NationStates Jolt Archive

New rules here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465)


This was originally posted by former UN Moderator Enodia, and is sometimes known as
The Enodian Protocols

As the Moderator who seems most heavily involved in regulating UN Proposals, it is my duty to codify the rules governing proposals. All nations thinking about making proposals at the United Nations should make very certain that they understand this thread before posting their proposal.

The white-haired Enodian delegate rises and addresses the Assembly.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the pioneering work of the nation of Reason and Compassion. This nation was the first to attempt a "UN Proposal FAQ" and much of this explanation is based on this FAQ. (original FAQ at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=68349)

To begin with, what purpose does a UN proposal have? Simply put, a UN Proposal is designed to promote a particular political agenda. If it is passed and becomes a Resolution, the statistics of all member nations will be altered in accordance with the Category - NOT the description - of the proposal.
Proposals can and do cover all manner of agendas. However, there are three broad categories of proposal which will always be removed from the queue before they become able to be voted on by the general membership of the United Nations. These three categories are:

1. Suggestions for how to change the game mechanics
2. Proposals in which the category and the description do not match
3. Proposals which are deemed unworthy of UN consideration

Now, to explain these three categories in detail:
Game Mechanics
"We should make it so that all UN Members can vote on proposals before they reach the floor", "We should be able to vote on 2 proposals at once", "The UN should create <multinational organisation>". All of these proposals propose changes to the Game Mechanics governing the running of NationStates.
I cannot stress this enough, You Cannot Play God Here. Your proposal may well be a useful change to the way the game works, and a few changes to the game (ejection of nations from regions, proposal search function) had their genesis in proposals. The bottom line is that they were not adopted because of the successful passage of a proposal, and neither will your suggestion be.

Category and Description not matching
Some proposals which get deleted for this reason are exceedingly Orwellian, most are just disturbing. Simply put, pay attention to your proposal's category and prevent it from being different to the description. A classic example here is the "Human Rights" category. Proposals here are automatically "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" - with the key word being "worldwide".
As a result, a proposal saying "we should kill all the gays" (yes, it comes up) listed under "Human Rights" is going to be deleted. If you have to ask why, I'm rather worried, but I'll explain briefly: To quote Brooke Shields, "If you're dead, you've lost a very important part of your life". In other words, a proposal to improve worldwide human rights will not do that if it involves killing off a section of the worldwide humans.

Not Worthy of the UN's Consideration
This is rather a subjective thing and the good news is that it's only used very rarely. A classic example of a proposal which gets deleted under this rule is "We propose that the UN declare war on <nation>." While the role of the real-world UN might involve warfare and the waging thereof, it isn't for this body to fight wars.

In addition to these three rules, there has evolved a considerable body of what may be termed "Case Law" on the issue. The nation of Kandarin has kindly furnished me with a series of principles I have applied over the past months. I will list each one and explain its use in practice:

1. Offensive Proposal
This is a nice and easy one to run through. Again, killing gays or burning Jews is obviously going to fail at this hurdle - no matter what political agenda you might follow.

2. Game Mechanics Proposal
We've been down this street previously. Thankfully, they're becoming slightly less prevalent at the moment. It is important to notice, however, that proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

3. Joke Proposals
Every now and then someone decides that making a pun about something (usually "The Right to Arm Bears" or "The Right to Bare Arms") would be clever. Beyond the fact that these jokes have appeared at least 25 times each in the proposal queue, the fact that they're not serious proposals will have them deleted.

4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, Thursday, October 14, 2004]You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [/modedit]

5. Duplicate Proposals
Sometimes you'll make the same proposal twice in a row - whether by accident or for your own strange purposes. If this happens, at least one of them gets deleted - more if they're breaking other rules or blatantly spam.

6. Category-VS-Description Clash
In all honesty, Eric Arthur "George Orwell" Blair would be amazed at some of the tortured syntax you guys can come up with to sneak things past the unsuspecting public. Unfortunately, I have some legal training and a good dictionary sitting next to my computer so don't try anything fancy in the fine print. The corollary to this is: always make certain your proposal makes sense grammatically and in terms of spelling - we're not prepared to "translate" bad spelling to see if it makes the proposal work.

7. Amendments
You may not submit a proposal that 'changes' the wording or effect of a passed resolution. You can make a repeal proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/news/2004/09/23/index.html#repeals) if you really want to see the back of one, but that's it.

8. Copied Proposals
There's no point in submitting a proposal that has already been made a resolution. So don't do it.

So much for the reasoning behind killing off proposals. Allow me also to dedicate a few words to the question of what happens "when Mods attack" over this issue.
First and foremost, the proposal is deleted. Secondly, you will be issued a telegram recommending you read the information on UN Proposals. If you still can't work out where you went wrong, telegram Enodia and enquire - politely - what the problem is. I can't stress enough that you are more likely to receive a sympathetic hearing if you ask "I am unsure what was wrong with my proposal "blablabla", can you please explain it?" instead of "You st00pid Mod. I R TEH 733T HAX0R and I will n00k j00 4 TIHS."
At the same time as this telegram is sent, you will have a "warning" recorded in relation to your nation. The third warning for posting inappropriate proposals will result in your ejection from the UN. If you happen to have two inappropriate proposals found in the same UN sweep, that's 2 warnings - woe betide those who have 3 at the same sweep.

Under certain circumstances you will be removed from the UN earlier. Generally, this punishment is only used for proposals deemed so disgusting that stronger action is mandated. Of course, if you happen to be found out as a multi after being picked up for inappropriate proposals, you will be removed from these chambers before your feet even touch the ground. In addition, nations deemed to be disobeying the mod warning run the risk of being ejected as well - such nations are those who simply re-submit the same proposal after having it explained to them why it is inappropriate. It also goes without saying that any offences in this game are cumulative, ergo someone with previous warnings for spamming who then posts inappropriate proposals is more likely to be ejected.

My apologies for the length of this explanation, but it is an issue which needs clarification. The Assembly is welcome to return to its prior business.

He sits, to a prolonged round of applause as befits the Father of the House.

Addendum: New Schedule of Proposal Offences
There are now two types of Proposal Offences, Minor Offences and Flagrant Offences. 3 Minor Offences will get you removed from the UN, while 1 Flagrant Offence is enough.

Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions.
2. Racist or otherwise "bigoted" proposals - including but not limited to the following: advocating the killing of any minority groups or deportation of same to other locales.
3. Other highly offensive proposals - to be decided upon on a case-by-case basis.

Minor Offences
1. Minor game mechanics changes - where not covered above.
2. Incorrect categorisation of proposal.
3. Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.
4. Real-world-based proposal.
5. Pathetic joke proposals - including but not limited to "against dihydrogen oxide" and "the right to arm bears".
6. Duplicate/Copied Proposals.
7. Amendment proposals.
8. Proposals that mandate or prohibit roleplay activities on any discussion forum (including, but not limited to, the NationStates forums).





[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, August 30, 2004, 9:35 AM EST]
UN Proposals and Forum Roleplay
[Added #8 on Minor Offenses.] UN proposals may not impose a mandate or limitation of any kind on forum activity; this is considered a game mechanics violation. UN proposals may not require that a particular action be conducted on the NationStates forums (or on any forums, for that matter). UN proposals may not prohibit an activity from taking place on any forums.

Players may voluntarily incorporate UN resolutions into their roleplays, if they wish, but must remember that doing so is technically outside the scope of the UN resolution. In freeform roleplay, one can pretend that a nation blatantly ignores the effects of a UN resolution. When writing UN proposals, though, the author has to assume that no UN member nation may ignore the effects of the UN resolutions because, really, no UN member nation is able to ignore the effects of the UN resolution. The effects are programmed into the NationStates game engine. [/modedit]





[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, September 24, 2004, 8:53 PM EST]
Proposal Categories
There seems to be some confusion as to what the existing UN proposal categories do, so I'll try to describe them in more detail here. Note that any reference to "government" refers to the governments of UN member nations, not the UN itself. References to "Personal" and "Civil" Freedoms are identical and completely interchangeable.

...

Environmental
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind.

...

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.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

...

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all UN member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all UN member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

...

The Furtherment of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Political Stability
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Political Freedoms. "The Furtherment of Democracy" increases these freedoms while "Political Stability" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue. Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever. Imposing regulation on campaign finances is a mild form of reducing Political Freedoms.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

...

Gun Control
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Remember that Personal/Civil Freedoms have subcategories. (Actually, Economic and Political Freedoms also have subcategories, but it's Civil that concerns us here.) "Human Rights" and "Moral Decency" affect the overall government control on the personal lives of citizens. "Gun Control" affects the degree of freedom regarding the private possession and use of firearms.

"Tighten" increases government regulation on the private use of firearms while "Relax" reduces these regulations.

This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms, and does NOT address the use of guns by agents of the government (the police and military). If you want to talk about police or military weaponry, then use either "Global Disarmament" or "International Security".

...

International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Global Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Do not use these categories to establish a UN military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

...

Gambling
A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.

Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will ban gambling (and eliminate the gambling industry) in all UN member nations while "Legalize" will allow gambling in all UN member nations.

...

Recreational Drug Use
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, "Legalize" and "Promote" will remove drug bans. They also have effects on the "Drugs" subcategory of Civil Freedoms; "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs, "Legalize" will relax government control on drugs, and "Promote" will impose zero government control on drugs. "Promote" will also increse overall Civil Freedoms, but will not push it past the center. [/edit]

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, February 23, 2005, 12:05 PM EST]
Getting Additional Help
As extensive as these explanations are, sometimes there are things that still aren't clear and you need additional help. Ask your fellow players for advice. When drafting a UN proposal, do it on a word processor on your own computer. Then, post the draft as a new topic here in the "United Nations" forum and ask for advice. Hopefully, experienced players will come along and point out anything in your draft proposal that violates NationStates rules and needs to be changed. Moderators are not always available to answer questions on draft proposals, so experienced players are the next best thing. This is essentially a peer review process.

Do not underestimate the value of informal peer reviews. When you submit a proposal to the UN, you certify that you understand the proposal rules and that you are subject to Moderator action if the proposal is deemed to be in violation. "I didn't know" or "I didn't understand" is not an acceptable excuse. If your nation gets thrown out of the UN, then that's permanent. In that case, you'll have to start over with a new nation if you want to continue participating in the UN. Get help before you get in trouble.
[/modedit]

I thank the delegate from Enodia for his explanation. However, I do have one question.

At the same time as this telegram is sent, you will have a "warning" recorded in relation to your nation. The third warning for posting inappropriate proposals will result in your ejection from the UN. If you happen to have two inappropriate proposals found in the same UN sweep, that's 2 warnings - woe betide those who have 3 at the same sweep.

Does this warning count begin as of now, or as of the beginning of the UN?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: posting as this stupid puppet :-(]

Does this mean we can repeal proposals yet?

