NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #18
Proposed by: Valcoma

Description: UN Resolution #18: Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: Automobile Manufacturing) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
COMMENDS the good intentions of the original resolution in seeking to develop new sources of fuel for cars, ...

*snip*

and REPEALS UN Resolution #18 Hydrogen Powered Vehicles

Co-authored by Members of Wall StreetCan we end the practice of creating nations (www.nationstates.net/members_of_wall_street) for the sole purpose of exploiting the branding loophole already? It's especially obnoxious when it's being done to pimp a region.

Gotta agree with Kenneth on this one. It's beyond silly.

That means also stopping all the "Authored by the members of ACCEL" stuff too. And, really, the only way to really stop this is to eliminate any kind of branding whatsoever. This loophole is the result of a compromise, remember.

And, really, the only way to really stop this is to eliminate any kind of branding whatsoever.You can't simply say, "No more creating puppets just so you can pimp for your region/organization/alliance/interest group/whatever in your proposals"? ACCEL's branding has always bothered me too, but this, don't you think allowing the use of this loophole so people can basically insert regional ads into UN resolutions is taking it a bit too far?

It's a reasonable request. I'll see what Fris and Tex think.

I think it would be good to put a stop to the "let's use a nation named after our organization/region as a co-author to get around the branding rules" bit. It was useful and a minor issue at first because there were so few people who needed to do it, but is getting excessive now.

Of course, like Hack said, that would mean no more "co-authored by the members of ACCEL/UNOG/NSO/DEFCON" etc.

The reason I don't see simply eliminating regions and leaving organizations as viable is that regions can just create an organization with a forum and an accompanying nation easily enough, and we're left with the same problem.

I think it would be good to put a stop to the "let's use a nation named after our organization/region as a co-author to get around the branding rules" bit. It was useful and a minor issue at first because there were so few people who needed to do it, but is getting excessive now.

Of course, like Hack said, that would mean no more "co-authored by the members of ACCEL/UNOG/NSO/DEFCON" etc.

The reason I don't see simply eliminating regions and leaving organizations as viable is that regions can just create an organization with a forum and an accompanying nation easily enough, and we're left with the same problem.

Pretty much my sentiments as well. Personally, I think that co-authors should just be limited to stating another nation, and that's it. "Co-authored by Gruenberg", basically.

"Co-authored by Gruenberg", basically.

Which is what they did - they created a puppet named "Members of Wall Street", which is presumably advertising their region "Wall Street". Given that the nation's slogan is "Wall Street! The greatest region in existance! [sic], It's pretty clear-cut.

I don't think we need a new ruling here. In essence they're ad-spamming the proposal list, which is already a UN warning offense. I doubt I would have spotted it, but had someone asked me to investigate in a Getting Help request, I'm quite certain I'd have come to that conclusion and deleted it.

So now you UN watchers have something else to poke us with. Just be sure to suggest the evidence chain, and don't submit a GHR with every 'co-authored by ...' proposal.

Which is what they did - they created a puppet named "Members of Wall Street", which is presumably advertising their region "Wall Street". Given that the nation's slogan is "Wall Street! The greatest region in existance! [sic], It's pretty clear-cut.

I don't think we need a new ruling here. In essence they're ad-spamming the proposal list, which is already a UN warning offense. I doubt I would have spotted it, but had someone asked me to investigate in a Getting Help request, I'm quite certain I'd have come to that conclusion and deleted it.

So now you UN watchers have something else to poke us with. Just be sure to suggest the evidence chain, and don't submit a GHR with every 'co-authored by ...' proposal.

Should have clarified that one. Nations that are specifically that, a nation. Not a nation named "Members of Awesome UN proposing alliance of some sort".

... So now you UN watchers have something else to poke us with.

*regrets missed opportunities*

*Bookmarks "poke mods" quote for reference next time "Advantages of Being in the UN" argument comes up*

*wonders who's on which side of the bars*

So now you UN watchers have something else to poke us with.
Great, another reason to slap proposals in the silly/illegal proposals thread.:rolleyes: