NationStates Jolt Archive

Final Draft Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873996&postcount=95)



With the late, great Enodia's passing (from NS), I've been kicking around the idea of re-working the submission rules for UN Proposals, especially editing the current schedule for ejection and such. Yes, I know there are some changes, that's why it's here.

Please note that this is just a DRAFT. These "rules" are not binding!

---

UN Proposals are attempts to introduce new legislation to member nations. By submitting a Proposal, you are stating that you have found something in the NS world that needs to be addressed and you are attempting to do so by forcing a change to all members. For this reason, UN Proposals must be more than just rhetoric. While they need not be written like "real" UN documents, they do need to be more than just your opinion. Essays belong in the General Forum, or the Serious Discussions Forum, not the UN floor.

UN members also need to be aware that being in queue is not proof against action. Just because enough Delegates support a proposal to lift it to the queue does not mean it won't be deleted for being illegal. The UN Gnomes are not swayed by appeals to popularity.

With background information out of the way, let's move to discussing the various categories that lead to Proposal deletion.


Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this.


MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.


Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted.


Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.


Grossly Offensive

If you want to execute left-handed men named "Earl" in your country, that's fine. Don't go yammering about it in a Proposal. Yes, this includes screwing with a 'majority' group. Killing all whites is just as bad as killing all jews. Or blacks. Or poor people.


Category

Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc income inequality [i]and increas basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.


Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, [i]provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's gonna be nuked.


Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.


Format

Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This also includes Repeals with no argument, Proposals that are questions ("Don't you think we should...?"), and Proposals that are just too incomprehensible to make sense of. I realise that not everybody speaks English as a first language (or at all, for that matter). Unfortunately, NS is a game in English. If you cannot compose in proper English, seek the help of somebody (hint-hint, run it through an online translator and post here for clean-up). A Proposal won't be nuked for the occasional typo, but if I have to spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out what's going on, it'll be nuked.

Proposals in other languages are out, too.


Strength Violation

This is very rare, but has been used in extreme cases. If your Proposal calls for the immediate destruction of all nuclear weapons and forbids their construction, and you list it as 'mild', it'll probably be deleted.


Creating Stuff

No more committees. Oversight by the UN is assumed, so there's no need to create a special committee for your Proposal. This includes the creation of awards as well.


Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment car, but if you're going to mandate that all cars be pink, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes things that are unworthy of UN consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables).


Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (UN Taxation Ban comes to mind...)


Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones.


Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.


Jokes

"The Right To Arm Bears" isn't funny any more, okay? I don't care that we have 'Freedom of Humor'. That Resolution doesn't give you the right to make joke Proposals.


Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is.


Schedule of Offences

In general, you get two "freebies" before you're chucked. Usually, after your second deleted Proposal, you'll get a little note letting you know you're on your last chance (but if you don't, don't come crying to the Mods, ignorance of the law and all...). After the third deleted Proposal, you're out.

Exceptions to the Above

Exceptionally minor infractions will not receive a warning. Also, if you've accidentally posted your Proposal three times you probably won't be warned. Same if you realise your error and ask for it to be deleted before a Mod sweeps the list. The definition of "minor" is up to the Mod doing the sweep, of course.

Exceptionally severe infractions will earn you an instant kick. Usually these are Proposals that fall under the 'Grossly Offensive' group. Also, you may be ejected for a second infraction if you submit the exact same Proposal after having it be deleted by the Mods. Unless we expressly told you it was okay to repost, don't.

---

I think that covers it. This is open to discussion, so feel free to make suggestions or ask questions. Again, I know I've made a couple of changes (i.e. committees), which is part of why I'm posting this here. The final draft will have Cog's description of each category, and will have a few links tossed in, as well as better formatting. I'm kinda rushed right now...

Again:

This is just a DRAFT.

Modedit Fris: ran it through a spellchecker

Knew I'd forget something...

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology.

Creating Stuff

No more comittees. Oversight by the UN is assumed, so there's no need to create a special comittee for your Proposal. This includes the creaton of awards as well.


But, but, but, but...Really? What would I do if I wanted to write my resolution's implication more personal or subjective? How do I allow for cultural differences in my proposal if I can't appoint and give mandate to a committee or allow certain sections of legislation (given certain pretexts) be void if such pretexts aren't present? For example, DLE RPs a space-based empire. How would a proposal ever apply to his or her empire if there weren't a more human adaptable element to it (committees, conditions for a resolutions which require UN judgement, etc.)?


Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is.


What about DISCOURAGES (optional), URGESD (optional), or CONDEMNS (strong but optional)--are we only allowed to use OUTLAWS, MANDATES, FORCES? And proposals not being optional doesn't include proposals which tell the UN member states they "have determination/sovereignty/choice in a certain area", right?

Overall I like the draft. But I'm glad it's just a draft, as I'm unsure about certain aspects of it.

Oh, off-topic a bit, but does this mean that new proposal categories aren't coming for a while?

But, but, but, but...Really? What would I do if I wanted to write my resolution's implication more personal or subjective? How do I allow for cultural differences in my proposal if I can't appoint and give mandate to a committee or allow certain sections of legislation (given certain pretexts) be void if such pretexts aren't present? For example, DLE RPs a space-based empire. How would a proposal ever apply to his or her empire if there weren't a more human adaptable element to it (committees, conditions for a resolutions which require UN judgement, etc.)?

I knew this would be a bone of contention. I'll admit it's a little heavy handed, but the current line between allowable committees and disallowed ones is so blury as to be non-existant. This is an (admitedly heavy-handed) attempt to fix that.

But that's why this is here, to try and work out acceptable guidelines.

What about DISCOURAGES (optional), URGESD (optional), or CONDEMNS (strong but optional)--are we only allowed to use OUTLAWS, MANDATES, FORCES? And proposals not being optional doesn't include proposals which tell the UN member states they "have determination/sovereignty/choice in a certain area", right?

What I meant by optional is when people add lines like "Nations can ignore this if they want". I was tight on time when I wrote the draft, so I'll make a note to be a bit more clear about that section.


Oh, off-topic a bit, but does this mean that new proposal categories aren't coming for a while?

No idea, actually. Admins have been busy lately, so it's been on hold. Rules will, of course, be adjusted as needed with new categories.

Some suggestions (in color)

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's gonna be nuked. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.


Branding

The submitting nation will get their name attached to the resolution automatically. DON'T include statements like "The Mighty Dominion of MyNation proposes ..." or "... as submitted by I.M.A. Greatguy, President of MyNation"


Resubmission I realize this is covered, but I think it needs a separate heading and expansion

If a moderator removed your previous submission, DON'T submit it again exactly as it was. Bring it to the UN forum if needed to clean it up or get suggestions for recategorisation, but don't put it back in the queue unchanged. Ignoring UN mod rulings counts as an automatic second strike, and you'll be ejected without further notice.

Do we need to officially respond to the concept that not all NS nations are a) on 'Earth' or b) composed of humans? The concept that the UN must provide for and incorporate language that makes specific allowances for ALL possible RP scenarios has a tendency to bog down the proposal process.

Proposals that target Zombies or Elves or AIs could be considered under either Jokes or Idelogical Bans, but sometimes the proposal appears to be intended seriously. Do we need to address that explicitly in the rules?

Would these rules be applied retroactively to the passed UN resolutions that have not been repealed? I wouldn't think so, but one never knows, so I thought I'd ask. :)

What I meant by optional is when people add lines like "Nations can ignore this if they want". I was tight on time when I wrote the draft, so I'll make a note to be a bit more clear about that section.

That makes more sense. We can make resolutions optional (through word choice) for roleplay purposes, but we can't explicitly say in a proposal that it's all optional.

I guess it's kinda like the rule where we can't limit future proposals. We actually can limit future proposals by passing a resolution that contradicts those proposals, but explicitly ordering such a thing to be done is illegal.

I feel that banning the establishment of committees would be unfortunate. What of the Pretenama Panel? UNCIAT? UNSC? Many players have gained great enjoyment out of roleplaying these committees. All have done so on the basis that those interested will participate. If, for example someone wished to bring something to the PP, then they are able to (with ease, thanks to Mikitivity’s offsite UN forum). The only obstacle is awareness of the forum or who is ‘taking care’ of the committee in question. The simplest way around this is to include links in the thread established by Frisbeeteria.