I'm guessing no...

Terminated California - the warnings are issued roughly "as of now". It's a system I've been using to an extent for about a week and a half but now the bugs seem to be ironed out of it. There's no way that I can go all the way back to the beginning of the NS UN and issue warnings - retrospective legislation being a dangerous thing and all.

Tisonica - currently there's still no way to repeal legislation. Again, there are discussions going on about the manner in which this feature could be integrated and about how it would be coded into the game. I wouldn't be holding my breath, though. A major change like this would be more likely to turn up in NS2 rather than here.

EDIT: This thread is now officially re-opened.

Thread re-opened as a Proposal-system equivalent to the "Been Ejected From the UN?" thread.

would this be allowed :?:
I propose that if a resalution is loseing or winning by 5000 they will be passed immeditly, or rejected.

this will allow more resalutions to be passed in less time.

would this be allowed :?:
I propose that if a resalution is loseing or winning by 5000 they will be passed immeditly, or rejected.

this will allow more resalutions to be passed in less time.

Game Mechanics. And a bad idea, IMHO.

ModAlert --(Split)-&gt; Technical

Goobergunchia is correct that it would be a game mechanics proposal.

I won't split the thread as yet (or potentially at all), since the deletion risk of proposals is a UN-related issue rather than a Technical one. If the debate turns into one about Technical issues, I'll have no hesitation in splitting the relevant bits and moving them kicking and screaming into Tech.

how am i supposed to give my proposal. is there a format for it?

Not really.

Some people will yell and scream and rant and rave if you don't follow the real-world UN's format (or something close to it) - all "WHEREAS" and so on. Ultimately, just try to remember a few hints:

1. Make sure it's intelligible. Spelling and grammatical errors alone won't kill a proposal, but if they interfere with the message you're trying to get across then it won't be a very successful proposal.
2. Remember that you're basically "marketing a product" here. Don't be too wordy, use line breaks if you possibly can. Anything which makes people not have to use a dictionary to work out what you're saying is good.

Thank U for that advice.

The Democratic States of The Nive Nine acknowledges the rules set by the delegate of Enodia.

A message from President Howard Bean, "I look forward to a peace filled era of friendship with the United Nations."

How do we determine if a Proposal has been submitted before? I don't want to propose something that has already been passed/shot down

Sorry if this is answered somewhere else.

How do we determine if a Proposal has been submitted before? I don't want to propose something that has already been passed/shot down

Sorry if this is answered somewhere else.
Anything which has been passed can be found on the UN page via the link labelled something like "Previous UN Resolutions". As for "anything which has already been shot down", pretty much everything has been debated to a degree - whether or not it's been "shot down" is another matter. The fact that legalisation of marijuana (for example) has been proposed several thousand times never seems to stop people proposing it again, so don't let the sense of re-treading old stuff get in your way.

How would a nation or group of nations address or submit an idea or concept for the UN rules? i.e., how many endorsements are necessary for a proposal, etc.

How would a nation or group of nations address or submit an idea or concept for the UN rules? i.e., how many endorsements are necessary for a proposal, etc.

2 endorsements are necessary to submit a proposal.

To propose a change in the UN rules, post about it in the Technical forum.

Why is the current proposal up for a vote then?

It is badly worded, poorly spelled, and nearly unintelligible.

The category does not match the description (it is essentially a "Commerce" proposal, but will affect Human Rights).

Even if it is in the best-fit category, its Strength is stated as "Strong"; this is hardly the sort of proposal to cause such ground-shaking changes to our nations' human rights record. It mocks the gravity of what the U.N. does do, like mandate increased access to medicine.

Since the U.N. has never voted down a proposal, do we even know the result of doing so? Will all member states need to take a "Strong" hit to their Human Rights records, simply for standing up to bad proposals? If so, then the only fair solution is to withdraw the current proposal from the table before the deadline.

Thank you,
The Borderlands of Ghormenghast.

Why is the current proposal up for a vote then?

It is badly worded, poorly spelled, and nearly unintelligible.

The category does not match the description (it is essentially a "Commerce" proposal, but will affect Human Rights).

It does seem extremely strange that the proposal is up for a vote. I'm used to reading poor English (I'm a frequent poster on AOL religion forums), but many people who use this site aren't. The proposal also violates Resolution 245A Proper Grammar.

Even if it is in the best-fit category, its Strength is stated as "Strong"; this is hardly the sort of proposal to cause such ground-shaking changes to our nations' human rights record. It mocks the gravity of what the U.N. does do, like mandate increased access to medicine.

Not to mention the fact that there already is a Freedom From SPAM Act.

Why is the current proposal up for a vote then?

It is badly worded, poorly spelled, and nearly unintelligible.

The category does not match the description (it is essentially a "Commerce" proposal, but will affect Human Rights).

It does seem extremely strange that the proposal is up for a vote. I'm used to reading poor English (I'm a frequent poster on AOL religion forums), but many people who use this site aren't. The proposal also violates Resolution 245A Proper Grammar.

Even if it is in the best-fit category, its Strength is stated as "Strong"; this is hardly the sort of proposal to cause such ground-shaking changes to our nations' human rights record. It mocks the gravity of what the U.N. does do, like mandate increased access to medicine.

Not to mention the fact that there already is a Freedom From SPAM Act.

Since the U.N. has never voted down a proposal, do we even know the result of doing so? Will all member states need to take a "Strong" hit to their Human Rights records, simply for standing up to bad proposals? If so, then the only fair solution is to withdraw the current proposal from the table before the deadline.

The UN has in fact voted down resolutions in the past - at least seven that I know of.

When this happens, there is no effect on one's nation.

If I might add -- in addition to spelling and grammar, it would help if the proposal just plain made sense. For instance, proposing that "bears should be banned to stop pollution" makes no sense unless the proposal also states why bears cause pollution.

We were misinformed by our Diplomatic Corps, who interpreted the "Resolutions throughout history" list to be a voting tally, instead of a success record. Please be assured that the Diplomatic Corpse will not be making that mistake again.

In knowledge,
The Government of Ghormenghast

I'd like to suggest an amendment to Enodia's initial post.

7. Plagiarism of Proposals

If another nation has a proposal in the Proposals queue, or if they've posted the text of a 'Work-in-Progress' proposal as a forums post, it will be considered bad form to steal or copy their work and post it under your own nation's name. Making minor changes (such as title, or adding "Created by ME!) while leaving the rest of the submission substantially intact, would still count as plagiarism.

-----------

There is a new proposal currently in queue called Fair Trial 2. It's a simple cut-and-paste of the proposal currently up for vote, Definition of 'Fair Trial'. Only the title was changed. It is my contention that the nation who posted it should be warned. Similarly, someone copied my own "Rights and Duties of UN States" and reposted it immediately behind my own post. They added the word 'not' to each of the articles and replaced all instances of 'States' with 'NationStates', but apart from that, it was identical right down to the punctuation. Happily, that nation was also a UN multi, and they died along with their plagiarism.

I think members are reluctant to post their proposals to the forums prior to submitting them, and I think the reason is fear of theft. Well, that and general laziness, but that's not my point here. I think we could have more collaborative proposals if there was a known exception for plagiarism, and that might actually improve the level of submissions.

We support the recommendation of the delegate from Frisbeetaria.

However, we would like to permit an exception for resolutions on a similar theme but substatively different. For instance, I submitted "Outlaw Pedophilia" following a statement by the delegate from Fantasan stating intent to submit a proposal requiring life sentences for convicted pedophiles. To block this proposal, I submitted my own before the delegate from Fantasan could submit his that simply outlawed child molestation without specifying a penalty. My proposal was later adopted, while his is now a faint relic of UN history.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

similar theme but substatively different
There are a limited number of areas of discussion, and it's completely reasonable to expect multiple discussions on any controversial topic. If we outlawed every Legalize Hemp or Make Handguns Manadatory proposal (I can only wish) on the grounds that they had been done before, we'd end up with a very limited list of potential topics.

Plagiarism in this case would only refer to theft of the text of the proposal, not the underlying ideas. That obviously makes it a judgement call, but it's the judgement of the UN Moderators I'm appealing to. With that, we agree with Lord Evif and encourage Enodia or others to add to or alter the suggested text at their desire. Not that we could stop them in any case.

MJ Donovan for Frisbeeteria

My question is, can we see whether or not our proposalshave went through. I recently made a proposal on stopping criminals and as of yet am unsure if it has even reached any other nations.

(OOC [Out Of Character]: Can somebody higher up please contact me about proposals as I have 1 or 2 questions about them, thank you.)

My question is, can we see whether or not our proposalshave went through. I recently made a proposal on stopping criminals and as of yet am unsure if it has even reached any other nations.

The UN Proposal List (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal)

Thanks Goobergunchia, looked through all of those and didnt see mine. Does that mean it hasnt went to anybody at all?

Thanks Goobergunchia, looked through all of those and didnt see mine. Does that mean it hasnt went to anybody at all?

If it's not there, it wasn't submitted.

It seems to me that there are alot of duplicate proposals... when I checked yesterday there were no less than 6 for legalizing drugs, for instance. If these duplicate proposals were deleted there would be a whole lot less pages to read through...

No kidding, it's a shambles. If all the proposals that contained typos, poor grammar, mis-spellings, etc. were returned to their authors... it would probably be down to one page. Apparently, the grammar-checker and spell-checker have not been invented in the NationStates universe... yet.

I was under the impression that the proposals were being moderated... since the claim is that certain ones, especially if they propose game changes, will be deleted. Apparently that is not true considering there are also proposals with profanities in them..

I do try to delete proposals which are inappropriate (for whatever reason, not just profanity) roughly every 24-48 hours, but that's an increasingly tricky thing to do since there are other demands on my time now that uni's started up again.
Your best bet is to check through the list yourselves once in a while and send me a telegram with a few proposals listed that you think need to be deleted. I'll have a look at it, delete anything that needs to be and (hopefully) do the rest of the queue as well. So if you think I've missed any proposal trying to sneak through (which I might well, since I'm usually doing several other things as well as moderation), drop me a line saying something like this:

Enodia, there's a proposal called "This is a Proposal". It needs to be deleted because of [reason].

Just make certain you put the full title of the proposal into the telegram and we're in business.

Sounds like a fair deal... I would suggest that people not send in a long list of proposals for review. One or two at a time and set a limit for yourself... like no more than once a week. Over-loading Enodia with them... will only slow the process down.

Sounds plenty fair to me too....now that I know for sure that I should be reporting things like that and to the right person... I know how tough R-L can be sometimes ;)

I am sorry if this has been mentioned before, if we submit a proposal, does it get grammatically corrected, e.g. searched for errors in spelling, given fancier vocabulary etc...etc...

