NationStates Jolt Archive

MODS ONLY, PLEASE

When somebody gets a chance (this isn't overly important), would it be possible for someone to look this over and make sure it doesn't violate any UN rules? Been a while since I've done this, and figure this is generally a good idea anyway. Thank you for your time.

Musical Education Directive
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational (possibly Artistic – which should it be submitted under?)
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description: BELIEVING that musical education is an essential part of a basic education in today’s modern society;

KNOWING that music is a large part of all cultures, and therefore should be included in educational studies to increase one's knowledge of one's culture and society;

FINDING that musical education is a tremendous benefit to an educational environment;

NOTING that musical education has been clinically proven to lower the susceptibility of minors to illicit drug use, increase performance in school, and increase coordination skills;

WISHING the best possible education for all, to ensure a greater standard of life;

RECALLING previous attempts to improve educational standards by the United Nations, including Resolutions #28, #54, #79, #97, and #101;

THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY RESOLVES:

1. That all member nations shall provide a program for musical education in all publicly-funded schools, if in existence, within one year of the passing of this legislation. (Note: If a nation is unable to provide the funding for such a program, they may apply to the United Nations for an exception);

2. To strongly encourage privately-funded educational organizations to adopt similar programs;

3. To strongly encourage member nations to require a basic amount of musical education for all primary and secondary educational programs;

AND DEFINES musical education as any sort of formal training in the areas of instrumental music, vocal music, musical theory, or musical composition.

RESOLVED, THIS DATE, BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

This whole section of "1" is iffy.
if in existence,Optionality clause: The funding will be taken out regardless, so providing a qualifier isn't acceptable.
within one year of the passing of this legislation.UN proposals go into force immediately on passage.
(Note: If a nation is unable to provide the funding for such a program, they may apply to the United Nations for an exception)
No they can't. Optionality again.

"all publicly-funded schools" is enough of a loophole. Lost the rest of that paragraph and it's fine.

RECALLING previous attempts to improve educational standards by the United Nations, including Resolutions #28, #54, #79, #97, and #101;
Not illegal, but totally irrelevant. Sneaks up on being a House of Cards violation, as repeal of any of these endangers your proposal.

Finally, the UN forum is your FIRST stop, and we're your LAST stop if others have pointed out possible errors. Hack, Euro and I (the most active UN mods these days) have other things to do, and we don't want to get in the habit of vetting every proposal out there prior to posting. Let the UN regulars take their shot first. For most of them, that's the highlight of their day.

Let the UN regulars take their shot first. For most of them, that's the highlight of their day.
The UN regulars were unable to read my proposal without insulting either the proposal or myself. Since that venture appeared useless, I was going to go straight to submittal. Since I already have two UN warnings, I submitted it here first, something which USED to be an acceptable and somewhat common practice.

Thank you for your time in looking this over. Would one final revision be too much to ask of you?

If you ask the posters to just analyze its legality so they can help on that, they will focus on that a bit more. Legality tends not to have as many insults thrown out there.

... which USED to be an acceptable and somewhat common practice.
Which is why we instituted the request for UN comments. There aren't many mods who follow the UN these days, so it's harder to find time for analysis.

Also, why should two or three players be the only ones with valued input? My interpretation is that we're the Supreme Court of NS. We're the ones you come to with a troublesome interpretation or a factional difference of opinion about rules interpretation. The General Assembly is your prime source of commentary, as they're the ones who actually have to live with the proposal. Of course you'll get some negative responses, but you have to sort through that to see the useful bits. You barely gave them a chance before abandoning the concept. I think you're looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses if you think it's changed all that much.

We're also the High Holy Executioners, so I understand and appreciate your reticence to post it unvetted. Yes, we'll look at a new draft, but I'd prefer for you to take it back for input with an open mind first.

Note also that NS moderator Frisbeeteria commented only on its legality. The nation of Frisbeeteria thinks it needs a lot of work before it stands a chance of passage.

UN proposals go into force immediately on passage.
You can't phase things in? For some things if you phase it in it's much cheaper. I mean by the way on passage one thing happens then rules get stricter and stricter for the next so many years.

If your proposal (for example) increases taxes and reduces economic freedoms, those things happen instantly.

Whether that money is spent instantly is of no real concern of the UN. Your new schools and factories will not spring from the ground instantly, so in that sense, they phase in gradually. You just can't build delays into the phrasing of your proposal.

If your proposal (for example) increases taxes and reduces economic freedoms, those things happen instantly.

Whether that money is spent instantly is of no real concern of the UN. Your new schools and factories will not spring from the ground instantly, so in that sense, they phase in gradually. You just can't build delays into the phrasing of your proposal.
Not to hijack Hersfold's thread or get into too protracted a legalistic discussion, but...

...would that mean that from now on, lines like those included in the Global Food Distribution and Nuclear Energy Research Acts would be illegal?
3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms)
5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

6. FURTHER REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of electrical power generated by nuclear power plants, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

I'm not going to make a "from now on" ruling without consulting other mods, but yeah, there's a good chance that GFDA at least should have been bounced. Stating effects as percentages over time is a sort of Game Mechanics violation, as there is an expectation that those actual figures should be used. Since only the few know the actual effect (and you're VERY unlikely to guess right), it's a Mechanics issue.

NERA probably would have been OK. "Within eleven years" also incorporates "instantly", so it's not even technically wrong.

Man, why couldn't we have this rule to save us the trouble with PoSP?

NERA probably would have been OK. "Within eleven years" also incorporates "instantly", so it's not even technically wrong.
Oh good, I don't think I'd ever want a proposal to be phased in without saying something like within for people who want to move things faster. So everything is ok