Otherwise, excellent work, Hack; you deserve many thanks from us ‘orrible lot.

Duplication
If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones.

I would also like to see duplication include penalties for nations who blatantly submit someone else's work which has happened a few times between submissions or just blatant copying from a forum thread.

I would also like to see duplication include penalties for nations who blatantly submit someone else's work which has happened a few times between submissions or just blatant copying from a forum thread.
That can be difficult to verify, but it is worth considering.

Jokes

"The Right To Arm Bears" isn't funny any more, okay? I don't care that we have 'Freedom of Humor'. That Resolution doesn't give you the right to make joke Proposals.

Any chance this one could be suspended for April Fool's Day?

I like these for the most part.

I think you should ban proposals with mythical creatures, and/or technology that does not currently exist.

Though I think that we should be allowed to propose more than once, after you draft has been deleted. On a second try one would probably campaign harder.

Though I think that we should be allowed to propose more than once, after you draft has been deleted. On a second try one would probably campaign harder.
There's a difference between having a proposal deleted and having a proposal expire. You are welcome to repost a proposal after it's been up for the few days of approval and expired at the end of it. Proposals that are deleted for rule-breaking should not be reposted without fixing the problems first.

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's gonna be nuked.

Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.
Corollary to Repeals and Amendments:

Since proposals can be repealed, do not write a proposal that attempts to "build upon" another resolution. If that underlying resolution gets repealed, then your proposal won't make sense. No proposal may depend upon the existence of another resolution.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Another question to come up is the technology and species barriers. How do you propose to deal with them? DLE is immune to certain UN laws because they specify humans, which the nation isn't made up of. The technology barrier is a significant problem, since we have a game where nations capable of rolling out AIs at the same rate they roll out living children (such as DLE) mix with nations that haven't even discovered nuclear weapons yet, and in some cases the combustion engine is far away from them as well. It also produces problems when it comes to such issues as recycling batteries, since the technology difference between any two nations could result in one nation using plutonium fuel rods while another is having problems inventing acid cells. And don't even get me started on such differences as product quality, production rates, production standards, or even such simple systems as electricity transfers.

And all of the above ignores the Magic Nations, which are yet another source of problems to consider.

I would note that I approve of a ban on committees. I find the NS ones to be like ones in real life: Totally worthless and producing a lower quality of service than your average teenager on the street could do with one tenth of the time.

Actually, I was leaning towards banning them entirely...

For the past 6+ months, the standing rule has simply been that UN resolutions may not mandate forum activities.

Actually, the Enodia Law bans all committees too:


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.

But simplying saying, "A UN committee responsible for inspecting nuclear plants and reporting to the UN should be established. This committee should contain 15 members from different countries and be responsible to the UN." doesn't imply that anybody is forced to do this, but it is a flavour text (in this case, it might be argued that this is too small a group ... but I'd say that too is part of the fun of experimenting).

Hm. By my reading, you are attempting to force a Game Mechanics change. No committee has actually been created, despite the Resolution's attempt to do so. The current rules on what committees can and can't be made are way too fuzzy for my liking.

The danger as I see it is that the more boundaries that are established, the more viable options become the few that we are left to play with ... repealing existing resolutions and rewriting them.

I don't see that happening. New things are always coming up. And the UN has yet to support a Gun Control or Recreational Drug Proposal.


Another question to come up is the technology and species barriers. How do you propose to deal with them? DLE is immune to certain UN laws because they specify humans, which the nation isn't made up of.

Alas, I'm afraid this is a case of "tough luck". It would be impossible to make Resolutions that would apply to all the various types of nations out there, especially far-future or magic nations. There's nothing wrong with playing non-humans from another galaxy, but one can't expect UN Proposals to fit.

Do I laugh when my robot nation on Mercury gets an issue about deforestation? Of course. I even made a thread when I was ranked in the 1000's for Trout Farming, but this is part of the difficulty of running an off planet nation.

NS issues, and UN Proposals have to assume modern tech, human majority, earth-based nations. Since the flavor of one's nation isn't hard-coded, it's impossible to make a Resolution that fits all nations, even the most benign.

ie: "All living beings have the right to breath air."
"My beings don't breathe!"
"We breathe water!"
"We're all zombies!"

Proposals that are unworkable given the baseline should be argued from an RP level. Non-baseline nations can certainly argue it, but the argument loses it's strength, ie:

Proposal: "Homosexual marriage will be legal."
Base-line: "This won't affect me because we already made it legal."
Far-Future: "This won't affect me because we have progressed beyond 'male' and 'female' and are now sexless beings of pure energy, thus the concept of 'homosexual marriage', or, indeed, marriage itself, is meaningless to us."

We want Proposals to affect a broad range of nations and to be somewhat universal, but there comes a point when it just can't be done.

Hm. By my reading, you are attempting to force a Game Mechanics change. No committee has actually been created, despite the Resolution's attempt to do so.

To play Devil's Advocate... :D

Has a law actually been created in my nation by a UN resolution? I can still answer the prostitution issue however I want, regardless of what the Sex Industry Worker Act says, which would indicate to me that from a game mechanics standpoint, no actual law has been created. So by attempting to create a law with a UN Resolution one is attempting to force a game mechanics change.

The current rules on what committees can and can't be made are way too fuzzy for my liking.

Understandable. :) It is fuzzy. Actually, I think the whole damn UN gets a bit fuzzy with the interplay between game mechanics and roleplay. :p

Alas, I'm afraid this is a case of "tough luck". It would be impossible to make Resolutions that would apply to all the various types of nations out there, especially far-future or magic nations. There's nothing wrong with playing non-humans from another galaxy, but one can't expect UN Proposals to fit.

However, we can deal with those who do actually bother to speak up on the forum. And all of them are humanoids.

Do I laugh when my robot nation on Mercury gets an issue about deforestation? Of course. I even made a thread when I was ranked in the 1000's for Trout Farming, but this is part of the difficulty of running an off planet nation.

I'm talking UN. That's a different issue.

NS issues, and UN Proposals have to assume modern tech, human majority, earth-based nations. Since the flavor of one's nation isn't hard-coded, it's impossible to make a Resolution that fits all nations, even the most benign.

ie: "All living beings have the right to breath air."
"My beings don't breathe!"
"We breathe water!"
"We're all zombies!"

My reply to them: No one says that you must be of a species that breathes, only that you have the right to if your species is one that breathes. And include definitions about intended target audience and what is meant by air.

Proposals that are unworkable given the baseline should be argued from an RP level. Non-baseline nations can certainly argue it, but the argument loses it's strength, ie:

Proposal: "Homosexual marriage will be legal."
Base-line: "This won't affect me because we already made it legal."
Far-Future: "This won't affect me because we have progressed beyond 'male' and 'female' and are now sexless beings of pure energy, thus the concept of 'homosexual marriage', or, indeed, marriage itself, is meaningless to us."

Hmm. Maybe I should have the AIs move away from the male/female distinctions just so I can try that arguement for the fun of it... Still leaves the biologicals who can't.

I do find certain issues that would adversely affect the future-techers that must be argued on. The standardization of electrical wire setups, for instance. That can be a severe hindrance to future-techers due simply to the technology levels. It can also adversely affect modern-techers for the same reason, but not as much.

We want Proposals to affect a broad range of nations and to be somewhat universal, but there comes a point when it just can't be done.

Nor does it have to be. Just deal with those who bother to speak for themselves or send representatives. If they can't be bothered, they don't need to be considered by the rules.

One thing I see a definite need for is a limit to the number of proposals and repeals a nation can submit. Not a limit in game mechanics, but in just the rules. This is in response to the nation that submitted 15 repeals, none of which are longer than 3 lines.

Can a resolution be deleted after it is passed?

If it can, there are a dozen or so I'd like to propose.

I set up that first TPP precisely to show how badly it could be abused.
I think I was quite successful in showing it.