I am sorry if this has been mentioned before, if we submit a proposal, does it get grammatically corrected, e.g. searched for errors in spelling, given fancier vocabulary etc...etc...
Good question - and it hasn't been asked before - but the answer is no. If you submit a proposal, it remains in the queue as submitted - typos, dodgy expressions, bad grammar and all.

Ok! Thankyou!

I was wondering how many days are afforded to UN delegates to review and endorse proposals to reach their required quorum number.

My apology for mistakingly posting a similar question as "A New Topic"
(This Emir's secretary is out of the office!)

-- The GEC Drinking Emir
of The Isle of Orleans

Seems all this GEC drinking is getting to me!
My previous query may have been answered by a passed UN resolution signifying a one week time limit for such UN proposals to reach a quorum of UN delegates.

Please correct me if I have discovered wrong.

(Emir stands up, leaves living room and enters kitchen. He pours himself a cup of Coffee & Chicory, cafe au lait style)

I was wondering how many days are afforded to UN delegates to review and endorse proposals to reach their required quorum number.

My apology for mistakingly posting a similar question as "A New Topic"
(This Emir's secretary is out of the office!)

-- The GEC Drinking Emir
of The Isle of Orleans
No resolution's ever actually dealt with this. That is to say, a resolution may well have been passed on the matter but it's a game mechanics issue and is therefore invalid.
I think your average proposal has something close to 4-6 days to reach quorum, although if anyone knows otherwise then please say so.

My free beer proposal was given only 3 days. I submitted it last Tuesday, and only had until Friday.... 3 1/2 days at best.

:o
Wow! I'm especially impressed with a MOD who expresses uncertainty!
Just in musing -- would the time limit to reach quorum be automatically random?

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Moderators like yourself display amazing abilities!

:o
Wow! I'm especially impressed with a MOD who expresses uncertainty!
Just in musing -- would the time limit to reach quorum be automatically random?

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Moderators like yourself display amazing abilities!
The time limit shouldn't be random, given how mechanistic the UN is in this game. Perhaps 3 days is the length then.

Delighting in seeing the "Universal Freedom of Choice" reach a quorum of UN delegates, I humbly ask the moderator the following as you can best guess / express:

How long will it take to present this (or any such resolution) to the General Assembly for consideration?

Also, how much time is afforded to debate this resolution / seek its passage?

Averages or near approximations are welcome.

Thank you for your consideration.

(The Emir summons his staff: "Send additional orders of coffee and croissants, to be served with vases of fresh flowers to all NS moderators; UN staff and delegates, with an accompanying card stating, 'Thankyou in advance for supporting Universal Freedom of Choice'.")

Delighting in seeing the "Universal Freedom of Choice" reach a quorum of UN delegates, I humbly ask the moderator the following as you can best guess / express:

How long will it take to present this (or any such resolution) to the General Assembly for consideration?

Also, how much time is afforded to debate this resolution / seek its passage?

Averages or near approximations are welcome.

Thank you for your consideration.

(The Emir summons his staff: "Send additional orders of coffee and croissants, to be served with vases of fresh flowers to all NS moderators; UN staff and delegates, with an accompanying card stating, 'Thankyou in advance for supporting Universal Freedom of Choice'.")
Sorry for not answering either question before the voting on the resolution in question began, however I'll give them a go now - to the best of my ability.

Proposals move from the queue to the floor roughly 24 hours (or 1 update, if that's a different length of time - I'm a bit shaky on this myself) after reaching quorum, assuming that nothing else is being voted on. If something is being voted on, they join the queue and appear on the floor at the same rate. If that makes sense.

Length of time to vote on a proposal - not sure at all. Perhaps Tactical Grace (who's both a mod and the proposal's author) might know how long his proposal had when it reached the floor.

I have a question Endoia:

The "voting ends on" date, is that the date in which you have to achieve 153 approvals? Because if that is, that's quite short. I made mine March 24 and it says voting ends March 26... but please what does the "voting ends" date mean :?:


cboey 2--founder of Bakiithia

"Voting Ends On" is the date at which your proposal has to have 153 (or however many it is by that time - people join and leave the UN frequently, so the quorum percentage changes) approvals or else it dies of natural causes.
That said, the date is relative to the server time (which is based - it would appear - on the Western coast of the USA), so it might not be quite as bad as you would otherwise think.

But you only get like what... 3 days to get 153 approvals? I don't see how theres resolutions! I could never get 153 approvals! I think it should be at least 5 days to get 153, I mean I know that theres over 2000 delegates but how often do u think they would check the proposal list and look at every single one besides the one they were told to approve for?


--cboey 2--founder of Bakiirthia

The only ones who probably get there proposal approved enough are people who are in high-nation regions, because then they tell everybody to go ask their puppets regional delegates to go approve his proposal. Frankly I don't see it possible to get 153 approvals in 3 days without advertising really.


--cboey 2--founder of Bakiithia

I agree with Cboey there... There is no real way to get the word out for a good proposal, since these forums only work maybe 5% of the time.... at least that is the way it is for me.

The only ones who probably get there proposal approved enough are people who are in high-nation regions, because then they tell everybody to go ask their puppets regional delegates to go approve his proposal. Frankly I don't see it possible to get 153 approvals in 3 days without advertising really.


--cboey 2--founder of Bakiithia
No, the real trick is resubmitting the proposal until it passes. Just telegram everone who already approved the proposal, and inform them of the resubmission. Eventually, you'll get enough approvals. You may also get several death threats, but I just ignore those.

just a thought for a proposal but would a propoodal that called for a change in the requirements of the passing of future resolutions to a two thirds majority be discounted as a change in game mechanics?

just a thought for a proposal but would a propoodal that called for a change in the requirements of the passing of future resolutions to a two thirds majority be discounted as a change in game mechanics?
Yes it would. Although that doesn't exactly stop people from putting it in the queue every now and then.

Wow what a surprise! It's "voting ends" day for my proposal and I didn't get enough votes! I only needed 146 more approvals! Man this is stupid. 153 approvals in what... 3 or 4 days??? The only ones who get their proposal past are people of lotso power! People who delegate or have founded hug regions and they tell all the regions nations to go tell their puppet's regional delegate to approve his message. This is a gype... small guys like me don't stand aa chance. Something has to be done for the little nations like me and countless others who; their proposals were turned down because they needed 100+ approvals. I say there should be a change so everybody has a chance at getting a UN proposal approved at least once.


--cboey 2--founder of Bakiithia--

Did you campaign for it on the forums?

By the by - it might be worthwhile to move the more general parts of this thread away from the sticky.

It is like my Free Beer proposal. I had a nice thread for it here and defended it... but I ended up with like 12 votes. There were only like 3 or 4 who talked against it in the thread... so where was I supposed to get the other 140?

How much time must past before a nation is allowed to rejoin the UN after an ejection?

How much time must past before a nation is allowed to rejoin the UN after an ejection?
Ejected nations can't rejoin the UN. There's no need to turn this into a personal campaign. The rules are clear. You broke the rules. You got ejected. Move on.

How long can a proposal be?

How long can a proposal be?
Not sure, although there is a limit (a very high one). I believe Tactical Grace bumped into it with "Universal Freedom of Choice".

How much time must past before a nation is allowed to rejoin the UN after an ejection?
Ejected nations can't rejoin the UN. There's no need to turn this into a personal campaign. The rules are clear. You broke the rules. You got ejected. Move on.

So, there's no room for parole at any point in the future? You kind of figure that once bitten, twice shy. I don't think I'll be making the same mistake any time to soon.

Are you sure there's no possibility to rejoin the UN for good behaviour after a set period of time?

How much time must past before a nation is allowed to rejoin the UN after an ejection?
Ejected nations can't rejoin the UN. There's no need to turn this into a personal campaign. The rules are clear. You broke the rules. You got ejected. Move on.

So, there's no room for parole at any point in the future? You kind of figure that once bitten, twice shy. I don't think I'll be making the same mistake any time to soon.

Are you sure there's no possibility to rejoin the UN for good behaviour after a set period of time?
If a nation is wrongfully ejected, they can be re-admitted. Likewise, a player "rightfully ejected" can theoretically be allowed to re-join the UN. However, the rules are clear both on what you can and cannot do and what happens if you do something against the rules. The ejection therefore, as in all barring the most exceptional of circumstances, stands.

"Likewise, a player "rightfully ejected" can theoretically be allowed to re-join the UN"

I'm guessing by the term theoretically, that any nation who was ejected from the UN for infraction to the rules of the game, in my case the major infraction of trying to pass a resolution that would have been an alteration of the game mechanics, have never been allowed to rejoin the UN?

And that the concept of a timed block/ban to a nation to rejoin the UN has never been really thought out or been brought up as a subject before?

Permanant ejection is a VERY long time. Whereas a temporary ejection would be a limited time chosen by the moderator or administrator depending on the severity of the offense would seem to be more progressive of the United Nations.

That's why I was asking if it was possible for parole to rejoin the UN sometime in the future, date specified by mod or admin. :)

The remark of 'just move on', sort of gives me the idea that this is not a possibility at all?

"Likewise, a player "rightfully ejected" can theoretically be allowed to re-join the UN"

I'm guessing by the term theoretically, that any nation who was ejected from the UN for infraction to the rules of the game, in my case the major infraction of trying to pass a resolution that would have been an alteration of the game mechanics, have never been allowed to rejoin the UN?

And that the concept of a timed block/ban to a nation to rejoin the UN has never been really thought out or been brought up as a subject before?

Permanant ejection is a VERY long time. Whereas a temporary ejection would be a limited time chosen by the moderator or administrator depending on the severity of the offense would seem to be more progressive of the United Nations.

That's why I was asking if it was possible for parole to rejoin the UN sometime in the future, date specified by mod or admin. :)

The remark of 'just move on', sort of gives me the idea that this is not a possibility at all?
It can be done - all that a Game Mod would need to do is to clear one of the lines of information in your nation's file, then you'd be able to re-join the UN.
As for whether it will be done, in your or anybody else's case where the ejection was not made in error, I wouldn't exactly hold my breath. You can give me all the assurances you want that you won't break the rules again, but the fact that you did so to begin with is the problem.

Now, in the interests of keeping this thread vaguely to the topic it was intended to be about when written and stickied - the rules governing proposals, rather than the rules governing UN ejection - I will ask you to continue this elsewhere if you still want to campaign for re-admission.

This was the closest thread I could find on the subject matter of game rules in reference to readmission to the UN.

Can you please tell me which THREAD, which FORUM, I am supposed to be in on asking?

In fact you have one sticky above that states about Ejection from the UN, but it doesn't allow for posting, and it only states those reasons pertaining to people which make multiple nations.

If you want to appeal your ejection from the UN, make a Mod Report via the Getting Help Page.

Now, for the last time, leave this thread alone.

* Hands Enodia a gold-plated frying-pan, while also wishing more people would read this thread.

- The Rep of Komokom, Minister of Stuff.

