody who works in a government building and has more government IDs than I can keep track of -- each for a different "task") that when the Powerhungry Chipmunks included the clause that stated that the gun depots would be protected, he wanted to prevent the "but this is useless" cries that we are currently seeing via the current UN resolution.


Just to recap: You have a valid point about the FACT that people will try to create a UN Army, and at some point somebody else is going to restate my argument that UN buildings have UN guards ... but instead of stopping where I feel logic ends, they'll use this as their grounds for pressing for a standing UN Army ...

But guess what, when they do that, instead of saying "It is against the rules", you can still say, "Be that as it may, the reason UN Armies aren't allowed in NationStates is because we don't have the ability or desire for one set of nations to use the game engine / NS UN, to wage war on another group of nations."

In other words, there is no can of worms here. Just go back to the reason the UN Army rule was created. The brilliant thing here is I don't even see any need to write any of this down, as the simple stuff is usually the easiest to understand. :)

I think the slippery slope argument "but if we let people believe the UN has security guards, they'll then argue for UN peacekeepers" while valid, is also somewhat illogical -- it can be easily dismissed by looking at the *intent* of our NS UN rules.

Yes, but if you go beyond simply assuming they're there to putting it in proposals, you get problems.

Ask yourself the question: what powers does a UN security guard have in another UN nation? There's no resolution that guarantees them immunity from criminal prosecution as a result of executing their duty, there's no provision for who detains or tries people they arrest, there's no provision for recruiting them, training them, or equiping them. So, who equips them? What are they trained to do? What guidelines do they operate under? Are they a paramilitary force with machine guns and main battle tanks and nuclear weapons with orders to shoot to kill? A police-type unit with riot batons and tasers, and orders to use non-lethal means only? Something in between?

It's fine to have the thought, in the background, that the UN has 'some security of some sort,' but as soon as you begin mentioning it in resolutions, you need to have another resolution [an illegal one] to define the UN security force's role, training, financing, procedure, payscale, and their legal status and powers in UN nations. It's just more trouble than it's worth.

Yes, if you go beyond simply assuming they're there to putting it in proposals, you get problems.

Ask yourself the question: what powers does a UN security guard have in another UN nation?

I still think you are really making some wrong leaps in logic.

Let's use a real world example: I'm a state employee ... an engineer in water resources. I have *zero* legal mandate to practice transportation engineering on behalf of the state, let alone anywhere else.

Given the Powerhungry Chipmunk's resolution stated that UN personnel would be responsible for protecting the UNGA depots, that is the beginning and end of their mandate. *Another* resolution would be required to expand that role, and PRESTO you can warn as many players as you like the minute they cross Hack's *existing* metagaming rule. If they even tried to do what you are suggesting and expand the scope of a silly imaginary security guard you can say (a point I mentioned before): "Due to the design of the game and complications in moderating roleplayed disputes, resolutions which have the potential to target individual nations via a mobile army aren't allowed."

Who protects our imaginary UN headquarters?
The impenetrable shield of the mighty IGNORE cannon. Same as everywhere else on the site. That much is actually part of UN law. (yeah, my fault, I know.)


GMC is right. UN Security = UN Army, from the perspective of the game. This isn't the first proposal deleted for just a hint of UN Army (and that was just a minor component), and it won't be the last. It's not new policy, it's just a new public discussion of an old policy. Let it go.

I still think you are really making some wrong leaps in logic.

Let's use a real world example: I'm a state employee ... an engineer in water resources. I have *zero* legal mandate to practice transportation engineering on behalf of the state, let alone anywhere else.

Yes, but how many times have you been called upon to arrest or subdue unruly water with physical force, knowing full well that water has legal rights?

Given the Powerhungry Chipmunk's resolution stated that UN personnel would be responsible for protecting the UNGA depots, that is the beginning and end of their mandate.

But in what way are they to go about 'protecting' the depots? It could be anything from drawing a chalk line and shooting anyone who crosses it to just calling for local police backup if anything happens. In a job which involves application of force, you need procedure and laws in place to say what you can and cannot do.

Let's go for an example. Bigtopia accepts a UNGA, but Bigtopian Warlord Bob and his men decide they want to steal the stockpile of handed-in weapons. Barney the UN security guard stops Warlord Bob and his men, and hands them over to local police. Bigtopia refuses to prosecute Warlord Bob, refuses to imprison him, and demands Barney the UN security guard be handed over to face charges for assault and false imprisonment, since he had no legal mandate to stop, arrest or detain Warlord Bob.

In order for Barney the UN security guard to have the defence that he assaulted Warlord Bob in the legal prosecution of his duty, there must be laws in place saying what he can and cannot do to ensure the security of a UNGA. It's fine to say it's his job to 'protect' it, but without law in place saying how he can protect it and what powers he does and doesn't have, he's basically useless.

In other words, they must do what I'm suggesting in order for any UN personnel to actually be able to protect a UNGA. You can't say 'these guys will have the power to protect this place' before you define what that power actually involves. As I said, for as long as security guys stay as assumptions in the background, they're fine, but if you mention them in the proposal text, they need a clear resolution to give them powers in all UN nations, and limits to those powers.

To recap, from my perspective:

PC's proposal was illegal for multiple reasons.

1. Optionality- I still don't agree with this.
2. Wrong category- In that it doesn't actually do anything with human rights, this seems to be a perfectly acceptable and valid reason to rule it illegal.
3. Creating UN Security force- I can see where this would be a problem.

I don't suppose anybody wants to respond to my earlier points on optionality?