That said, I think the fault lay in no none having considered that anyone might want to RP it. Gwenstefani's TPP over in the UNO forum, on the other hand, is (imho) an excellent attempt to make it work, now that the problems have been demonstrated.

I was looking forward to a lot of fun RPing the inquest against Belen.

While it's a shame that the early UN members were like that, I think by now the community has grown and matured enough such that serious members outnumber silly ones.

Apparently you haven't seen this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397276&page=1&pp=15)

No, I have read through that thread many a time and had a good laugh. However, as the system exists now, the mods either delete all of the ridiculous resolutions, or they fade into oblivion as they inevitably fail to obtain the necessary 6% support.

I concede that a few people in the UN may be idiots; however, that doesn't mean everybody else cannot be trusted to self-regulate. I say things are fine with the UN proposal rules just the way they are. And I still don't see how banning committes could possibly limit silly proposals.

Well then, perhaps you aren't familiar with this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398091).

OOC: Shameless self-promotion. ;)

The mods don't do it that often, but during the move to Jolt, YGSM, a rather large number of resolutions mysteriously vanished. Fortunately, none of them were referenced by other resolutions. The whole list can be found on NS Wiki (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), but I'll post it here anyway.

Proposal Limits (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Proposal_limits_%28removed%29) - Game Mechanics
Search Function (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Search_Function_%28removed%29) - Game Mechanics. This feature was later added.
Secretary General (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Secretary_General_%28removed%29) - RL References, Game Mechanics
Resolution 245A Proper Grammar (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Resolution_245A_Proper_Grammar_%28removed%29) - Aside from the stupid name, Game Mech. Again.
Knowledge of Own Country (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Knowledge_of_Own_Country_%28removed%29) - Game Mechanics. This was (sort of) implemented with the XML feeds, although they may have been available before that proposal.
Reduction of Needed Approvals (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Reduction_of_Needed_Approvals_%28removed%29) - Game Mechanics. This was partially implemented, as the percentage was reduced to 6%, but not 5% as proposed.
Resolution Restrictions (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Resolution_Restrictions_%28removed%29) - Game Mechanics and Impractability.
International Space Initiative (ISI) (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/International_Space_Initiative_%28ISI%29) - Undetermined. Possibly setting up a "parallel UN"
Freedom from SPAM Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Freedom_From_SPAM_Act_%28removed%29) - Removed prior to Jolt for unclear reasons.

There are several other proposals that got deleted before they were actually put to vote, including one of my own. Those are not listed, but can be found on the UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) at NS Wiki.

The mods don't do it that often, but during the move to Jolt, a rather large number of resolutions mysteriously vanished.
Nothing mysterious about it. Admins took the opportunity (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372593) to remove clear violations of game mechanics while the game and forums were down, thus minimizing the effect on players. At the same time, [violet] and Salusa redid the UN resolutions display, adding in lost formatting and paginating it.

To answer the original question, Mods cannot remove a proposal once it has entered the General Assembly. It can be removed from the proposal list even if it's in queue, but once it's on the floor, it's there. While Admin could conceivably remove it, past history indicates that they won't. If you think something is illegal, bring it to a game mod's attention before it hits the floor.

Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted.


Is this true anymore since the last proposal (world supreme court) mentioned the English and French language? It went all the way through and was voted on but wasn't removed from the floor. Does this mean that real world violations are now allowed?

When I mentioned this on the official thread for the resolution people claimed that this was OK since nations had declared their official language as English or French. If that arguement holds then I can logically refer the Hammas by claiming that there is a terrorists organization in Fenure with the same name or refer to the Great Wall of China by claiming that Fenure has a wall with the same name. If I can just do that the real world violations may as well not even be a rule.

Is this true anymore since the last proposal (world supreme court) mentioned the English and French language? It went all the way through and was voted on but wasn't removed from the floor. Does this mean that real world violations are now allowed?
Nations regularly post within the game (on regional boards and such) in English, French, Italian, Dutch, and probably other languages that I haven't noticed. They don't talk about using them, they actually use them in discussions and ongoing topics. To me, that means those languages exist in the world of NationStates. To say that that sets a precedent that should permit you to use George Bush or Hammas in a proposal because you mentioned him in a thread is stretching the intent of that ruling beyond the breaking point. No.

As you pointed out, the proposal failed. It is not recorded anywhere within the game itself (the forums don't count). It is therefore not part of the code of NS law, and isn't a precedent. No.

I am not a Game Moderator, so these are my opinions and not necessarily those of the senior moderation staff or the site administrators. However, I'm betting they stand behind my interpretation, not yours.

Freedom from SPAM Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Freedom_From_SPAM_Act_%28removed%29) - Removed prior to Jolt for unclear reasons.

If I'm remembering it right, that proposal was actually removed before it got put up for a vote.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg

The massive discussion of committees was moved to http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407655

This does not mean the concept has been removed from this topic, only that the committee discussion was overwhelming the rest of this thread. Please post responses about Hack's proposed rules here, unless you want to comment on the committee topic, in which case use the other one.

Proposals in other languages are out, too.


OK, I have a minor quible here.

I feel that if another language is used as flavor text that they should still be allowed. Titles are a good example of this.

Beer Accord vs. Bier Accord

They mean the same thing, and given that there are names like "Eon Convention on Genocide" or the "Wolfish Convention on POW", I feel a title or proper noun can add flavour and richness to the game.

But I do understand that the text of the proposal needs to be understood by the game moderators (not to mention voting public).

I feel that if another language is used as flavor text that they should still be allowed. Titles are a good example of this.

But I do understand that the text of the proposal needs to be understood by the game moderators (not to mention voting public).

Well, yes. I won't delete just because someone uses vis a vis. I'm talking about Proposals written entirely in another language.


Okay, some time in the next few days, I'm going to sit down an reread this entire thread (including the committee discussion) and re-draft.

I realize Hack's rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405360) are still in Draft and technically don't apply, but I think one aspect of them is a no-brainer.Basing your arguments on resolutions which could conceivably be repealed makes your entire argument shaky. Every one of these references could be replaced with "as defined under international law" or simply eliminated. It weakens your proposal to leave them in.

I think your argument on the name is specious. It's written law. Call it what it is, a "War Crimes Principles" document. Nuremburg is unquestionably a Real World reference, and should be sufficient reason to make this one illegal.

I understand Hersfold is looking for a moderation ruling ... and I think your above advice is great. I'm not making any statement on Hersfold's proposed resolution. (I can do that elsewhere.) :)

But I'm replying to Frisbeeteria's first statement, that suggests that a resolution can't make use of the arguments presented in other resolutions. When a resolution is repealed, its text is placed in a strike through font. This doesn't mean that the vote or ideas behind the resolution were 100% off, but that some part (maybe all, maybe not) of the idea is either no longer valid or nations changed their minds.

While Hack has in fact suggested that resolutions should not reference other resolutions, sometimes directing players to another resolution is a good way to save time.

For example, "Recalling its resolution Epidemic Prevention Protocol, which stated that nations have the right to refuse entry to their country when somebody poses the risk of ..." is probably a good way to say, "Hey, we've already agreed on this, so let's do something a bit different, but that is a result of this decision.

My concerns in the UN forum about Hack's rules, is that many of them are restricting our ability to write. Just because some people get drunk and drive cars and kill people doesn't mean we should make automobiles illegal. Forbidding committees or references to prior resolutions just because this is abused, should not restrict us.

That said, here are two ways I feel that the moderators should take into consideration as good reasons to make references to prior resolutions:

- When something has been created, simply saying, "Hey, we made this, let's use it." The IRCO is the best example of this. We made it, let's not reinvent the wheel now.

- When trying to promote or highlight a short statement from an existing resolution, a quote of the phrase and a citation of the source, can not only single that we know that the basic idea has been discussed before (i.e. we've done our homework), but the next point / clause can be used to describe a loophole (and establish the justification for the rest of the resolution). An example of this in practice is the Definition of Marriage. It was one of the shorter 2004 resolutions, and this is because its author made use of the Universal Bill of Human Rights and Gay Rights resolutions. (Note, he didn't point out in the resolution where the loophole was, but certainly did save space by not just repeating everything.)