Reading through this topic, I have seen references to repealment of resolutions and plagiarism being illegal, but no mention to amending existing resolutions. However, I still received a warning last night from the mods stating that my proposal "Amendments to the UNEC", which was going to change MY OWN RESOLUTION, was deleted because "You are not allowed to amend existing resolutions". :x This amendment was not directly changing game mechanics, changing my own resolution, "United Nations Educational Committee", so it was not plagiarized, and, according to this topic, not illegal because of the amendment issue. Also, I find it ridiculous that it took the mods 5 submissions before they decided to yell at me for it. Could the moderator who deleted this proposal please stand up and justify his/her decision? If amendments are to be illegal, it should be noted here.

How long can a proposal be?

I've bumped into this several times when first submitting my present "Reduce Black Market Arms Sales" proposal to the queue. You should have seen the original text. It was initially 9,097 characters. The first pass through the proposal system about a year ago had the character number parsed down to 3,469 characters.

I'd say it's a safe bet to assume that the proposal system tops out at around 3500 characters.

How long can a proposal be?

I'd say it's a safe bet to assume that the proposal system tops out at around 3500 characters.

Something to consider, as the length of a proposal increases, the attention span and endorsements / votes of some nations turn south (i.e. people unfortunately get put off by length). The Black Market Arms Sales resolution was fine, but on the upper end of what captures my attention.

I highly recommend typing proposals first in MS Word or some other word processor. If your proposal is greater than a page and a half, then I recommend trimming it down. You can check your spelling this way too. :)

I also am a strong proponent of white space.

General Recommendations:

Check spelling in a word processor
Recommended length: less than two pages
Make liberal use of white space
Print a hard copy and read it out-loud first
Compare your proposal with prior resolutions that you like

I've been scanning for an answer to the question I want answered, but I have not found anything, so here is my question:
If a proposal was not accepted, and the person who posted it feels that it has merit and was only not successful because of the time it was posted at, can it be re-posted?
:arrow: ie: I made a very good proposal (least I think so) on a Friday afternoon, which meant it basically had the weekend to garner enough votes, and since most people (at least as far as I know) are not online during weekends, that does not give it a good chance of being passed...so can I repost it?

If a proposal was not accepted, and the person who posted it feels that it has merit and was only not successful because of the time it was posted at, can it be re-posted?

Yep, you can keep resubmitting as much as you like - but wait for it to expire before you resubmit, having several copies in the queue at the same time is a no-no.

Yep, you can keep resubmitting as much as you like - but wait for it to expire before you resubmit, having several copies in the queue at the same time is a no-no.

Thanx!

sooo...can I count on your support if I post the proposal again??? :wink:

i made a proposal to ban free trade and tax almost everything... i put it in the catagory free trade. it was pulled. i was told because it was in the wrong catagory. where else would it go? i sure would hate to get another mark against me.

:evil:

That was very helpful, however, I am to understand that a nation must have two endorsements to make a proposal. How do you get an endorsment, and what is the (for lack of a better word) definition, of an endorsment?

How would I go about supporting a proposal to become a resolution? Or maybe it is the other way around. Sorry I'm sort of new here. I just saw where it needs a certain number of endorsements to make it to the big time to be voted on by everyone. How do you give your support to that is my question. Thanks for the help. Hope I didn't make the question too confusing.

How would I go about supporting a proposal to become a resolution? Or maybe it is the other way around. Sorry I'm sort of new here. I just saw where it needs a certain number of endorsements to make it to the big time to be voted on by everyone. How do you give your support to that is my question. Thanks for the help. Hope I didn't make the question too confusing.

Hello, Admin, Do You Why My Proposal "united Earth Defense Network" Was Deleted? Or Do You Know Who Deleted It So I Can Ask Him/her?

Don't you think there should be a standard voting margain for the acceptance of a resolution for the UN?

I think it is not truely representative of our nations if a resolution passes by fewer than one percent of the voters.

Suggestions about changing the way the UN works should be posted to the Technical Forum.

how do I as a delegate, endorse a particular resolution?

I asked this somewhere else and I can't remember where I asked it, so I am asking here.

how do I as a delegate, endorse a particular resolution?

I asked this somewhere else and I can't remember where I asked it, so I am asking here.
Endorsing proposals - Click on the "United Nations" link, scroll down and click on "list proposals", then click "approve" under whichever proposal you wish to support.

To endorse a resolution, just vote FOR it... but I don't think that was your question.

I for one believe we SHOULD be allowed to repeal earlier proposals. There's no need for a game mechanics change, just state 'This proposal/resoloution seeks to repeal all or part of the previous resolution xxx', then make the statistics opposite - e.g if the original proposal was 'International Security' make the repealment 'Global Disarmament', and the same strength.

i made a proposal to ban free trade and tax almost everything... i put it in the catagory free trade. it was pulled. i was told because it was in the wrong catagory. where else would it go? i sure would hate to get another mark against me.


It was pulled because the Free Trade category involves -increasing- free trade. Your proposal involved decreasing it. Thus, precisely the opposite of where it should've gone.
Not that there is any real place it should have gone.

My region has started to work on a resolution that would call for a separation of church and state. This would largely affect the passing of UN Resolutions and NS laws (in the wording, but the "furtherment of democracy" in terms of category), so would this be allowed? Or would this fall under the category of "Game Mechanics" and therefore be frowned upon?

Advice and thoughts would be appreciated, thanks. :)

My region has started to work on a resolution that would call for a separation of church and state. This would largely affect the passing of UN Resolutions and NS laws (in the wording, but the "furtherment of democracy" in terms of category), so would this be allowed? Or would this fall under the category of "Game Mechanics" and therefore be frowned upon?

Advice and thoughts would be appreciated, thanks. :)

I can foresee one problem with this - in the Rights and Duties of UN Nations resolution, the UN agreed that:

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

A resolution separating church and state would outlaw theocracies, which'd contradict the Rights and Duties resolution.

Oooh, good points. However, would a resolution which would separate church and state, only for the purposes of UN Resolutions be okay?

The idea would build off a previously passed Resolution ("Religious Tolerance" passed June 21, 2003), and go one step beyond promoting Religious Tolerance within the UN, but rather restricting the UN from passing resolutions that would promote one religion over another, or particular tenets of a religion.

While I cannot change the way that other governments are run with such a proposal (and it makes sense that I shouldn't be able to promote such a potentially drastic change), the focus of the UN would be restricted in a sense ... but, again, that might fall under Game Mechanics ...

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world. Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences. Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.
--Passed Saturday, June 21, 2003

Oooh, good points. However, would a resolution which would separate church and state, only for the purposes of UN Resolutions be okay?

I can't see that that would be a problem, though for a final word on the matter you'd have to consult a moderator. Sounds like a good idea, too.

Great, thanks! Off to consult with a mod now ...

I need backing to pass this

would a proposal to ban micheal bolton's music be a joke proposa? because i think that really fits in the human rights section

would a proposal to ban micheal bolton's music be a joke proposa?
Yes it would. 'Real' people may not be referred to by name in proposals.

Micheal Bolton doesn't exist in NS. Thank goodness.

ok, then he doesn't need to be banned, less work for everyone

How do I support or vote "yes" for a proposal?

On page 6 of this thread it was said to do the following:
Endorsing proposals - Click on the "United Nations" link, scroll down and click on "list proposals", then click "approve" under whichever proposal you wish to support.

But I don't see that option of "approve," so any further help would be appreciated.

How do I support or vote "yes" for a proposal?
That option is only visible to UN Regional Delegates. Only they can Approve proposals.

I don't want to utterly swamp the mods, but it appears that no one has been through the proposal list to smite violators. Who is/are the current mod/s overseeing such things?

I don't want to utterly swamp the mods, but it appears that no one has been through the proposal list to smite violators. Who is/are the current mod/s overseeing such things?
Many of the Mods (including myself) have been busy in real life, lately. There's also a large backlog if "Getting Help" requests going several days.

...

There has been an update to the rules:

More specifically, there has been a clarification. UN proposals may not impose mandates or limitations on forum activity. You cannot require that something be roleplayed. You cannot prohibit something from being roleplayed. This is considered a game mechanics violation.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I, as ruler of the Commonwealth of Pezheadium, would like to propose a SETI project. However, I cannot find a category which would be appropriate for such a proposal. Is there a way to create a new category?

TIA

Xphile67
Ruler, Commonwealth of Pezheadium

ATTENTION Ladies and Gentlemen, Diplomats, Ambassadors, and Consuls to the NationStates United Nations:

As of one hour ago, the ability now exists to repeal passed UN resolutions. Please see the "News (http://www.nationstates.net/news)" page for more information.

Changes to the UN proposal rules to take this ability into account are being discussed among the NationStates Administrators and Moderators.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I, as ruler of the Commonwealth of Pezheadium, would like to propose a SETI project. However, I cannot find a category which would be appropriate for such a proposal. Is there a way to create a new category?

TIA

Xphile67
Ruler, Commonwealth of Pezheadium

There is already a SETI proposal in the works, it cannot be submitted yet because there currently isn't an appropriate category. See this thread for more information: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356861 (if you disagree with the first proposal put forward in the thread, read on, because a fairly dissimilar one - which is the one we are actually intending to use - is also detailed in that thread)

An explanation of the existing proposal categories has been added to the opening post of this topic. Please read the section titled "Proposal Categories".

Thank you.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

An explanation of the existing proposal categories has been added to the opening post of this topic. Please read the section titled "Proposal Categories".

I think your info's out of date, Cog. Talked to [violet] in the lair yesterday, and we're to leave duplicate repeals. Myrth, GMC, and Menel can back me up on this one.

Unless that's changed (again) in the past... er... 19 hours.

I think your info's out of date, Cog. Talked to [violet] in the lair yesterday, and we're to leave duplicate repeals. Myrth, GMC, and Menel can back me up on this one.

Unless that's changed (again) in the past... er... 19 hours.
Duplicate repeal proposals are allowed, duplicate anything else proposals are not allowed. Did I say something to the contrary in this thread? :confused:

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I was hindered to make a proposal for absurd rules. We need to review our rules " interns " .

She forgives for I bother it,
FiguRa_GM Sovereign Lider of the Sozialistische Nation

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I am considering a proposal to get UN members to pull together resourses ect to work on functioning and practical COLD FUSION REACTOR technology.

Such technology would get rid of current inefficient and even dangerous energy sources currently available (from nuclear to fossil fuel), would provide a virtually limitless source of cheap energy for all, and even a way to turn garbage of all kinds into an energy source.

In any event, I'm not sure which category to place it in....
suggestions are appreciated.

B. Weasel

Would a proposal for universal currency be considered a game mechanics violation? Because although I think it's an interesting idea, I can see how it could be a major pain. So, is it okay?

Would a proposal for universal currency be considered a game mechanics violation? Because although I think it's an interesting idea, I can see how it could be a major pain. So, is it okay?

I'd say it is an interesting idea. I was planning on submitting a proposal myself on that matter. I was thinking perhaps it could be that each region should have a regional currency. Perhaps a universal currency could work. It would not have to be a matter of game mechanics. It could simply be a manditory thing for all UN member states to have a specified currency, or for each region to take a vote for their own regional currency.

-Greg, overlord; The Republic of Satellia

I like having individual currencies, but can we have one to refer to as the dominant currency, in the way dollars probably are in rl, as in '100,000 NationStates dollars or the equivalent in the Nation's own currency.'

There Are So Many Spelling Errors On This Site

I've approved every UN proposal that seemed crazy, dumb, or unethical. I will continue to do so. Thank you for endorsing me, (name deleted).

From the regional page of a UN Delegate of a 4-nation region.

Is there any way to get delegates to vote on proposals, so that the 6% can be fulfilled? Is there any way to get rid of delegates that are endorsing patent nonsense?

I became delegate for Havocaos about 2 days ago, and so far I've seen some pretty stupid proposals, eg. "Repeal everything because the nations should deal with it", "Ban the metric system because I'm too stupid to understand the simplicity of it", etc. etc.

People, please think about how much sense your proposal makes, before you make it; please think about how good a resolution is, before you try and repeal it. If you just want your name up in lights, go write an issue.

I have read the Moderator's guidelines and want to know why my own submission to the UN was deletec - and I was ejected as a delegate of the UN.

This was the proposal:

"Beautiful People Only

We, the United Nations, hereby enact that all those who are not:

a/. United Nations members or delegates
b/. Women
c., Under four foot five

be taken to a small island in the middle of the Atlantic thereto to eke out the rest of their days thus allow UN delegates and members a better chance to spread their magnificent genes within the world population pool".

I was told that the submission was 'offensive'.

"1. Offensive Proposal
This is a nice and easy one to run through. Again, killing gays or burning Jews is obviously going to fail at this hurdle - no matter what political agenda you might follow"

By any resonable standards, my proposal certainly does not fall within this category at all. But, let us say that you take an incredibly narrow interpretation of your guideline, I then suggest that mine was MINOR offence not a FLAGRANT offence.

Here is your definition of MINOR offence.

"Minor Offences
1. Minor game mechanics changes - where not covered above.
2. Incorrect categorisation of proposal.
3. Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.
4. Real-world-based proposal.
5. Pathetic joke proposals - including but not limited to "against dihydrogen oxide" and "the right to arm bears".
6. Duplicate/Copied Proposals. (note: this includes repealment proposals. Make sure that the resolution you're trying to repeal is not already up for quorum.)
7. Amendment proposals.
8. Proposals that mandate or prohibit roleplay activities on any discussion forum (including, but not limited to, the NationStates forums)"

Contravening a MINOR offence is only a 'warnable offence'. However, I was ejected immediately - and punishment only given in this circumstance; "Under certain circumstances you will be removed from the UN earlier. Generally, this punishment is only used for proposals deemed so disgusting that stronger action is mandated".

If, as it seems by your own standards, your ejection of my nation from the United Nations was wrong, then please reinstate me.

I admit that I'm at fault for placing the Rome Statute -- ICC Resolution for I did read through the rules prior to posting it. However, due to the fact that this rule was mentioned only once in the whole post, I missed it. Although I don't expect any change to my own status for bad postings, I would like to suggest that the point be emphasized in more detail in this thread, and perhaps an explaination as to why it constitutes a violation of the game rules since it clearly doen't fall into any of the three categories: suggest changing how the game works (use the Forum instead), contain descriptions that do not match the category and effect, are not worthy of the UN's consideration.
I request this in order that others may not find themselves in the same situation as I find myself.

ave Eagles and Environment

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental


Industry Affected: Uranium Mining


Proposed by: Equalitarians

Description: Protect the Eagles

A healthy Eagle population demonstrates a healthy environment. Harming of Eagles by humans should be banned and any corporate pollution affecting the health of Eagles and/or citizens will be addressed in the General Assembly.

Valid for those who breathe, eat or drink water.

[option]"Decimating the eagle population makes about as much as sense as
removing canaries from mining operation," says environmentalis @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The reduction of the Eagle population is an indicator of problems in the environment!, Environmental problems affect all life human and otherwise in the region.
Reducing the number of Eagles reduces awareness of the environment."
[effect]Stop harming of the Eagle & awareness
[stats]Environalmental damage decreases, damage to public lessened.

[option]"Volunteer monitoring of Eagle population,"
argues environmental commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@.
"The fact is, if more people participate, the outcome will be better information for all. Some groups--like the greens--participate more
often than others.
That's why we must encourage with their participation ."
[effect]Volunteers contribute
[stats]size of participation increases, environmental awareness increases, apathy decreases

[option]"Corporateers proclaim eagle unimportant," says
@@RANDOMNAME@@, moneychanger. "And that is:
why do we do need eagles, anyway? Seems to me it would be much
simpler if you just decided money is power, and all else secondaray. Wouldn't
everyone enjoy being trickled down from the benovelent corporateers rather than seeing Eagles fly over?"
[effect]Corporateers not restricted by environmental nonsense
[stats]Corporate free to ignore Eagles and other environmental nonsense

Why is an issue in the proposals list????!!!!!

it appears that in my last 190 days as delegate of my region i have made 3 inappropriate proposals. I was unaware of this until this morning when i found i was no longer in the UN. My latest proposal suggested less repeals, which was deemed to be game mechanics. Therefore i was ejected. I will state that i have never abused my UN status in any way, and requried it in my job within my region. This out of the blue stripping of my position has come as a suprise to me, and i was wondering why the UN could not issue a formal warning before this ejection. I would not have proceeded to make proposals if i was aware it could mean ejection.

If anyone knows of a way i can contact moderators, begging them to re instate my position in the UN, i would be most appreciative. Of course background checks can be run, etc..
Someone please help me.

Your first proposal was deleted on May 1st, 2004; the second on June 12, 2004. Standard procedure is that you receive a telegram each time a proposal is deleted. I didn't delete your first two, but I assume that you were notified.

OK, but i hadnt realised that it was a 3 and your out system. Cant the UN give me another chance? Even if i refrain from creating proposals, and stick to voting on others.

OK, but i hadnt realised that it was a 3 and your out system. Cant the UN give me another chance? Even if i refrain from creating proposals, and stick to voting on others.

Welkome to Kalifornia Ja! Three Strikes und you are OUT!

Seriously, this is just my opinion, but I think on May 1st 2005, your first strike should be removed from your total (though still left in your record as a note) and your nation allowed back in the UN.

The moderators will just advise you create a new nation and allow that in the UN, but that is frankly the lamest work around I've heard, because what is the *point* of *three* strikes that last forever if all you need to do to work around them is change your name.

Michael, you just robbed a liquor store, according to our records that time you beat a man and later set his car on fire (on the same night), means that you are now spending the rest of your life in prison! Oh wait, you are changing your name to Michel? Damn! You get off free now, but we'll catch you again! *waving an angry finger*

I don't see the logic in the system, and it does strike me as very unfair.

ha. Yes i suppose you right. Well i have another nation allready applied for UN, i didnt really expect the mods to listen, but naturally im still a bit annoyed. That mental image is quite funny though.

ha. Yes i suppose you right. Well i have another nation allready applied for UN, i didnt really expect the mods to listen, but naturally im still a bit annoyed. That mental image is quite funny though.

In their defense, there has to be something to prevent nations from collecting "warnings". I do agree that after a number of strikes that a *player* should be temporarily removed from the UN, but I don't feel that when the violations were misunderstandings of the rules (as judged by the moderators as a group) that the ban should last forever.

In any case, your nation is not being singled out and this has happened to many players. If it helps to know this, the long-time delegate of one of the larger regions (not me) was booted from the UN and continues on as the delegate of the same region but with a very slightly different name.

I was planning global criminalization of homosexuality :sniper: because it is moraly and ethically wrong. :headbang: And our children should be protected from that type of behaviour. ;)

T: P.J. :confused:

I was planning global criminalization of homosexuality :sniper: because it is moraly and ethically wrong. :headbang: And our children should be protected from that type of behaviour. ;)

Considering homosexuality is already protected by the NS UN, I'd say no it wouldn't pass. ;)

lol

In their defense, there has to be something to prevent nations from collecting "warnings". I do agree that after a number of strikes that a *player* should be temporarily removed from the UN, but I don't feel that when the violations were misunderstandings of the rules (as judged by the moderators as a group) that the ban should last forever.

The rules really aren't that convaluted or unclear though. I could see someone missing a certain aspect, or not understanding a section, but for that to happen three times? To me, that more symbolizes a failure to read through the FAQ and the relevant UN threads than a 'confusion' with the rules. Also, if someone is 'confused' on anything regarding something they intend to propose: ... don't propose it! Ask someone about whatever aspect it is you don't understand, talk about it in the forums, and then when you have a full grasp of what it is that you're doing, you can go ahead and post your proposal.

The rules really aren't that convaluted or unclear though. I could see someone missing a certain aspect, or not understanding a section, but for that to happen three times? To me, that more symbolizes a failure to read through the FAQ and the relevant UN threads than a 'confusion' with the rules.
Just FYI, you're addressing the author of at least two successfully passed UN resolutions, and a credited contributor on many more. I'm speaking as the author of another one.

The rules have changed over the period that Mikitivity and I have been members, and in fact most of the rules we have problems with are subject to interpretation by the various mods. What GMC Military Arms might see as perfectly acceptable by the Enodian Mandate, Cogitation or The Most Glorious Hack might take in an entirely different way. I've seen rulings by SalusaSecondus (our admin) overturned by Game Mods with more UN experience.

Not only that, but each resolution added to the body of UN law alters the entirety of it. This is especially true with some of the recent proposals that sought to strengthen or weaken previously passed resolutions. It's also a fact that any given word can be interpreted differently by any given reader ... a technique that the rules lawyers and loophole chasers like myself take full advantage of. Yes, the basic rules are simple, but the complications are also there under the surface.

Not only that, but each resolution added to the body of UN law alters the entirety of it. This is especially true with some of the recent proposals that sought to strengthen or weaken previously passed resolutions.

In the recent months, many more authors of proposals are incorporating previous resolutions into them, not only strengthening in a manner the prior resolutions but encouraging their expansion, interpretation, and scope. This not only makes the UN more power, but makes it more worthwhile for us all to incoporate these techniques into our future proposals.

Is it possible to pass a resolution that weakens or contradicts a earlier resolution, or would the earlier resolution have to be repealed first?

Could the application of an earlier resolution be limited in some way without its full repeal?

Is it possible to pass a resolution that weakens or contradicts a earlier resolution, or would the earlier resolution have to be repealed first?

Could the application of an earlier resolution be limited in some way without its full repeal?

Yeah, unfortunately, previous resolutions must be repealed first before, replacing, ammending, or contradictory material is passed (or even allowed to remain in the proposal list). The only exception to this is where there is a possible overlap of two resolutions.

Take my "Partial-Birth Abortion" proposal (up for resubmission in January: please support ;)), for example. It tried to define the line drawn between the "The Universal Bill of Rights" (which includes a clause disallowing cruel or inhumane treatments of people), and "Abortion Rights". I'm assuming this sort of technicality exploitation is allowed, as the proposal has made it through the list several times without deletion.

Hi

I was wondering, if you want to write a proposal that repeals a passed law do you choose the category of the law you want to repeal as the category for your proposal?

if you want to write a proposal that repeals a passed law do you choose the category of the law you want to repeal as the category for your proposal?
Repeals are started from the [ UN Resolutions Throughout History (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/44146/page=UN_past_resolutions) ] view by clicking the repeal link on the relevant resolution. All repeals are coded Category: Repeal, regardless of what they are repealing. The effect is based on the category of the original resolution.

SINCE I CANNOT MAKE PROPOSALS :
I propose that the UN ban all corporations. This will allow small business people to excel and prevent large corporate conglomorates continued take over of the worlds capital. Lets put the money and the oppertunities back into the hands of the people who make it all possible ... the consumer/ citizen. Who do u think is more likely too care about the quality and service of a customer? the Corporation board or the small time repair garage owner. Who is going too make sure that the customers come back not just because they have no choice but because they want too?
Corporations are also a bane on Democracy. They pay lobyists too pay off politicians and they raise campaign funds for the politicians they have paid off thus creating a biased playing field for other more honest contenders. So lets get rid of the Fascist coorporations whose only concern is the bottom line and make way for a new Utopia of small business entrepreneurs who raise money through bonds not stocks.

; IF ANY OF YOU THINK THIS IS A WORTHY PROPOSAL BY ALL MEANS FEEL FREE TO SEND IT IN SINCE I CANNOT. :sniper:

Right after i submitted a proposal to repeal the resolution to repeal education for all, two other people did the same thing. It's the same proposal and it seems really redundant and annoying. Is there a way to contact someone so that there aren't so many repeated proposals.

Right after i submitted a proposal to repeal the resolution to repeal education for all, two other people did the same thing. It's the same proposal and it seems really redundant and annoying. Is there a way to contact someone so that there aren't so many repeated proposals.
If they didn't quote your argument, it's legal. [violet] and the mods conferred and agreed that multiple repeals of the same proposal are allowed.

Resolution 3 is one of the most popular repeal proposals, and there are always a half-dozen or so repeal motions in place. If you really wanted to pass the repeal, you could always contact all of the other authors and work together on putting a really good one in place.

First and foremost, the proposal is deleted. Secondly, you will be issued a telegram recommending you read the information on UN Proposals. If you still can't work out where you went wrong, telegram Enodia and enquire - politely - what the problem is. I can't stress enough that you are more likely to receive a sympathetic hearing if you ask "I am unsure what was wrong with my proposal "blablabla", can you please explain it?" instead of "You st00pid Mod. I R TEH 733T HAX0R and I will n00k j00 4 TIHS."
At the same time as this telegram is sent, you will have a "warning" recorded in relation to your nation. The third warning for posting inappropriate proposals will result in your ejection from the UN. If you happen to have two inappropriate proposals found in the same UN sweep, that's 2 warnings - woe betide those who have 3 at the same sweep.

I was warned ONCE for submitting an inappropriate proposal, and the telegram said: I took your request on board and decided to act on it. You are not longer in the UN. The proposal was basically "why don't the mods do something useful instead of flaming people" when a mod told me to "Try submitting a UN proposal with some actual content next time."

What happened to three strikes?

Can someone please tell me how and where can someone submit UN proposals.

Can someone please tell me how and where can someone submit UN proposals.

How?

-You must be a UN member
-You must have 2 endorsements (from other UN members in your region)

Where?

-Go to the UN page
-Towards the bottom (below the current proposal at vote) is a link "submit proposal", locate it
-Follow that link
-Write yer proposal

Make sure you do some research before submitting though, both research into the topic of your proposal, and research into proposal conventions and limitations in the UN. This thread (the first posts mainly) is probably the best place to begin that research.

I was wondering if it would be possible to get some clarification regarding the impact resolutions have on member nations. For me, this has huge implications on how I would vote, and how I would encourage my delegate to vote. After the last three UN resolutions, my economy has taken a big hit, yet in the forums the authors of these resolutions insist they have no economic impact on any of our nations. Some have even stated the resolutions are recommendations and each nation would have the option of accepting the recommendations. Once the resolution passed, however, I received notice from the UN that the resolution was now being enforced in my nation. This seems to be conflicting information so I tried to do a little research to clarify this question.

Here are some quotes from the UN FAQ on this site.

“The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations.”

“The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)”

To me, this seems to clearly state that the resolutions either pass or do not pass and there is no in-between. I direct your attention to the second line of the second quote; “…your nation will also be affected by ANY resolutions that pass.”

If this is incorrect, can someone let me know why this is incorrect or where I can find out how these resolutions financially impact my nation? If it is correct, then I would like to encourage authors of resolutions to stop misleading other UN members and accept that their resolutions will have an impact on all member nations.

I look forward to any feedback anyone can provide.
______________________
The Kingdom of Donega
The Penguin Region

Why is ammending a previous one illegal? It seems that if they want it ammended, that you should be able to ammend it. I guess you could always take the long way around and repeal it, and then submit another one that's close to the reapealed one. Still, I ask. Why?



Small Mammals
"Here be Badgers"

I am new to the UN so i take it that I cannot make a proposal?

if so has anyone done a proposal about legallising or making Cock fighting totally illegal? if not anyone is welcome to put it forward.

I was wondering if it would be possible to get some clarification regarding the impact resolutions have on member nations. For me, this has huge implications on how I would vote, and how I would encourage my delegate to vote. After the last three UN resolutions, my economy has taken a big hit, yet in the forums the authors of these resolutions insist they have no economic impact on any of our nations. Some have even stated the resolutions are recommendations and each nation would have the option of accepting the recommendations. Once the resolution passed, however, I received notice from the UN that the resolution was now being enforced in my nation. This seems to be conflicting information so I tried to do a little research to clarify this question.

Here are some quotes from the UN FAQ on this site.

“The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations.”

“The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)”

To me, this seems to clearly state that the resolutions either pass or do not pass and there is no in-between. I direct your attention to the second line of the second quote; “…your nation will also be affected by ANY resolutions that pass.”

If this is incorrect, can someone let me know why this is incorrect or where I can find out how these resolutions financially impact my nation? If it is correct, then I would like to encourage authors of resolutions to stop misleading other UN members and accept that their resolutions will have an impact on all member nations.

I look forward to any feedback anyone can provide.
______________________
The Kingdom of Donega
The Penguin Region

The text of a resolution has no bearing on the impact it has on your stats (economy, tax rate, civil rights, political freedoms, plus a bunch of things you can't see that influence your description) - only the category and its strength matter in that respect. So a strong free trade resolution will increase the economic freedoms of every UN member.

It is also generally accepted (outside of certain RP, which I won't go into), that you cannot defy the text of a resolution - if a "global disarmament" resolution says that UN members may not produce landmines, it is assumed that no UN member is able to produce landmines, and the category will cause your military funding to decrease.

If however that resolution read "UN members are recommended not to produce landmines" or "The UN urges members not to produce landmines" etc., then the category would still cause your stats to alter, but you could pretend that you had chosen not to follow the UN's recommendation, and say to other nations that you were still producing landmines. This is because the resolution was worded as a recommendation not a law, so you aren't breaking UN law by producing landmines.

The text of a resolution has no bearing on the impact it has on your stats (economy, tax rate, civil rights, political freedoms, plus a bunch of things you can't see that influence your description) - only the category and its strength matter in that respect. So a strong free trade resolution will increase the economic freedoms of every UN member.

It is also generally accepted (outside of certain RP, which I won't go into), that you cannot defy the text of a resolution - if a "global disarmament" resolution says that UN members may not produce landmines, it is assumed that no UN member is able to produce landmines, and the category will cause your military funding to decrease.

If however that resolution read "UN members are recommended not to produce landmines" or "The UN urges members not to produce landmines" etc., then the category would still cause your stats to alter, but you could pretend that you had chosen not to follow the UN's recommendation, and say to other nations that you were still producing landmines. This is because the resolution was worded as a recommendation not a law, so you aren't breaking UN law by producing landmines.


Thanks for your reply, it helped clarify several topics for me but I am still interested in the economic impact. After the HIV resolution passed, my economy changed dramatically as did some of the other nations in my regions who were UN members. Is my nations economy only impacted by the nation issues I accept or dismiss? Is there more information somewhere to explain how the economy is impacted?

Thanks again for your reply!

Would it be against these rules to repeal a resolurion with the expressed intent of rewriting the resolution at a later time?

hi

Would it be against these rules to repeal a resolurion with the expressed intent of rewriting the resolution at a later time?
It's not only legal, it's the proper way to do it.

Okay, now, 3 of my proposals have simply disappeared. If this keeps up, I will be tempted to simply pull out of the UN.

My "Frequent Elections", "Lower the voting age", and "Legalize Polygamy" proposals were doing somewhat well, before they vanished. :mad:

Okay, now, 3 of my proposals have simply disappeared. If this keeps up, I will be tempted to simply pull out of the UN.

My "Frequent Elections", "Lower the voting age", and "Legalize Polygamy" proposals were doing somewhat well, before they vanished. :mad:

They may have been a) deleted by a mod, or b) timed out (they only get 3.5 days to get the needed 145 approvals). In your case, they timed out. And, yes, they did do fairly well both getting between 40 and 50 approvals. Good job!

You say that you are unable to use real-life proposals as UN resolutions. While I understand that you are unable to try and propose real and exsisting legislation, I do not understand the examples bit.

After all, is the legislation that the nations of nationstates have to pass each day, based on real-life issues? For example, gun-controls, abortion, protecting idustry and the environment etc.

How then, can we not introduce an element of reality (issues effecting the real-world) into our own UN proposals?

You say that you are unable to use real-life proposals as UN resolutions. While I understand that you are unable to try and propose real and exsisting legislation, I do not understand the examples bit.

After all, is the legislation that the nations of nationstates have to pass each day, based on real-life issues? For example, gun-controls, abortion, protecting idustry and the environment etc.

How then, can we not introduce an element of reality (issues effecting the real-world) into our own UN proposals?

Could you point us to where you think it says we can't use real-life proposals as UN resolutions?

I think you may be misinterpeting things, as Stephistan (when a mod) said that so long as there aren't real world _references_ in a NationStates proposed resolution, that even copying a real world document is fine.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=46

A number of us have done this already.

I'm bit pissed at being wrongfully ejected from the UN, and I maintain that this was done on false charges of having more than one nation in the UN at a time. I have always had the member nation in UN resign before another one applied to join. I am incensed at this lack of "intelligence" by the so-called "intelligence committee". :headbang:

yays

Why can't we form a UN standing army? It could easily be helpful, and could allow for effective peacekeeping...

Why can't we form a UN standing army? It could easily be helpful, and could allow for effective peacekeeping...
Who picks which side they get involved in? Who picks the generals, and using what criteria? Who decides what is civil unrest and what it terrorism? Who prevents idealogical fanatics from sneakily joining the UN army and then gunning down their opponents, thus eliminating the very concept of UN neutrality? Somebody needs to make those decisions, and it will involve a whole lot of time and effort.

Since a UN Army would have to be roleplayed, there is no way a UN army could be managed in game terms without constant moderator input and control ... and the mods have stated repeatedly that they won't interfere in roleplay disputes unless they involve OOC violations. Therefore, from a Game Management perspective, it's just not possible to set one up.

"No UN Army" is the right call.

When did the title of this thread change to Before you make a proposal... [READ THIS BEFORE SUBMITTING OR GET EJECTED FROM UN]... gives a new meaning to "Another one didn't read the FAQ!"

Would you write a proposal like you would an issue??

No. Here's a good guide to writing proposals: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360

I guess it's impossible to ask a change in UN voting system...
Issues with strong effects should have 2/3 of the votes to pass through. Others could go with just half.
But it would be Game Mechanics Changing Attempt I guess... And thus forbidden.

That's what the Technical forum is for.

how would you go about making a game like this for on my own web page :headbang: :confused:

I recently had one of my proposals, "Height Uniformity" deleted on the grounds that it was stupid. I feel that this is a rather subjective interpretation. Admittedly, the proposal was a little bizarre but can i be blamed for thinking outside the box? It was well argued and rationally explained, I used good grammar and spelling ( much more than the recent proposal to ban "Herion") and my argument was founded on fact. I happen to think that several of the proposals up for consideration recently have been rather stupid (particularly the dirth of unscientific and frankly wierd abortion proposals) but I also accept that one person's stupid is another person's genius. On that note I wish to know how to make my proposal less stupid so that I may resubmit it. Here it is just in case everyone didn't get chance to read it:
Description: PROBLEM: The average height of individuals in various countries is greatly varied. This leads to an unfair advantage in trade of certain comestibles.

FOR EXAMPLE: In agriculture, particularly the growing of fruit trees. The orchards of nations whose average height is larger than normal may be forced to grow taller, lower yield trees so as to save their employees from bad backs from bending down to pick fruit.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: In the building trade, the nations whose height average is lower will be at a significant economic advantage as houses and dooorways will be built smaller and therefore use less materials and therefore be cheaper to build. This will also have a nock-on effect on the building materials industry.

There are many other such problems which lead to an unfair global marketplace.
THEREFORE in the interests of a FREE AND JUST TRADE ARENA, we would request that all nations, through either genetic modification, compulsory use of the rack, hanging weights from feet or some other scientifically proven method, would ensure that all individuals were 6"4 tall.
A vote for this proposal is another step towards economic justice.

If someone could reply and advise me on how to change my proposal and make it less "stupid" it would be much appreciated.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke fritz von Splurgenhof

I recently had one of my proposals, "Height Uniformity" deleted on the grounds that it was stupid. I feel that this is a rather subjective interpretation. Admittedly, the proposal was a little bizarre but can i be blamed for thinking outside the box? It was well argued and rationally explained, I used good grammar and spelling ( much more than the recent proposal to ban "Herion") and my argument was founded on fact. I happen to think that several of the proposals up for consideration recently have been rather stupid (particularly the dirth of unscientific and frankly wierd abortion proposals) but I also accept that one person's stupid is another person's genius. On that note I wish to know how to make my proposal less stupid so that I may resubmit it. Here it is just in case everyone didn't get chance to read it:
Description: PROBLEM: The average height of individuals in various countries is greatly varied. This leads to an unfair advantage in trade of certain comestibles.

FOR EXAMPLE: In agriculture, particularly the growing of fruit trees. The orchards of nations whose average height is larger than normal may be forced to grow taller, lower yield trees so as to save their employees from bad backs from bending down to pick fruit.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: In the building trade, the nations whose height average is lower will be at a significant economic advantage as houses and dooorways will be built smaller and therefore use less materials and therefore be cheaper to build. This will also have a nock-on effect on the building materials industry.

There are many other such problems which lead to an unfair global marketplace.
THEREFORE in the interests of a FREE AND JUST TRADE ARENA, we would request that all nations, through either genetic modification, compulsory use of the rack, hanging weights from feet or some other scientifically proven method, would ensure that all individuals were 6"4 tall.
A vote for this proposal is another step towards economic justice.

If someone could reply and advise me on how to change my proposal and make it less "stupid" it would be much appreciated.

Yours Faithfully
Grand Duke fritz von Splurgenhof


Well, obviously if all proposals that were in a similar degree of stupidity were deleted, then perhaps the deletion of this one is justified. But, they are not. Proposals such as "give guns to everyone" and "legalize herion" are quite frankly absurd, more absurd than making everyone the same height in my opinion.

I've been jsut kicked out of the UN for repeatedly submitting inappropriate proposals. All, bar one, were because the description and content matter didn't match. But in some cases, i disagree! For example, my "redefinition of environment" was under the "environment" category and was deleted! Which one was it meant to be under??? I did one about restricting the age for marriage and put it under human rights, but apparently it should have been under moral decency. Now what on earth has this got to do with morality??? Morality is about how we make our decisions and what ethical framework we adopt - it is NOT about whether 16 yr olds should be allowed to marry in the interest of a healthy marriage. Furthermore, I proposed that we shouldn't disarm all nuclear weapons, and put this under "global disarmament." But this was deleted too! Now common sense would tell me that a proposal about disarmament should be under the disarmament category.

I suggest that either the categories should change to make them more transparent, because frankly they're not transparent enough! Or, we shouldn't get kicked out for this "offence." Fair enough, delete the proposal, send me an explanation of what's wrong with it, and maybe i'll start to understand this over-complicated system. But it's not like i'm deliberately doing anything wrong.... i think most people would agree that i'm following common sense! I just don't think that ejection from the UN is the appropriate course of action.

Disagreements with moderator action really needs to be taken up in the "Moderation" forum.

It's located here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231).

I've received a telegram saying "Don't submit proposals unworthy of UN consideration". Then, I find out that my "Tax Ceiling" proposal was deleted. Was there an objection to my proposing a ceiling on income tax rates, and if so, why? Why, come to think of it, was there no such telegram the last time I submitted such a proposal?

Any reason my "Community Property Rules" proposal was deleted? It's not like it violated game mechanics.

Any reason my "Community Property Rules" proposal was deleted? It's not like it violated game mechanics.
It was deleted by a Moderator, so ask in the Moderation Forum. Nobody else can effectively respond.

I've received a telegram saying "Don't submit proposals unworthy of UN consideration". Then, I find out that my "Tax Ceiling" proposal was deleted. Was there an objection to my proposing a ceiling on income tax rates, and if so, why? Why, come to think of it, was there no such telegram the last time I submitted such a proposal?


Putting a 'tax ceiling' proposal into the game would constitute a change in the games mechanics, which is illegal.

What if a proposal kind of adds a setting like war without you having to change anything? If we use what we have like telegrams and bannings. :sniper:

You can't change any game settings. Period.

Now, there is one little issue about all this UN has all the power thing. First is that the rules are in here and I did not really go looking for rules in a forum. I would have figured the rules would have been posted at the UN. That probably explains why my reduction of UN power proposal was nixed. Got some kind of telegram from a game monitor tell me it is a no-no to do that so proposal got squashed. Fine I say, but put the real important things that people need to know about the UN on the UN page. Makes it so easy to find it then. Second, instead of limiting the power of the UN, can the powers of the nations be increased instead? Not the same but the desired affect non-the-less. Would that be ok or no?

First is that the rules are in here and I did not really go looking for rules in a forum. I would have figured the rules would have been posted at the UN.

You mean like the link on the Proposal page that takes you directly to this topic?

Hey everyone,
I'm not sure if the rules are using the term Delegate and Regional Delegate interchangably but I just wanted to clear up what exactly the difference is. Which one is it that gets an extra vote for however many people endorse them? The rules say you need the most endorsements from your region to become a regional delegate but at least one to become a delegate. Help! What is the difference between the two?

I'm not sure if the rules are using the term Delegate and Regional Delegate interchangably
They are the same thing, and used interchangably.

Well, obviously if all proposals that were in a similar degree of stupidity were deleted, then perhaps the deletion of this one is justified. But, they are not. Proposals such as "give guns to everyone" and "legalize herion" are quite frankly absurd, more absurd than making everyone the same height in my opinion.

I've been jsut kicked out of the UN for repeatedly submitting inappropriate proposals. All, bar one, were because the description and content matter didn't match. But in some cases, i disagree! For example, my "redefinition of environment" was under the "environment" category and was deleted! Which one was it meant to be under??? I did one about restricting the age for marriage and put it under human rights, but apparently it should have been under moral decency. Now what on earth has this got to do with morality??? Morality is about how we make our decisions and what ethical framework we adopt - it is NOT about whether 16 yr olds should be allowed to marry in the interest of a healthy marriage. Furthermore, I proposed that we shouldn't disarm all nuclear weapons, and put this under "global disarmament." But this was deleted too! Now common sense would tell me that a proposal about disarmament should be under the disarmament category.

I suggest that either the categories should change to make them more transparent, because frankly they're not transparent enough! Or, we shouldn't get kicked out for this "offence." Fair enough, delete the proposal, send me an explanation of what's wrong with it, and maybe i'll start to understand this over-complicated system. But it's not like i'm deliberately doing anything wrong.... i think most people would agree that i'm following common sense! I just don't think that ejection from the UN is the appropriate course of action.
I post drafts in this forum for discussion before submitting them as proposals.
People read them and respond to them, with useful comments like "that's moral decency, not human rights".

well, in theory...

I have an Idea for a proposal I want to throw at the moderators of the site to see if it is something that is even possible within the confines of the game. as the UN can make changes to your economies civil rights Taxes & such. Can they make a change in the ammount of endorsments a nation has? I was considering placing a proposal that would place term limits on UN delegates. Is this something that could be done. The way I see it working is after a certain number of votes a nation has had with one delegate their endorsments would be cleared & a "re-election" process would begin.
A. Is this something already built into the game as a possibility?
B. Are their game rules prohibiting this kind of proposal.
Thank you for your time.

Major game mechanics violation. Don't submit it.

This has been an OOC post.

Understood, will not submit.

Ok, I have reached a state of harmonic nirvana and am in full acceptance of my n00bness. Perhaps this is covered in the (extensive and very helpful) FAQs - I just can't find it. I am sure it has come up before - a search didn't help, however.

I know the NSUN operates differently to the real UN, and specifically with regard to the Security Council (i.e. there isn't one that I can find). There certainly aren't vetoes. But in the real UN, there is a distinction between GA resolution language (from general committees, UNCHR etc.) and Security Council resolution language. Specifically (and I think this is still correct), only SC resolutions can use 'Demands' and 'Condemns'. I believe Middle East special committees can also do so.

So my question is: can resolutions that would not be SC-based, and deal with issues not pertaining to security etc. use SC language. Can we 'Demands' (well, grammatically no, but you get my drift - I hope) and 'Condemns'? Does anybody have any idea what I'm talking about?

I know the NSUN operates differently to the real UN, and specifically with regard to the Security Council (i.e. there isn't one that I can find). There certainly aren't vetoes. But in the real UN, there is a distinction between GA resolution language (from general committees, UNCHR etc.) and Security Council resolution language. Specifically (and I think this is still correct), only SC resolutions can use 'Demands' and 'Condemns'. I believe Middle East special committees can also do so.

So my question is: can resolutions that would not be SC-based, and deal with issues not pertaining to security etc. use SC language. Can we 'Demands' (well, grammatically no, but you get my drift - I hope) and 'Condemns'? Does anybody have any idea what I'm talking about?

There is no Security Council in the NationStates UN, so if certain language is available to be used, it's available to all proposers and proposals. As far as which verbs are available for use, I think: all of them. I know of many resolutions thus far that have used CONDEMNS or DEMANDS or a like verb. I'm pretty sure there are no resrictions on the verb as long as the proposed action isn't against the rules of the game. For example: DEMANDS that all nations cease killing deer;

DEMANDS all nations log onto the forum once a week;
The first one is legal, the second one is not (since resolutions/proposals are not allowed to mandate activity in anything).

So: Yes, you can use those verbs reserved for the SC in the real UN, so long as it's still allowed under all the other rules.

EDIT: There isn't any differentiation in the NSUN between SC-type proposals and non-SC-type proposals, so yeah, those are available to all proposals and proposal categories.

Thank you very much. I had assumed this would be the case, but am glad of reassurance.

As the delegate from Mostly Harmless, Duke Anthony hereby recognizes The Enodian Protocols and pledges to follow them while making any and all proposals.

-Duke Anthony

what category would a proposal regarding endangered species fall into? I'd like to think Environmental, but it wouldn't affect any of the businesses listed, and certainly not all business. I originally submitted it under Moral Decency, but I'm not sure that's right either. Help? Anyone?

what category would a proposal regarding endangered species fall into? I'd like to think Environmental, but it wouldn't affect any of the businesses listed, and certainly not all business. I originally submitted it under Moral Decency, but I'm not sure that's right either. Help? Anyone?

I'm not sure myself, though I to feel environmental is the best fit. For a definite answer you can go to "Moderation" and post a copy of your proposal (or a link to your proposal discussion thread) and ask them what category it belongs in. They'll most definitely know.

What exactly do you mean when you say that that proposals can't be based on real life issues....because gun control, death penalty and stuff like that are modern issues. I'm just not sure I understand what you mean.

thank you for listening to my question :)

What exactly do you mean when you say that that proposals can't be based on real life issues?
It's not the issues that can't be real life, it's the examples. You can't send relief to Somalia, nor can you censure George Bush or Vladimir Putin. You can't hire AT&T to run TransAtlantic cables, and Kofi Annan won't be putting his signature on your passed resolution.

You can send aid to the poor and underdeveloped nations. You can propose a trans-national communication network. You can ask your regional delegate to help support your stance on gun control, environmental, or human rights issues - you just have to stay within the context of the game.

ummmm... this is a hard one to....well...understaned :headbang:

Thank you! I do believe I understand now!

Lady Katia

The Republic of Ampasolia acknowledges the Enodian Rules and promises to respect and reenforce their correct conduct.
"This is a new step forward for Ampasolia and the entire region of East Montainia, we ensure that our prominent nations will follow our footsteps"
-President Michael Freimuth

...

I've been jsut kicked out of the UN for repeatedly submitting inappropriate proposals. All, bar one, were because the description and content matter didn't match. But in some cases, i disagree! For example, my "redefinition of environment" was under the "environment" category and was deleted! Which one was it meant to be under??? I did one about restricting the age for marriage and put it under human rights, but apparently it should have been under moral decency. Now what on earth has this got to do with morality??? Morality is about how we make our decisions and what ethical framework we adopt - it is NOT about whether 16 yr olds should be allowed to marry in the interest of a healthy marriage. Furthermore, I proposed that we shouldn't disarm all nuclear weapons, and put this under "global disarmament." But this was deleted too! Now common sense would tell me that a proposal about disarmament should be under the disarmament category.

I suggest that either the categories should change to make them more transparent, because frankly they're not transparent enough! Or, we shouldn't get kicked out for this "offence." Fair enough, delete the proposal, send me an explanation of what's wrong with it, and maybe i'll start to understand this over-complicated system. But it's not like i'm deliberately doing anything wrong.... i think most people would agree that i'm following common sense! I just don't think that ejection from the UN is the appropriate course of action.

Is this true? Do people get kicked out of the UN because they can't figure out which category to assign to their proposals? Given the examples I've just read here how can that be justified? I'd have made the same mistakes. And if it is true, how can anyone be expected to take the risk of writing a proposal?

Is there a comprehensive clearly written description of the categories and their correct applications? Also, could we have what, for lack of a better description, might be called a "differential diagnosis" post, so that the rest of us can have insight into how the Moderators determine that some things don't belong where they seem to belong? (BTW, I have read page one of this thread, but some of those descriptions don't seem to answer to the need either because they don't indicate why some of the examples given here took place, or the descriptions of the words don't seem to do justice to the category name.)

I have to say that from time to time, I've thought of things that might make good proposals, but as long as I can be kicked out of the UN for getting the category of proposals wrong, I would be unwilling to risk it.

Meanwhile, we still have to endure proposals that are unsuitable for more substantial reasons becoming resolutions: dreadful vocabulary, spelling and punctuation, confusing syntax that borders on nonsense. This, despite the fact that such proposals go against the spirit of the rather oddly (to me) named "6. Category-VS-Description Clash" (I'd have thought "Incomprehensible language" would be less likely to sound like "Category and Description not matching", which really is what they both sound like).

Go figure.

Is this true? Do people get kicked out of the UN because they can't figure out which category to assign to their proposals? Given the examples I've just read here how can that be justified? I'd have made the same mistakes. And if it is true, how can anyone be expected to take the risk of writing a proposal?

-snip-

I have to say that from time to time, I've thought of things that might make good proposals, but as long as I can be kicked out of the UN for getting the category of proposals wrong, I would be unwilling to risk it.


Yes, you can be removed from the UN for repeatedly submitting proposals in the wrong category. If one is going to submit a proposal one should really read this document and/or the case studies of deleted proposals. And, if one is still unsure of which cetegory a proposal belongs in, then one can still go to the "Moderation" forum and post the proposal and ask the moderators.

James Ellis could have read this thread for one minute and realized that his marriage proposal was moral decency, not human rights. With the "environment" proposal, one we'd have to see the proposal text make a judgement on how easily James Ellis could've avoided it being in the wrong category. I really don't feel sorry for someone who is warned, repeatedly, that he doesn't understand which categories are for which proposals and continues to submit them without looking up what he's doing wrong.

If this all means that you take a risk by submitting a proposal "on the fly", without research and preperation, then I really don't mind it. In fact, I like it a lot if it discourages proposals First, proposals that pass usually have weeks if not months of planning behind them. Second, the more time spent in thought about a proposal the more likely it will be of higher and higher quality. By making it risky for a nation to submit an unresearched proposal, it increases even if only slightly the quality of proposals.

hey did anyone go to MAMUN, this is so similar, i was there this winter and it was awesome! if you've got questions on resolutions and that sort try www.mamononline.com

This should really help.

Now I know where to put on imposing a ban on biological warfgare.

This should really help.

Now I know where to put on imposing a ban on biological warfgare.
That was done around 2 years ago.

OOC:

Well that's a whole lot of information to take in there!

I think a lot of the information on here was very useful, but it was still an incredibly arduous task to go through it all, and to be perfectly honest I don't think I have taken it all in. It seems to me that the process of creating a proposal is not only hard work (Hey, I was expecting it to be hard work, if it was easy, it wouldn't be fun) but its also very risky and can seemingly quite easily lead to your expulsion from the UN, even if you were acting with the best intentions.

I've been musing today over possibly thinking about maybe trying to come up with a proposal (decisive of me there(!) ) but this whole thread has just been so intimidating that I'm no longer sure (like I was ever definite to begin with...) that it would be a good idea. I mean, the issue on which I think the UN should vote is important to me, but maybe its not worthy of the UNs time. What if I ask a mod which category it goes in, yet the other mods disagree after I have proposed it? What about bad spelling? My spelling isn't particularly bad but it could be seen as incorrect to others due to my birthplace (I recently saw "Recognizing" on a thread, whereas where I come from, its spelt "Recognising". The same with "color" and "colour".) so would this count against me?

I'm even nervous about posting this OOC message, I know its frowned upon but there are things that I as a player don't understand and worry about, that would be inappropriate to discuss as an IC Tazikh official.

I'm new to the game, and eager to learn all the different mechanics and rules (still slogging my way through Resolutions that have already been passed) but I worry about posting things in the wrong place, or my tone and intent being mistaken for something that they're not.

I'm not trying to say anything bad about this thread, like I said at the beginning, it IS full of good information and clarification, but as someone who's knowledge of not only NationStates is developing, but also of general internet etiquette/lexicon I've got to say that I'm worried about how others will view me, this post and any propsals that I ask for help on. I'm still trying to work out why so many Threads start with the word "sticky".

Anyway, what I originally came on to ask was "Where else would you recommend I go to find out more about this whole process?"

I am checking out http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360 next, and I keep on heading back to the main UN page.

Any help/information would be greatly appreciated. And if I've posted this in the wrong place or gone too off topic, then I'm sorry to have done so, and will delete this if someone asks.

Well that's a whole lot of information to take in there!
No one is requiring you to be a fully qualified rules lawyer your first day here. The single best piece of advice I can offer is for you to post any proposal to the UN forum before you submit it, and get feedback from your fellow UN Ambassadors. Many of them can offer constructive criticism, and your best bet is to try to incorporate the best of it into your proposal before submission.

I'm an experienced proposal author and reader, and it took me over a month to get my proposal cleaned up and through the queue. Be patient, and listen. You'll get it.

Will do, although I'm not happy with my proposal yet, so it'll be a while before I consider putting it up on the forums.

Thanks. Feel slightly less intimidated now.