NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion Legality Convention
Link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=convention

This resolution is in the category Moral Decency, and hence must restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency. Only one of the operative clauses is compulsory (the others are RECOMMENDS, URGES, CALLS FOR and REMINDS), and it states:

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

As states already have this right in the absence of the resolution, this resolution cannot be construed as restricting civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Even if the other operative clauses were compulsory, I would think (2) outweighs (3) in effect, and hence this should be in the Human Rights category.

Edit: Yeldan UN Mission has also pointed out that the following is a 'House Of Cards' violation:

REAFFIRMING Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights, that no one may be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment,

No matter how much I dislike this resolution, I don't think this is true. The category is most fitting, because nations currently outlawing abortion will use this resolution to continue that. Thus it is restricting civil rights. It does nothing for human rights, so that's definitely not the category it should be in.

This is why the people trying to twist "individual / popular / people" sovereignty into something there not are confusing things.

Pro-Lifers might argue that the human rights being protected are for the fetuses.

If I were to create a law that would prohibit people from treating others disrespectifully in the work place due to their gender, most of us would agree that it a "civil" right, however, what I've really done is also set up a rule which takes away somebody else's right to be a jerk.

My point is only to remind the moderators that these issues are two sided and not simply black and white.

Another way to handle abortion would be similar to the way we handle recreational drugs and gun control: restrict or promote. It takes away the confusion over passing a recommendation to promote one group's freedoms over another group's.


Is the proposal even remotely close to quorum? I thought the UN debate on the repeal was nasty enough, and I plan to simply abstain should any of these issues reach the same level of heated debate, because these issues are really causing frictions in both the UN forum and the off-site forums that I wish to have very little part in, and people have been really cool to one another for months now. :/

No matter how much I dislike this resolution, I don't think this is true. The category is most fitting, because nations currently outlawing abortion will use this resolution to continue that. Thus it is restricting civil rights.
If they're already outlawing abortion, then this resolution will do nothing further to restrict civil rights. Besides, an equivalent argument could be made about states currently allowing abortion, leading to the opposite conclusion - neither argument is valid.

Is the proposal even remotely close to quorum?

It reached quorum earlier today.

It reached quorum earlier today.

Zoinks!

There was some serious telegram campaigning going on *or* UN Delegates have done the unthinkable and made quite the statement(s)!

The next few weeks are going to be crazy ... it would be interesting to do some polling ahead of time and ask people which of the two proposals they like more. Mods, what would be an appropriate way to conduct that sort of poll? In the UN forum?

Zoinks!

There was some serious telegram campaigning going on *or* UN Delegates have done the unthinkable and made quite the statement(s)!


A bit of both really. There was a concerted TG effort made by those in support of both proposals, plus it's a very contentious issue.

I'm not sure that it's Human Rights or Moral Decency. The way the rules are written, it sounds as if Human Rights/Moral Decency resolutions should either increase or decrease the rights of individuals.
Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.
This proposal does not grant or remove, increase or decrease, any individual rights. Instead, it grants states the right to make that decision.
1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

Actually, it allows states to restrict individual liberties -- restrictions that the UN cannot lift, absent repeal.

Actually, it allows states to restrict individual liberties -- restrictions that the UN cannot lift, absent repeal.
Yes, it allows states to restrict individual liberties. The actual restricting of liberties will be done by national governments, not the UN. A Moral Decency proposal should involve the UN restricting liberties directly (or requiring national governments to do so). This just sets the conditions whereby civil liberties could be restricted if national governments choose to do so.

A Moral Decency proposal should involve the UN restricting liberties directly (or requiring national governments to do so).This does not require nations to restrict civil liberties, just as Nuclear Armaments and UNSA did not require nations to build weapons or otherwise boost military and police spending. Yet both were allowed as International Security: Mild resolutions. There is a reason for the "Mild" strength, you know ...

This does not require nations to restrict civil liberties, just as Nuclear Armaments and UNSA did not require nations to build weapons or otherwise boost military and police spending. Yet both were allowed as International Security: Mild resolutions. There is a reason for the "Mild" strength, you know ...
As the moderators frequently point out, they didn't enforce the rules as strongly in the past, and so you can't cite precedent.

Y'know, it's kinda weasely to do this after it's reached quorum. You had plenty of time to bring this up beforehand.