Bottom-line: all I'm asking is that the moderation staff seriously consider that the references themselves are not really that problematic. If it comes down to a situtation where we repeal an earlier resolution, it still happened. Better yet, we can keep on repealing everything in the "chain-of-similar ideas" if we feel so. I just feel that the game should not have so many degrees of freedom taken away.

{maybe this should be split and moved to Hack's UN Rules thread? I trust you on this} :)

{maybe this should be split and moved to Hack's UN Rules thread? I trust you on this} :)
Yus.

Next time, just start a [ quote] elsewhere, and then back out and paste it into a reply here.

Yus.

Next time, just start a [ quote] elsewhere, and then back out and paste it into a reply here.

Thanks, and got it!

The language thing I've always assumed to be illegal. I haven't turned any in for being in a different language, but I've seen a few deleted. Of course, it might have been for some other violation, but...

Okay, some time in the next few days, I'm going to sit down an reread this entire thread (including the committee discussion) and re-draft.

In that case, I'll hold off on my thorough review and analysis until the revised presentation by the Acting Secretary-General is available.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Hello I'm sorry to say that it is a horrible draft. The U.N. definately needs a military. :sniper:Little countries are always invaded by larger countries who aren't a threat. The big countries need to be bullied by the U.N. just as the big countries bully the litte countries. And you absolutely cannot get rid of capitalism. That's just a dumb idea to bring up!

Hello I'm sorry to say that it is a horrible draft. The U.N. definately needs a military. :sniper:Little countries are always invaded by larger countries who aren't a threat. The big countries need to be bullied by the U.N. just as the big countries bully the litte countries. And you absolutely cannot get rid of capitalism. That's just a dumb idea to bring up!

1. Smilies do not help your case. In fact, they get you not taken seriously.

2. The UN creating a military was illegal before this draft. My advice: Suck it up. If small countries are in danger, they need to befriend bigger nations.

3. Where does it say it's banning capitalism?

But I'm replying to Frisbeeteria's first statement, that suggests that a resolution can't make use of the arguments presented in other resolutions. When a resolution is repealed, its text is placed in a strike through font. This doesn't mean that the vote or ideas behind the resolution were 100% off, but that some part (maybe all, maybe not) of the idea is either no longer valid or nations changed their minds.

While Hack has in fact suggested that resolutions should not reference other resolutions, sometimes directing players to another resolution is a good way to save time.

For example, "Recalling its resolution Epidemic Prevention Protocol, which stated that nations have the right to refuse entry to their country when somebody poses the risk of ..." is probably a good way to say, "Hey, we've already agreed on this, so let's do something a bit different, but that is a result of this decision.

-SNIP-

That said, here are two ways I feel that the moderators should take into consideration as good reasons to make references to prior resolutions:

- When something has been created, simply saying, "Hey, we made this, let's use it." The IRCO is the best example of this. We made it, let's not reinvent the wheel now.

- When trying to promote or highlight a short statement from an existing resolution, a quote of the phrase and a citation of the source, can not only single that we know that the basic idea has been discussed before (i.e. we've done our homework), but the next point / clause can be used to describe a loophole (and establish the justification for the rest of the resolution). An example of this in practice is the Definition of Marriage. It was one of the shorter 2004 resolutions, and this is because its author made use of the Universal Bill of Human Rights and Gay Rights resolutions. (Note, he didn't point out in the resolution where the loophole was, but certainly did save space by not just repeating everything.)


Bottom-line: all I'm asking is that the moderation staff seriously consider that the references themselves are not really that problematic. If it comes down to a situtation where we repeal an earlier resolution, it still happened. Better yet, we can keep on repealing everything in the "chain-of-similar ideas" if we feel so. I just feel that the game should not have so many degrees of freedom taken away.

{maybe this should be split and moved to Hack's UN Rules thread? I trust you on this} :)

I realize there's a split topic now, but I'm mainly replying to the references of previous resolutions part of it.

I agree: referencing previous resolutions, even if they get repealed, is not a problem in my eyes. I think there is a line to be drawn as far as how much a resolution relies on a previous resolution. If there's a case where a previous resolution's repeal would seriously hurt a new resolution's ability to be applied to nations--I think that is weakening. But if a resolution merely says "RECALLS X" or "as defined by X" or "
HONORING X" I see no problem with it.

First, references to other resolutions almost always come at the beginning of a proposal. The opening lines of a proposal, which clauses end in "-ING", are rhetorical, and not legally binding. This opening justification/argumentation/rhetoric is not subject to the same rules as the law making sections of a proposal (double legislation, contradiction of previous resolutions, improper category, etc.).

A good example of this immunity to resolution contradiction is in "Repeal of 'Legalize Prostitution'", and the "Sex Industry Worker Act". The repeal states an assumption of increased sexually transmitted disease given legalized prostitution. The following resolution states an entirely contradictory assumption of decreased STDs given legalized prostitution. Obviously there's some leniency as far as contrary schools of thought being allowed to preface their proposals on how they interpret facts, which leads me to believe it is not critical that the opening statements (enging in "-ING") reference active, currently law-binding resolutions.

And as far as it being a rhetorical strategy to include reference to previos resolutions the UN has already agreed upon, it's a pretty good one. There are several ways to get your message out as far as the why behind your proposal: forums, telegrams, regional boards, etc. But actually convincing people of a proposal's worth within the proposal is the most effective method, as it reaches every nation that reads the proposal. Referencing in the preface to your proposal is effective and, I feel, exempt from the need to be legally binding, that's why I feel it worthwhile.

Second, there are references whih occur in the actual legally active section of proposasl, which I feel are good unless they lean too heavily on the previous resolution. As Mikitivity pointed out, if a resolution were repealed it is still present in the UN archives, and, I feel, still "fair game" for future proposals to reference it. This is why I've always advocated the repeal of "Required Basic Healthcare", because then it would serve exactly as "RBH Replacement" requires it to: a reference document without internationally binding clauses. It's just a citation. And citations don't have to be of currently binding UN resolutions. The important thing is that the citation is of a commonly "reference-able" document, which it always is.

I think there are good and bad ways of referencing previous resolutions in the active, law-creating sections of the proposal. I'll get back on here later today (after snarfing on candy) and see if I can dig up some examples of what I see as good and bad referencing.

Overall: I think references in the preface ("-ING") section is almost universally acceptable. I think references in the active sections of proposals are accpetable if written correctly.

First, references to other resolutions almost always come at the beginning of a proposal. The opening lines of a proposal, which clauses end in "-ING", are rhetorical, and not legally binding.
Beg pardon? Where did this come from? As an example ...RECOGNIZING that the UN exists to promote the cause of World Peace and Support of the Downtrodden,

RESOLVES to offer one can of Campbell's Soup to each UN member citizen per year.From my reading, the opening line of this sample proposal carries far more weight and precedent than the relatively minor "action" line. Both are part of international law, and both are binding as I read it. Maybe not as a specific action, but most certainly as precedent and direction-setting.

I consider the ENTIRE text of the resolution to be law, and I've seen nothing in the NS UN (the RL UN may be different) to indicate otherwise.

Except Fris, the "RECOGNIZING" line does not actually bind the UN to do anything. It just explains why they will be bound to do something a few lines later. It's already been made clear that the UN exists to help the poor and downtrodden - that's why we've got all the goody-two-shoes categories. If someone tried to submit a proposal that said just that, it would get deleted.

As many conservative players here have found out, the interlocking references between Gay Rights and Definition of Marriage have made it virtually impossible to repeal gay marriage. I'll leave it to the reader as to whether that's a Good Thing, but will note that this makes for stronger legislation, not weaker.

Should anyone attempt to repeal IRCO, dozens of us are prepared to point out that it can't be done without messing up other resolutions and to argue against it on that basis.

And let me point out the proposal for Diplomatic Immunity - this was proposed after numerous other proposals made mention of diplomatic immunity. Had ICJ passed, it would have referenced something with no definition.

