NationStates Jolt Archive

Would it be possible to get a comment/ruling on these types of proposal articles:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12999122&postcount=17

Jey replaced his with alternative wording, but there's another one in the repeal filed on "Individual Determination" which has reached quorum and will probably go to vote at next update.

The clause is mild but still seems to bind future UN action, if passed as part of a resolution.

Thanks.

Two moderators have responded in the given thread.

Would it be possible to go ahead and get a formal mod ruling on the inclusion of this type of clause in repeals.

I'm going to go with the Kennyite interpretation for now. I don't see this as setting any sort of significant precedent, and the language in The Sacred Orb's proposal isn't worth killing a proposal at quorum.

the no-new-legislation rule for repeals wasn't instituted to give quibbling rules-lawyers something to argue about; it was created to prevent repeals from introducing new legislation. And in case anyone hasn't already noticed, simply "advocating" or "endorsing" new legislation isn't exactly creating any. And it's far from placing "obligations" upon any player. The language is quite clear as to the opinion of the General Assembly (and expressing the opinion of the GA is precisely what a repeal argument is for), but relatively neutral as to how quickly it must be done or by whom.

If I have a chance to get up with Hack, Ardchoille, Hotrodia, or any of the other UN regular mods, I'll get a consensus opinion. However, I think it's unlikely we'll have a chance to meet before TSO's proposal goes to the floor.


I'd prefer it if Repeals kept their language more neutral, but that's just personal opinion. A strict, hardcore interpretation could consider it to be mandating action, and thus, technically, creating "new legislation", but that strikes me as reaching and fishing for problems. Much like wanting to avoid anaphora, this is a style issue as opposed to a legality one.


Hence, it appears that language is legal.

So much for being restrained and modest *dashes off to muddy the waters*

EDIT: Mutters darkly: ooh, that Goobergunchia, he's right again!

I'll throw my opinion in belatedly. I'm basically with Hack. I don't much like the phrasing, but it's not a big deal.

This would be a great place for those who dislike the phrasing to campaign for the defeat of the resolution. You can't have precedent unless it passes.

EDIT: Uh, when Fris said "this would be a great place to campaign" I don't think he meant this "this place". *Shifts buncha posts from UN regulars back to the UN*

Folks, remember how the mods keep on having little tanties because Moderation isn't General?

It's not the UN forum, either.

There's a perfectly good thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536960) already open on the subject. I'll pack up your contributions and we can carry on in comfort over there, mkay?