As the moderators frequently point out, they didn't enforce the rules as strongly in the past, and so you can't cite precedent.

Now this, folks, is what I call bullshit. Kenny can cite whatever he wants as an argument for the proposal's legality. The Mods will decide whether it's fair to cite precedent (or any other argument) or not and act accordingly.

Y'know, it's kinda weasely to do this after it's reached quorum. You had plenty of time to bring this up beforehand.
Weasely? Is that aimed at me or Safalra? And I'm pretty sure it hadn't yet reached quorum when this thread was started. As far as having "plenty of time", it first appeared on Monday and it was submitted on Tuesday. It was never debated or vetted in any way and the author suggested it be submitted as "Human Rights". This was done in a rushed manner in order to get it in queue ahead of "Clinical Abortion Rights". That's fair, this is politics. But so is Safalra's (and my) attempt at trying to kill it here.

This does not require nations to restrict civil liberties, just as Nuclear Armaments and UNSA did not require nations to build weapons or otherwise boost military and police spending. Yet both were allowed as International Security: Mild resolutions. There is a reason for the "Mild" strength, you know ...

I would like to expand on this, because it's actually a good point. Given the legality microscope UNSA was under and the strict scrutiny to which it was subjected, it's probably one of the most solid resolutions to use as a precedent.

Both UNSA and ALC are pro-sovereignty resolutions that have a clause that satisfies the requirement of the category by URGING/ENCOURAGING action in that particular area. In the case of UNSA, nations were urged to ensure that they were well-defended to protect their citizens (hence International Security). In the case of ALC, nations are urged to prevent the IDX procedure (hence Moral Decency).

Now if we're going to say that it's only the binding clauses that make the category, then what happens to resolutions that have no binding clauses? Right to Self-Protection did not have any binding clauses, and if binding clauses are what determines the category of a resolution then Right to Self-Protection has no category at all. I'm pretty sure several other resolutions are in this same boat, in particular Mik's and one of L&E's, though I could be wrong about that. I would suggest that the way to determine category is by looking at all of the content, not just the binding clauses. Frankly, I can't recall any Mod ruling on category that looked at the binding clauses rather than all of the content.

To be blunt, I think this particular legality challenge is a load of crap.

Sorry about posting with the UN Mission last time. Damned auto-login.
In the case of ALC, nations are urged to prevent the IDX procedure (hence Moral Decency).
True. But it also has clauses recommending and reminding nations to do the exact opposite. *edit: maybe not the exact opposite of IDX, but it has clauses that recommend abortion in certain circumstances and reminding nations that "in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities". Hence human rights? This is one of the reasons that I feel it doesn't really fit in "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency".

Now if we're going to say that it's only the binding clauses that make the category, then what happens to resolutions that have no binding clauses?
In cases where a binding clause is completly absent, you have to make a call based entirely on the non-binding clauses. This one has a binding clause, and it does not restrict civil liberties, it just allows nations to do so (or not) as they see fit.

To be blunt, I think this particular legality challenge is a load of crap.
I imagine all of you are outraged over this. That's understandable, I would be too. Remember when LAE tried to kill my repeal of PoDA in a similar manner? I was livid. I stayed mad for several days and even refused to talk to him. But then I realized, he was just using every tool at his disposal to stop something he opposed. It was a political maneuver, similar to a congressman or senator trying to keep a bill from ever leaving committee. I understand that all of you are mad, but this isn't personal.

Sorry about posting with the UN Mission last time. Damned auto-login.Why apologize? We all know it's you. :p

In cases where a binding clause is completly absent, you have to make a call based entirely on the non-binding clauses. This one has a binding clause, and it does not restrict civil liberties, it just allows nations to do so (or not) as they see fit.The non-binding clauses recommend a regime where some civil liberties are infringed (i.e., a partial-birth ban), even if abortion is allowed; therefore, I filed it under Moral Decency. I made a call based on the proposal content: that is, recommending abortion remain legal in some cases, but still recommending that the right to abortion be infringed in some cases. Call me crazy, but on the whole, that sure does sound an awful lot like "restricting civil freedoms."

I imagine all of you are outraged over this. That's understandable, I would be too. Remember when LAE tried to kill my repeal of PoDA in a similar manner? I was livid. I stayed mad for several days and even refused to talk to him. But then I realized, he was just using every tool at his disposal to stop something he opposed. It was a political maneuver, similar to a congressman or senator trying to keep a bill from ever leaving committee.The fact that you yourself are admitting that you're pulling an LAE here doesn't exactly help your case ...