Humanitarian Intervention's use of TPP from EON is another matter. This not only referenced a previous resolution, it changed its focus and mechanics dramatically. The solution to this, however, is to repeal Humanitarian Intervention. Perhaps it should have been deleted before voting, but I don't know that that would be appropriate now.

What makes HI different from the other examples? I'm not sure. I do think, however, that we could focus the debate first on the specifics of what went wrong there and thereby maybe reach a consensus on a better correction than Hack's draft rules against committees and against references to prior resolutions.

It's already been made clear that the UN exists to help the poor and downtrodden
It does? I thought it existed to push my strongly opinionated views on people who couldn't debate as well as I can. I don't give a crap about the poor and downtrodden, and I'm realist enough to not expect the UN to do diddly about World Peace.

Perhaps I should have used as an example:RECOGNIZING that it is the UN's duty to intervene between two warring member nations,If that's part of the descriptive, you can BET people are going to scream bloody murder. I don't care if you say it's descriptive, it establishes a legal precedent. Even if everything else in the proposal is wonderful and universally accepted, this proposal would never make it to quorum. I guarantee it.

Descriptive text is part of the law. It has meaning. It counts.

Meh. I was going to do the slick version today, but got distracted. A couple thoughts for y'all to chew on (and so I've got them written down somewhere).

Excessive Pimping

<Cogitation> Proposals will be removed if their authors are covered in too much Bling Bling!

No, Lil' Cog, what I'm talking about is the insane spamming of Regional Message Boards with your Proposal. Irritating your regionmates about it is fine, but don't go on a world tour hawking it.


Branding

Yes, I'm keeping this from Fris's post on the first page. The severity of this is under debate... the two schools are:

1) No branding at all. 'Wolfish Convention of POW' would be acceptable, but no mention of nationnames at all in the body of the text. You already get credit, you don't need to sign the fool thing. Co-authors are out of luck. They'll be mentioned in the thread and the Wiki, but not in the Proposal itself as it doesn't belong in international law.

2) Exactly the same as above, except you can add "Coauthored by The $type of $name".


House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriaged, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

So we are left with two schools of thought here, too.

1) Clear cut ban. Don't mention existing Resolutions at all.

2) You can remind people of them ("RECALLING Resolution #3"), but you can't build on previous ones, for example:

Ban Chemical Weapons
Global Disarmament: Signifigant
Submitted by: The Shithole of Crapistan

RECALLING UN Resolution #16 (Elimination of Bio Weapons) and,

NOTING that Chemical Weapons are far more dangerous and easier to use than biological weapons,

CALLS UPON the UN to BAN all chemical weapons and forbids their manufactor and use by all member states under any circumstance,

FUTHER CALLS UPON all member states to completely and immediately destroy all existing stockpiles of chemical weapons.

It references #16, but if #16 was Repealed, this one still stands on its own (its internal quality aside...).


I welcome input on these parts too.

How about The Rule of Two. A proposing nation is limited to adding two other coauthors (thus, not the proposing nation) and references to previous passed resolutions is limited to two.

Thus, the ULC resolution, which had about eight people working on it by the time it was passed, would not contain a coauthor portion (seven coauthors would seriously clutter up the resolution, in my view). Similarly, any proposal on marriage (is there anything we haven't done yet?) could simply add a clause to the effect of "RECALLING the commitment of the United Nations to allow individual citizens the choice to marry as they will" rather than mentioning all the anti-discrimination resolutions that have passed. Does this sound like a reasonable number, or for that matter, a reasonable restriction in the first place?

It would be a problem, as a lot of resolutions have multiple authors anymore. Hell, try naming everyone who helped Pilot with his AIDS resolution.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriaged, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

So we are left with two schools of thought here, too.

1) Clear cut ban. Don't mention existing Resolutions at all.

2) You can remind people of them ("RECALLING Resolution #3"), but you can't build on previous ones, for example:



It references #16, but if #16 was Repealed, this one still stands on its own (its internal quality aside...).


I welcome input on these parts too.

I think if the Resolution can stand on its own then it should be legal. Otherwise it would count as an amendment and would therefore be illegal anyway. I see no reason to create the rule.

It does? I thought it existed to push my strongly opinionated views on people who couldn't debate as well as I can. I don't give a crap about the poor and downtrodden, and I'm realist enough to not expect the UN to do diddly about World Peace.

Perhaps I should have used as an example:RECOGNIZING that it is the UN's duty to intervene between two warring member nations,If that's part of the descriptive, you can BET people are going to scream bloody murder. I don't care if you say it's descriptive, it establishes a legal precedent. Even if everything else in the proposal is wonderful and universally accepted, this proposal would never make it to quorum. I guarantee it.

Descriptive text is part of the law. It has meaning. It counts.

Yes, I agree that it "counts", to a certain degree. What I meant by "not legally binding" is that a "RECOGNIZING" statement isn't forcing that definition or rationale upon the whole of the UN. It "counts" in that the UN majority, as it agrees with more and more of these justifications at the beginnings of proposals, starts to flesh out the majority's view on issues and reality--the UN's role between warring nations, etc--but I don't think it works the other way around. I don't see what the following statements force nations to do: RECOGNIZING the UN as example to the world,

-OR-

RECOGNIZING gays as unworthy of rights,

-OR EVEN-

RECOGNIZING dolphins as the intergalactic rulers of the planet, If they're codified into law, they might reflect the majority's opinions, but they don't force all member nations in the UN to feel that way.

I see these "ING" statements as only reasoning/justifications behind a proposed action by the UN: observations of reality (or the proposer's slant on reality). I have a hard time seeing what these "ING" statements are legislating. They obviously aren't legislating an alteration of reality, and I don't feel that all UN nations are hereby held to such statements if they pass. Otherwise, what do member nations recognize about prostitution, given the contradictory messages thus far?

I think these declarative statements are indicative of what the member nations are convinced by--like the way cigarette ads that use attractive women to market cigarettes to men show that men like attractive women--but I don't think it's a part of the legislation forced upon member nations--just as the cigarette ads aren't actually selling attractive women with their cigarettes.

And there certainly is no current enforcement of resolution's ING statements: proposals contradicting previous resolutions' positions are submitted all the time. These proposals are not deleted and occasionally make it to the floor, sometimes passing. I've never heard any news of writers having to argue within the restraints of arguments used in previous resolution, only that they have to legislate within the legal restrains of previous resolutions.

I believe arguments that contradict previously passed or commonly held opinions or ING statements are less likely to pass, but I don't think there's some sort of legal obstacle to them passing (again, the prostitution resolutions/repeal). This lack of likelihood is a testament to the unsoundness of a proposal's rhetorical appeal, not of its illegality.

Of course, that might not have been what you meant at all. So, I'll just shut up for a bit in case I've stuck my foot in my mouth somewhere up there.

Still just a DRAFT.

UN Proposals are attempts to introduce new legislation to member nations. By submitting a Proposal, you are stating that you have found something in the NS world that needs to be addressed and you are attempting to do so by forcing a change to all members. For this reason, UN Proposals must be more than just rhetoric. While they need not be written like "real" UN documents, they do need to be more than just your opinion. Essays belong in the General Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227), or the Serious Discussions Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1038), not the UN floor.

UN members also need to be aware that being in queue is not proof against action. Just because enough Delegates support a proposal to lift it to the queue does not mean it won't be deleted for being illegal. The UN Gnomes are not swayed by appeals to popularity.

With background information out of the way, let's move to discussing the various categories that lead to Proposal deletion.

Types Of Violations

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this.


Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.


Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology.


MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.


Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules.


Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.


Format

Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This also includes Repeals with no argument, Proposals that are questions ("Don't you think we should...?"), and Proposals that are just too incomprehensible to make sense of. I realise that not everybody speaks English as a first language (or at all, for that matter). Unfortunately, NS is a game in English. If you cannot compose in proper English, seek the help of somebody (hint-hint, run it through an online translator and post here for clean-up). A Proposal won't be nuked for the occasional typo, but if I have to spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out what's going on, it'll be nuked.

Proposals written entirely in other languages are out, too.


Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted.


Category

Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc income inequality and increas basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.


Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, [i]provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted.


Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.


House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal [i]must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)


Strength Violation

This is very rare, but has been used in extreme cases. If your Proposal calls for the immediate destruction of all nuclear weapons and forbids their construction, and you list it as 'mild', it'll probably be deleted.


Jokes

"The Right To Arm Bears" isn't funny any more, okay? I don't care that we have 'Freedom of Humor'. That Resolution doesn't give you the right to make joke Proposals.


Grossly Offensive

If you want to execute left-handed men named "Earl" in your country, that's fine. Don't go yammering about it in a Proposal. Yes, this includes screwing with a 'majority' group. Killing all whites is just as bad as killing all jews. Or blacks. Or poor people. Things such as eliminating "all rights for $group", forced deportation of said group and the like fall under this too.


Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to mandate that all cars be pink, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes things that are unworthy of UN consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables).


Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (UN Taxation Ban comes to mind...)


Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)


Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.


Branding

Still under discussion.


Illicit Activity Outside of Proposals

Excessive Pimping

<Cogitation> Proposals will be removed if their authors are covered in too much Bling Bling!

No, Lil' Cog, what I'm talking about is the insane spamming of Regional Message Boards with your Proposal. Irritating your regionmates about it is fine, but don't go on a world tour hawking it. While this doesn't deal with the Proposal itself, excessive hustling will still result in the Proposal being deleted, and the person pushing it may face UN ejection.


Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.


Schedule of Offences

In general, you get two "freebies" before you're chucked. Usually, after your second deleted Proposal, you'll get a little note letting you know you're on your last chance (but if you don't, don't come crying to the Mods, ignorance of the law and all...). After the third deleted Proposal, you're out.

Exceptions to the Above

Exceptionally minor infractions will not receive a warning. Also, if you've accidentally posted your Proposal three times you probably won't be warned. Same if you realise your error and ask for it to be deleted before a Mod sweeps the list. The definition of "minor" is up to the Mod doing the sweep, of course.

Exceptionally severe infractions will earn you an instant kick. Usually these are Proposals that fall under the 'Grossly Offensive' group. Also, you may be ejected for a second infraction if you submit the exact same Proposal after having it be deleted by the Mods. Unless we expressly told you it was okay to repost, don't.


This is just a DRAFT.

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

What about proposals that don't force activities but can be used to enhance roleplay?

To be honest, I've never understood exactly what the bias against RP-rich text was.

Beg pardon? Where did this come from? As an example ...RECOGNIZING that the UN exists to promote the cause of World Peace and Support of the Downtrodden,

RESOLVES to offer one can of Campbell's Soup to each UN member citizen per year.From my reading, the opening line of this sample proposal carries far more weight and precedent than the relatively minor "action" line. Both are part of international law, and both are binding as I read it. Maybe not as a specific action, but most certainly as precedent and direction-setting.

I consider the ENTIRE text of the resolution to be law, and I've seen nothing in the NS UN (the RL UN may be different) to indicate otherwise.

Actually Fris, legally speaking in parliamentry proceedure the "RECOGNIZING" is not legally binding. A resolution implies _action_, and the verb resolves is actively doing something, while recognizing is just a statement of why the action is being taking. If the first clause has also read "recognizes" instead of "recognizing", it would no longer be a preambulatory clause, but become an activating clause.

At least this is standard in the way most organizations / governments handle "resolutions".

edit: for a real world example, look at the past 50 years worth of existing UN resolutions. Robert's Rules of Orders *may* talk about this in the introduction, but that is a long shot on my part.

Just one little thing, more of a proof-reading suggestion:


Currently, if you want to ban gay marriaged, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions.
[emphasis added]

I think it should be "marriage".

I like the adjustments so far. I'm interested to hear what Goobergunchia has to say about the new draft. Well, I'm interested in what everyone has to say about it, it's just that Goobergunchia explicitly stated intent to examine the new draft if it were posted, and I respect Goobergnchia's opinion.

Well, I respect others' opinions, too...

Screw it. Nevermind.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the quote was extracted from the "House of Cards" subsection.

In the metagaming subsection:

Why are references to regions verboten?
I meant to bring this up in response to the first version of the draft rules.

Regions are a significant part of the game. Regions are a significant part of UN delegacy, and to submitting proposals, even.

Why are references to regions verboten?
"The North Pacific is being led by a dictator of a Delegate! We must boycott the North Pacific!"

"The Security Council will have permanent seats for the five Pacific regions, The RR, and 10 seats that are elected each month."

"Each region is separately responsible for collecting donations for tsunami relief."

I'm sure I could come up with others, but I can't think of a use that would qualify as legal.

Robert's Rules of Order are considered the English language guide to parliamentry procedure.


http://www.robertsrules.org/rror-01.htm#4

4. Motions and Resolutions. A motion is a proposal that the assembly take certain action, or that it express itself as holding certain views. It is made by a member's obtaining the floor as already described and saying, "I move that" (which is equivalent to saying, "I propose that"), and then stating the action he proposes to have taken. Thus a member "moves" (proposes) that a resolution be adopted, or amended, or referred to a committee, or that a vote of thanks be extended, etc.; or "That it is the sense of this meeting (or assembly) that industrial training," etc. Every resolution should be in writing, and the presiding officer has a right to require any main motion, amendment, or instructions to a committee to be in writing. When a main motion is of such importance or length as to be in writing it is usually written in the form of a resolution, that is, beginning with the words, "Resolved, That," the word "Resolved" being underscored (printed in italics) and followed by a comma, and the word "That" beginning with a capital "T." If the word "Resolved" were replaced by the words "I move," the resolution would become a motion. A resolution is always a main motion. In some sections of the country the word "resolve" is frequently used instead of "resolution." In assemblies with paid employees, instructions given to employees are called "orders" instead of "resolutions," and the enacting word, "Ordered" is used instead of "Resolved."

When a member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the floor, he says, "I move the adoption of the following resolution," or "I offer the following resolution," which he reads and hands to the chair. If it is desired to give the reasons for the resolution, they are usually stated in a preamble, each clause of which constitutes a paragraph beginning with "Whereas." The preamble is always amended last, as changes in the resolution may require changes the preamble. In moving the adoption of a resolution the preamble is not usually referred to, as it is included in the resolution. But when the previous question is ordered on the resolution before the preamble has been considered for amendment, it does not apply to the preamble, which is then open to debate and amendment. The preamble should never contain a period, but each paragraph should close with a comma or semicolon, followed by "and," except the last paragraph, which should close with the word "therefore," or "therefore, be it." A resolution should avoid periods where practicable. Usually, where periods are necessary, it is better to separate it into a series of resolutions, in which case the resolutions may be numbered, if preferred, by preceding them with the figures 1, 2, etc.; or it may retain the form of a single resolution with several paragraphs, each beginning with "That," and these may be numbered, if preferred, by placing "First," "Second," etc., just before the word "That." The following form will serve as a guide when it is desired to give the reasons for a resolution:

Whereas, We consider that suitable recreation is a necessary part of a rational educational system; and

Whereas, There is no public ground in this village where our school children can play; therefore

Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that ample play grounds should be immediately provided for our school children.

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the chair to present these resolutions to the village authorities and to urge upon them prompt action in the matter.

As a general rule no member can make two motions at a time except by general consent. But he may combine the motion to suspend the rules with the motion for whose adoption it was made; and the motion to reconsider a resolution and its amendments; and a member may offer a resolution and at the same time move to make it a special order for a specified time.

I've added an emphasis with bold to the major points of this particular on-line version of Robert's Rules of Order on resolutions. The blue text specifically is what I'd like to talk about. A resolution is really a sentence, a run-on sentence, but a sentence. While the United Nations, League of Nations, and many world governments use a different format than simple PP via Robert's Rules, the basic idea is the same. A "law" or "motion" includes some statement of why you want to do something. In business we include these statements in the introduction and justification (or even in a mission statement or objective). It simply is just good logic to always restate the problem and justification for action before taking that action. In resolutions this is always done in a preamble.

The United Nations changes the strength of the verbs (notice they are all verbs) in order to designate between preambluatory and activating clauses. Passive verbs are just justifications, active verbs are the actual motions. When a UN resolution is adopted, even though the political statements implied in the justifications are carried along with the actions, the actual STATEMENT and legal action of the UN is limited to the __actions__. This is why the UN (and League of Nations) adopted a numbering system and calls these "activating" clauses. It is easy to see what is law and what is fluff.

Here is an example of a real UN resolution:


58/36. Prevention of an arms race in outer space

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,

Reaffirming the will of all States that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,

Reaffirming also the provisions of articles III and IV of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,1

Recalling the obligation of all States to observe the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations regarding the use or threat of use of force in their international relations, including in their space activities,

Reaffirming paragraph 80 of the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly, 2 in which it is stated that in order to prevent an arms race in outer space, further measures should be taken and appropriate international negotiations held in accordance with the spirit of the Treaty,

Recalling its previous resolutions on this issue, and taking note of the proposals submitted to the General Assembly at its tenth special session and at its regular sessions, and of the recommendations made to the competent organs of the United Nations and to the Conference on Disarmament,

Recognizing that prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security,

Emphasizing the paramount importance of strict compliance with existing arms limitation and disarmament agreements relevant to outer space, including bilateral agreements, and with the existing legal regime concerning the use of outer space,

Considering that wide participation in the legal regime applicable to outer space could contribute to enhancing its effectiveness,
Noting that the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, taking into account its previous efforts since its establishment in 1985 and seeking to enhance its functioning in qualitative terms, continued the examination and identification of various issues, existing agreements and existing proposals, as well as future initiatives relevant to the prevention of an arms race in outer space,3 and that this contributed to a better understanding of a number of problems and to a clearer perception of the various positions,

Noting also that there were no objections in principle in the Conference on Disarmament to the re-establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee, subject to re-examination of the mandate contained in the decision of the Conference on Disarmament of 13 February 1992,4

Emphasizing the mutually complementary nature of bilateral and multilateral efforts in the field of preventing an arms race in outer space, and hoping that concrete results will emerge from those efforts as soon as possible,

Convinced that further measures should be examined in the search for effective and verifiable bilateral and multilateral agreements in order to prevent an arms race in outer space, including the weaponization of outer space, Stressing that the growing use of outer space increases the need for greater transparency and better information on the part of the international community,

Recalling, in this context, its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 45/55 B of 4 December 1990, 47/51 of 9 December 1992 and 48/74 A of 16 December 1993, in which, inter alia, it reaffirmed the importance of confidence-building measures as a means conducive to ensuring the attainment of the objective of the prevention of an arms race in outer space,

Conscious of the benefits of confidence- and security-building measures in the military field,

Recognizing that negotiations for the conclusion of an international agreement or agreements to prevent an arms race in outer space remain a priority task of the Ad Hoc Committee and that the concrete proposals on confidence-building measures
could form an integral part of such agreements,

1. Reaffirms the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective, in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies;1

2. Reaffirms its recognition, as stated in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, that the legal regime applicable to outer space does not in and of itself guarantee the prevention of an arms race in outer space, that the regime plays a significant role in the prevention of an arms race in that environment, that there is a need to consolidate and reinforce that regime and enhance its effectiveness and that it is important to comply strictly with existing agreements, both bilateral and multilateral;

3. Emphasizes the necessity of further measures with appropriate and effective provisions for verification to prevent an arms race in outer space;

4. Calls upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation;

5. Reiterates that the Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects;

6. Invites the Conference on Disarmament to complete the examination and updating of the mandate contained in its decision of 13 February 1992 4 and to establish an ad hoc committee as early as possible during its 2004 session;

7. Recognizes, in this respect, the growing convergence of views on the elaboration of measures designed to strengthen transparency, confidence and security in the peaceful uses of outer space;

8. Urges States conducting activities in outer space, as well as States interested in conducting such activities, to keep the Conference on Disarmament informed of the progress of bilateral and multilateral negotiations on the matter, if any, so as to facilitate its work;

9. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-ninth session the
item entitled “Prevention of an arms race in outer space”.

1
Resolution 2222 (XXI), annex.
2
Resolution S-10/2.

3
Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 27 (A/49/27), sect. III.D
(para. 5 of the quoted text).
4
CD/1125.

71st plenary meeting
8 December 2003


For examples of other real UN resolutions visit:
http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm

I'm NOT suggesting we use Robert's Rules or even all of the real UN rules here on NationStates. But I think we've shown in 2004 that we can write some technically great resolutions that would actually hold their own in real governments ... or at least serve as a good starting point for discussions. The point of this _part_ of the game is to simulate an international law making body. The fact that it is named "United Nations" isn't why we should seriously consider borrowing from the real UN, but the fact that both our imaginary UN and the real UN both are international organizations which ultimately only have power when members choose to _stay_ members and are seeking uni-lateral and not bi-lateral solutions makes the two bodies and how they behave linked.

You could call this "Max's Council of Governments", and I'd still be here advocating that preambulatory clauses are not "actions" and not legally binding. Activating clauses are actually actions, but really limited to two things: statements of the will of the majority (RECOMMENDS, URGES, EXPRESSES ITS HOPE) or directives and orders passed along to committees, technical bodies, and other non-sovereign entities that are answerable directly to this body (DIRECTS, ESTABLISHES, AUTHORIZES).

I wouldn't be so hell bent on defending:

- committees
- good resolution writting guidelines

If I didn't believe in them 100%.

I don't think we need to be Nazis and force people to use these guidelines (I've voted in favour of many poorly worded resolutions because "different strokes for different folks" means that if I understand what the author is struggling to do and agree, I'll back him or her up), but at the same time, I think we should really understand why the real world uses these guidelines and not be afraid to STEAL their brilliant ideas and leave the "carp" (I didn't really mean carp BTW) for the stuffy real world diplomats.

We can still have fun, and the House of Cards is not a danger.

In the metagaming subsection:

Why are references to regions verboten?
I meant to bring this up in response to the first version of the draft rules.

Regions are a significant part of the game. Regions are a significant part of UN delegacy, and to submitting proposals, even.

I actually share this concern, but I think I understand what the DRAFT is attempting to say.

There are more proposed resolutions about granting special favors to a nation or a region of nations than we can shake our fists at every year. Given that I rarely look at the queue and can spot them, I'm guessing that the Delegates and Game Mods are annoyed by these.

However, I'd say granting rights or taking action against a sub-set of nations is already covered in the game mechanics rules.



My recommendation: whatever rules we put into effect should be case-law based. We should start to work on examples of good and bad. Given this is a document that will be posted here, we can easily link to post by post examples.

While a few of us think in abstract terms, I think I can speak for at least a significant number of us (I count myself here too), who learn by example and exploring things. This doesn't have to been done ASAP, but I'd like to impress upon the mods that you've got helpers all over the place here and that together we can make a great living set of rules. :)

In the metagaming subsection:

Why are references to regions verboten?
I meant to bring this up in response to the first version of the draft rules.

Regions are a significant part of the game. Regions are a significant part of UN delegacy, and to submitting proposals, even.

I think what Hack means in this case is a proposal saying for example "The Region of Canada shall send $50M in aid". It's like targeting a nation in your proposal.

snip

I like the new rules. I just want to chime in and say that I think listing multiple authors should be allowed, but should be confined to just a line or two (and listing just the nation's name, not, for example, "The UN-Loving Rogue State Of X Nation"). People should know who wrote the proposal, because if a proposal has multiple authors then the one who submitted the proposal may not have all the answers that those who question the proposal may be looking for.

Also, if a delegate was asked to submit a proposal for someone who could not (because they don't have enough endorsements), I think the original author should get credited in the proposal, so people know who actually wrote it.

Specific regions, OK.

A proposal to allow free movement within regios, and passport checks at regional borders only, OTOH... OK, not all nationstates in the region are UN members. I can see a problem there.

Secondary servers for ULC should be based in each region: I don't see the problem.
Reduced tariffs for UN members within each region: I don't see the problem.