Why apologize? We all know it's you. :p
And to make matters worse, I just now almost submitted a long post as 77 Camaro in answer to you. I have to leave for work. I'll answer your recent points tonight.

Sorry about posting with the UN Mission last time. Damned auto-login.

True. But it also has clauses recommending and reminding nations to do the exact opposite. *edit: maybe not the exact opposite of IDX, but it has clauses that recommend abortion in certain circumstances and reminding nations that "in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities". Hence human rights? This is one of the reasons that I feel it doesn't really fit in "Human Rights" or "Moral Decency".

So what? It's not a perfect fit for the category. UNSA wasn't either. There have been several resolutions shoehorned into a category because it was the closest one to the proposal even though it wasn't a perfect match.

In cases where a binding clause is completly absent, you have to make a call based entirely on the non-binding clauses. This one has a binding clause, and it does not restrict civil liberties, it just allows nations to do so (or not) as they see fit.

And what was the binding clause of UNSA, if you might recall? I believe it was just allowing nations to do as they saw fit, as is the case here. The international security stuff was non-binding, and there were plenty of perambulatory clauses as in ALC. I think the reason you see it as fuzzier is because on the one hand ALC seems to promote limiting civil freedoms and on the other hand it seems to promote expanding them. That's understandable. It is fuzzier. But if I had to choose a category to put the ALC in based on its content (and if I was the author of the proposal I would have to), I would use either Moral Decency or Political Stability. Given the content, either would be fine. I guess I just don't see that we need to delete the proposal just because it's moderate and therefore doesn't fit into the polarized categories very well.

I imagine all of you are outraged over this. That's understandable, I would be too. Remember when LAE tried to kill my repeal of PoDA in a similar manner? I was livid. I stayed mad for several days and even refused to talk to him. But then I realized, he was just using every tool at his disposal to stop something he opposed. It was a political maneuver, similar to a congressman or senator trying to keep a bill from ever leaving committee. I understand that all of you are mad, but this isn't personal.

Outraged? Nah. I just think the legality challenge is a load of crap. I have no beef with you or Safalra simply making a legality challenge, or the timing of the legality challenge. I just don't see that there are legitimate grounds to rule the proposal illegal, and I want to make that clear.

Ok - I know this "allows" for the banning of human rights, but it also allows for human rights to be passed. Kenny, you set the midpoint at not being where the mid-point between pro-life and pro-choice (AKA: where it is now) but where the UN used to be.

Blow by blow:

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

This, in itself, is almost impossible to place. Because of that, on its own it might set the category, but it alone does not decide it.

2. RECOMMENDS that in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality or where the continuation of the pregnancy poses severe medical risk to the mother, states permit abortion procedures;

RECOMMENDS a human right - human rights, mild

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

RECOMMENDS a moral decency - cancels 2

4. CALLS FOR increased international research in fetal development, so as to develop greater understanding of the ramifications of abortion;

CALLS for research funding.....yes it's pro-life, but it isn't really a moral decency. I'd actually put this down as Human Rights, mild.

5. REMINDS states that in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities.

This sounds much closer to Human Rights, mild.

Conclusion.....Human Right, mild - but depending on how you interpret 4 and 5 (even if they cancel out one another), it could easily go to no classification. 1 you could sit in either category if it is the deciding factor.

Mods call.

Mods call.
Yeah, I don't think discussion among players will be able to reach a consensus - not that it's our decision to make anyway. *twiddles thumbs while waiting for a mod*

FL, you're being silly. You can't just add up the clauses on a balance sheet and see which column is greater -- you look at what the resolution does, on the whole. And on the whole, this proposal recommends a regime of reproductive law where abortions are legal (in some cases), but restricted. Moreover, it allows nations to outlaw abortion altogether as they see fit. This is not Human Rights.

FL, you're being silly. You can't just add up the clauses on a balance sheet and see which column is greater -- you look at what the resolution does, on the whole. And on the whole, this proposal recommends a regime of reproductive law where abortions are legal (in some cases), but restricted. Moreover, it allows nations to outlaw abortion altogether as they see fit. This is not Human Rights.

The baseline is that no rights are recommended or guaranteed. As such, even a set of restricted rights being promoted is still more human rights than moral decency.

And you are right, you go based upon what the greatest impact was. However, they all have mild impacts so you do swap to tally sheet. You have BOTH human rights and moral decency arguments sitting there.

This isn't a perfect fit in either category, but I think it's fine being placed under Moral Decency. The URGES clause is easily the strongest, and is clearly a Moral Decency clause. Furthermore, anything outlawing, or allowing for the outlawing of abortion pretty much lands in the lap of Moral Decency.

For the moment I'm in agreement with Teh Hack. We know that some of these are necessarily imperfect fits in this simple game. There are times when its better for all concerned to let an otherwise decent proposal slide through with contentious portions intact.

We're going to have to modchat about the back-to-back abortion proposals in queue, as a decision on one probably causes problems with the other, but there are a bunch of proposals lined up. We'll get to it before it becomes a problem.

Thanks, Fris & Hack. Appreciate y'all giving this careful consideration. :)

Ditto. :)

Kenny, I was going to respond to that post (the last one before I left) but I would basically have said what FL said. No point in repeating it.

Anyway, Mod ruling, case closed. I guess I'm done here.

For the moment I'm in agreement with Teh Hack. We know that some of these are necessarily imperfect fits in this simple game. There are times when its better for all concerned to let an otherwise decent proposal slide through with contentious portions intact.

We're going to have to modchat about the back-to-back abortion proposals in queue, as a decision on one probably causes problems with the other, but there are a bunch of proposals lined up. We'll get to it before it becomes a problem.

You can delete mine now if it will make things easier. If the other one fails (which I doubt) I can always resubmit it and try again.

Sorry I wasn't able to respond to this; I was away during this whole thing. I know the matter may seem closed, but I thought I would just raise a few points anyway:
1. I know it's not a perfect fit, and that quite possibly had it been HR we would be having this same discussion in reverse, but I think there is sufficient grounds for it to be Moral Decency, so long as it is Mild.
2. If the mods change their mind, and it is deleted, could the warning obviously be attached to Gruenberg, rather than Omigodtheykilledkenny2.
3. If it passes, and Waterana's is deleted, I assume Kalibara will receive no warning?
4. Whilst not all the mods 'do' the UN, all game mods can delete proposals. If the ALC does pass, we will send in a GHR as soon as possible.
5. I would personally prefer CAR wasn't deleted now, or even before its time, 'to make it easier'. If the ALC fails, there is nothing to stop us trying again, and I think abortion is a sufficiently important issue that there will be more proposals.
6. As with past things of this nature, why on earth couldn't you have brought this up with us first, Safalra, rather than taking it to the forum? If you wanted to get it deleted, at least file a GHR, rather than trying to humiliate us. Given this was essentially a player debate anyway, while we awaited a mod judgment, it would have made much more sense to do that in the UN forum thread, rather than dragging it across here. I hope that when similar issues arise in the future, we'll be able to try to talk about them first, which is probably more conducive to a good forum atmosphere.

6. As with past things of this nature, why on earth couldn't you have brought this up with us first, Safalra, rather than taking it to the forum? If you wanted to get it deleted, at least file a GHR, rather than trying to humiliate us.
I don't want it deleted - I want the category changed. I don't know why you think I'm trying to humiliate anyone. I took it to Moderation 'cause it's the moderators' decision that matters (edit: the proposal had already been submitted when I noticed the category).

I don't want it deleted - I want the category changed.
Our UN toolbox has but one tool - Delete. I imagine that Max and [violet] didn't want power-mad mods changing game effects over player's objections. Reasonable.

It is, and should always be, up to the player to get it in the right slot.

I'm pretty sure several other resolutions are in this same boat, in particular Mik's and one of L&E's, though I could be wrong about that.

You're absolutely right ... I prefer resolutions that are suggestions ("mild").

Examples: Ballast Water, Tracking Near Earth Objects, Needle Sharing Prevention, Mitigation of Large Reservoirs

I use stronger language in resolutions where the UN essentially orders a non-sovereign organization:

Tsunami Warning System ---> TEWC

Sometimes you think there are strong words being used in a resolution, but they are nothing but definitions and internal to the resolution itself:

Good Samaritan Laws ---> clauses 2 and 4

There are plenty of other examples from other player's resolutions.


A note on the political stability ... I made the mistake of casting the original (and very popular) draft of the Good Samartian Laws as a Political Stability resolution because I felt it was handing more power to law enforcement. Some mod (never found out which one, just a bunch who said they didn't zap it) felt that *that* draft was not a Political Stability. Cog later came in and said it had elements of Moral Decency and something else he couldn't finger, and so he recommended I remove the international disaster assistance provisions and streamline the proposal. So I did.

The way I *now* think of political stability is that it is more of the counter balance for the Furtherment of Democracy. It really has only been used by a few resolutions: Rights and Duties of UN States and Rights of Neutral States. Personally I think they both *kinda* fit in that category because they gave away some sovereign rights. Interestingly decisions that have been made have essentially turned that category into the way to take power from states, while its opposite "the Furtherment of Democracy" is a way to give power to the people.

For a while, I was heavily involved in using the International Security category in a very different way too ... as I was twisting it into a disaster mitigation / scientific research category. My point is only to really point out that for over two years we've been putting the square peg and the round hole, hoping it might shove through largely unnoticed *and* the vast majority of the time people are now debating the text of the resolutions (no stat wank), so we actually seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

Personally, I don't think it is fair of the moderators to issue warnings to proposal authors when they've proposed something that isn't an easy fit and have some justification for what they've done. Certainly I don't want to see any of the abortion resolution authors get zapped. And to me it certainly looks that is exactly what is happening here! :)


[On a side note: Battlestar Galactica started the abortion debate too. TV immitates NationStates???] ;)

Personally, I don't think it is fair of the moderators to issue warnings to proposal authors when they've proposed something that isn't an easy fit and have some justification for what they've done.Yes, you've flogged that particular horse numerous times.

Had it been decided that this abortion Proposal was in the wrong category, it's unlikely a warning would have been added as it's little more than a coin flip on which category is best.

As for the fate of Clinical Abortion Rights, there's two Proposals in queue before Abortion Legality Convention, so there's plenty of time to figure out a course of action. Personally, I would imagine that, should ALC pass, then CAR would be deleted in that 12 hour window between the two. I shouldn't think a warning would be given as CAR was legal when submitted. We're not that heartless.

I don't want to delete CAR now, as ALC's passage isn't a lock, and I'd rather not preemptively delete a Proposal, ya know? If Kalibara really wants CAR deleted, well, I suppose we will, but there's no need to do so until the final vote is in for ALC.

Yes, you've flogged that particular horse numerous times.
Perhaps because it is a horse that needs to be flogged?

I remember a while back when a proposal was the wrong category or something like that and got kicked off of the queue with warnings. I was seriously thinking of writing a resolution at the time. I saw what happened and said to myself, "Forget this thing. I'm not going to spend my time on writing a proposal only to get a warning and possible suspension from the UN as a result!" So I have not written any resolutions whatsoever. The point is moot now because the deligate status got dropped and we voted for someone else to be deligate, so I can't write one even I felt inclined to do so, but if this tactic of forcing unwanted resolutions off of the queue with technicalities succeds in adding a warning to the person's record then no one will ever want to submit a proposal ever again and the only resolutions we will be voting on will be repeals.

said to myself, "Forget this thing. I'm not going to spend my time on writing a proposal only to get a warning and possible suspension from the UN as a result!"Warnings are not "suspensions"

The point is moot now because the deligate status got dropped and we voted for someone else to be deligate, so I can't write one even I felt inclinedYou don't have to be Delegate to submit a Proposal.

if this tactic of forcing unwanted resolutions off of the queue with technicalitiesYou making an accusation of Moderator bias?

succeds in adding a warning to the person's record then no one will ever want to submit a proposal ever again and the only resolutions we will be voting on will be repeals.Yeah, because it's not like there's four Proposals in queue that aren't Repeals.

Oh... wait...

Warnings are not "suspensions"

You making an accusation of Moderator bias?

Well, it goes without say that warnings are a judgement call ... you said that in this case that the abortion proposal is unlikely to have gotten a warning (and I think most everybody is happy to hear that), but in the past Fris's philosophy (which I like):

"There are times when its better for all concerned to let an otherwise decent proposal slide through with contentious portions intact"

hasn't always panned out and warnings have been issued.


IIRC Fris should still technically have his own UN warning from his pre-mod days, and he once pointed out that once you get a warning, you do become less interested in participating in the UN. The dated advice Hersfold wrote (which you deleted) was honestly just him trying to save other players from the frustration he was feeling.


So while I know that mod bias is a hot button on Jolt, I don't honestly hear anybody accusing the moderation staff of bias! I was simply suggesting that when players are *trying* to follow the UN rules that issuing a warning can decrease participation in the game (and cause people to want to get proposals checked before submission).

In the case of the abortion proposals ... the UN repeal debates were heated. Stuff was going on off Jolt too (in places NS moderators don't visit). There were several groups rushing to get a replacement in should the repeal pass, so this is a political / sensitive subject. I'd like to say I think the moderation team is doing a great job with this too!

IIRC Fris should still technically have his own UN warning from his pre-mod daysNot that I'm aware of.

The dated advice Hersfold wrote (which you deleted) was honestly just him trying to save other players from the frustration he was feeling.And it caused confusion because people thought it was an official edict.

So while I know that mod bias is a hot button on Jolt, I don't honestly hear anybody accusing the moderation staff of bias!Uh-huh. "if this tactic of forcing unwanted resolutions off of the queue with technicalities" certainly sounds like he's claiming we're acting based on personal biases.

I was simply suggesting that when players are *trying* to follow the UN rules that issuing a warning can decrease participation in the gameRead the new rules, Mik. There's a reason that I left "Honest Mistake" in the ruleset despite people wanting me to take it out.

(and cause people to want to get proposals checked before submission)Which, *gasp*, we don't complain about. There's a reason Fris and I read the UN forum, you know...

Stuff was going on off Jolt too (in places NS moderators don't visit).You'd be surprized. Most off-Jolt sites have publically known URLs and keep their Proposal discussions in public view.

In Safalra's defence, it would hardly be underhand to make the initial report after the proposal reached quorum if he hadn't previously read the debate. I think some people are assuming that everyone's checking the UN forum on a daily basis - this ain't the case.

In Safalra's defence, it would hardly be underhand to make the initial report after the proposal reached quorum if he hadn't previously read the debate. I think some people are assuming that everyone's checking the UN forum on a daily basis - this ain't the case.
I've started now - I don't want to risk being vilified by the UN forum population.

I've started now - I don't want to risk being vilified by the UN forum population.
I'm not trying to vilify you, or get at you. I just hope, in future, when you see something like this, you'll first take it to the author - I appreciate I wasn't around at the time, of course - and speak to them first, and then if your concern isn't satisfied, file a GHR.

Abortion Legality Convention
Link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=convention
This resolution is in the category Moral Decency, and hence must restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency. Only one of the operative clauses is compulsory (the others are RECOMMENDS, URGES, CALLS FOR and REMINDS), and it states:

As states already have this right in the absence of the resolution, this resolution cannot be construed as restricting civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Even if the other operative clauses were compulsory, I would think (2) outweighs (3) in effect, and hence this should be in the Human Rights category.

Edit: Yeldan UN Mission has also pointed out that the following is a 'House Of Cards' violation:

On my own moral code if this motion is carried i will have no other cause of action than to work diligently to have this removed from UN Law. I totally object to any nation being forced to implement this kind of law on it's citizens and feel that it should be up to the government of the individual nation.

There are already UN laws governing this issue - why do we need another?

On my own moral code if this motion is carried i will have no other cause of action than to work diligently to have this removed from UN Law. I totally object to any nation being forced to implement this kind of law on it's citizens and feel that it should be up to the government of the individual nation.

There are already UN laws governing this issue - why do we need another?
Firstly: this is irrelevant to the moderation discussion. Please comment in this thread - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468922 - to make points about the proposal.

Secondly: you clearly didn't read the proposal. It is NatSov 'blocking' proposal: it affirms the national right to make the decision. In other words, it precisely agrees with you in every way.

We also don't have UN laws on this issue, but that's an aside.

And it caused confusion because people thought it was an official edict.

And as you also pointed out, moderators *do* read the UN forum (and yeah, I am a bit surprised to hear that the mods are reading off-site forums as lurkers -- which is what I think you're implying, but I'm *happy* to hear that), so I'm *not* complaining that the post was deleted. :) There was a time I too think Hersfold's advice was good, but I think ultimately better advice for proposal authors can be summed up in one word: patience.