My regionmates are my primary allies in this game. They trusted me enough (woe on them!) to make me their delegate to the UN. I see a place for regional responsibilities in UN resolutions.

We can still have fun, and the House of Cards is not a danger.Oh, it most certainly is:


ALSO RECALLING Resolution #7 (Sexual Freedom), and Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice),


WHILST RECOGNISING that UN Proposal #49 on the Rights and Duties of UN States defends the rights of national sovereignty and non-intervention;

IT IS ALSO NOTED that Art. 11 declares that "the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law";

CONSIDERING further the UN’s commitment to the upholding of human rights, and that The Universal Bill of Rights (UNP #26)
[...]
ASSERTING that, as stated in the Eon Convention on Genocide (UNP #83),


Recognising and enhancing the recommendations pertaining to organ donors governed by resolution #55, World Blood Bank,

Recognising and affirming article 4 of Resolution #26, the Universal Bill of Rights, and accepting that the membership of the UNWODC, by any Nation or individual is voluntary,

Extending the role of the International Red Cross / Crescent Organisation (IRCO) as per resolution #29,

Recognising the articles of resolution #49, Rights and duties of UN States,


NOTING previous resolutions passed by the United Nations for the purpose of furthering education worldwide (#28 - Free Education, #54 - UN Educational Committee, #79 - Reformed Literacy Initiative), and also noting resolution #63 - Freedom of the Press,
[...]
If the work is not in the public domain (as per resolution #60 - Public Domain),

It is becoming common practice for new Proposals to base their entire existance on previous Resolutions. This is not a healthy practice.


What about proposals that don't force activities but can be used to enhance roleplay?

To be honest, I've never understood exactly what the bias against RP-rich text was.Considering I'm a role-playing Mod, it's hard to make claims of anti-RP bias stick. Proposals that don't force role-play are fine, always have been. When your Proposal would force all 30,000 some UN nations to do something on the forum is when we have problems. UN Resolutions cannot force the player to do something.

Just one little thing, more of a proof-reading suggestion: Meh. I'll fix it.

A proposal to allow free movement within regios, and passport checks at regional borders only, OTOH... OK, not all nationstates in the region are UN members. I can see a problem there.

Secondary servers for ULC should be based in each region: I don't see the problem.
Reduced tariffs for UN members within each region: I don't see the problem.It's a judgement call. Regions in NS aren't like continents in RL, remember. Moving from Region to Region takes little to no effort, so basing a Resolution on Regions makes it a little fluid. Also, taking your tarrif example: What about the guy who's the only UN nation in his Region? The text of the Resolution writes him out of any benifit, yet his stats are still adjusted by the game.

It is becoming common practice for new Proposals to base their entire existance on previous Resolutions. This is not a healthy practice.


And why not?

Basically all I've been seeing is the following: "If you agreed with the basic reasoning for X, Y, and Z, this is trying to address the same problem with a different solution."

Leave it up to us, the UN Membership, to decide what is healthy and what is not. I would have expected the ICJ to pass, but it failed. If players over reference resolutions, and can not defend *why* they've referenced prior resolutions or in the case of existing committees, those committees, then I'll vote 'em down faster than anybody else here.

Take a look at Groot Gouda's Natural Disaster proposal (currently in discussion here). That idea actually dates back to before the Tsunami Warning System was even a final proposal. During the discussions Gouda, Grosseschnauzer, and myself realized that Tejasdom's original Tsunami idea was gonna be slammed with a ton of "but this will cost too much" complaints just like the Space Defense Initiative resolution did when it failed in April 2004. Gouda had proposed we cast a larger net, but I objected on the grounds that politically we'd invite more of the "but this will cost too much".

I'll be 100% honest here. The three of us held discussions and honestly felt that while a larger system shoudl be in place, that we needed to hand hold the nations of NationStates (not this forum ... people here will actually listen to a well formed debate and vetted process) that it is possible to first build systems for a single natural disaster. We did that. And Gouda is taking the process to its logical conclusion (not pushing the idea, but slowly building support for it). :)

In the case of Gouda's proposal, it is very important that he show this above connection. If anything our three nations (i.e. the three of us) are big time promoters of transparency. We *want* nations to understand why we are talking about natural disasters in a larger perspective and feel it resonsible to the comments raised in the previous debate to include that connection in a resolution.

Bottom line, there are OK written resolutions and then a few cases of very carefully planned ones, but in both cases, I'm confident that the votes will tell the story in the end. For example, how often does Needle Sharing Prevention come up for repeal? Probably a few times, but not too often. While it was grandfathered before the no references rule, I think the basic idea I've seen in the vast majority of 2004 and 2005 resolutions is what I'd politely call "Armor Plating". Now that we've got repeals, we are taking longer to illustrate that we've read the prior resolutions and understand their basic concepts.

Personally I'm thrilled any time I see a prior reference as that implies that a player just didn't make something up, but in his / her mind is honestly roleplaying the part of a diplomatic in a true international organization and better yet ... he / she is respecting those prior decisions.

If I saw my resolutions come up in support of other people's ideas, I'd be grinning from ear to ear. (Now if only I can convince people that drug users aren't evil.) :)

edit:
My suggestion is for a compromise. Simply make the rule that resolutions can not justify their entire justification / defense on pre-existing resolutions, but rather that they must also cite the specific problems directly that they seek to solve. Allow references, but warn that their overuse can actually hurt a cause.

To me, this would be fine.

Utlimately we all are looking for the same exact thing ... a means to improve the quality of proposals (and hence resolutions).

What did you feel about my idea to link to examples (real or imaginary) to illustrate your points?

I've already mentioned Groot Gouda's current proposal as an example of the way I feel it should work:


Description: DEEPLY REGRETTING loss of life and material damages as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, typhoons, floods, blizzards, etc;

NOTING that these disasters do not stop at national borders;

OBSERVING the Tsunami Emergency Warning Center as instituted by the Tsunami Warning System (Resolution #90);

NOTING that the aforementioned Resolution #90 has limited effect for other natural disasters;

ALSO NOTING that the measures implemented by this resolution can and should be used for further research and development of natural disaster warning systems;

This should be legal. Here is why. Gouda is still citing that the problem is a large class of natural disasters and names a number of them, including floods and blizzards (two that really impact Mikitivity big time). :)

Gouda then provides the standard international standing clause "do not at national borders".

Gouda then talks about what the UN has already done, aka Grosseschnauzer's resolution #90 (which the three of us all did work on together a great deal), but points out that #90 is incomplete and has a minor problem.

Instead of saying, "We must delete it", Gouda then points out that the problem is that #90 was limited of scope and doesn't address the first set of natural disasters in its text and says that this resolution seeks to do that.

It isn't terribly long at all, but I think this is a textbook and classic step-up.

I'd recommend that the DRAFT be revised to actually discourage overuse of prior references, but to allow them.

This proposed resolution (activating clauses not shown) will not impede #90 one bit. If #90 goes away, earthquakes, hurricanes, and smurf attacks will continue (well the smurfs might leave in protest). But the true alternative is copy and paste and actually risk building a roleplayed connection ... law making bodies should reference and be aware of prior decisions.

Once again...

If the entire basis for your Proposal is previous Resolutions, and if the Resolutions are Repealed you no longer have any base for your Proposal.

Using the Universal Library Coalition as an example:

"If the work is not in the public domain (as per resolution #60 - Public Domain),"

If Resolution #60 is Repealed, the ULC no longer has a definition of Public Domain documents. The Repeal of #60 would cripple that clause of this Resolution.

Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.[/list]

I would presume that this would cover submitting exact copies of repealed resolutions too, right?

I would presume that this would cover submitting exact copies of repealed resolutions too, right?
Not necessarily.

While I personally think resubmitting a Repeal Resolution is silly (it was Repealed for a reason...), it's not expressly against the rules.

Hack, apologies for needing this spelt out with painstaking clarity, but can we assume that, for example, Gouda's current proposal as detailed by Mik is fine under the new rules? If so, then the House of Cards section is absolutely fine by me (for what that's worth) on the grounds that a responsible level of referencing is OK.

I know this is a pain, but the likes of Mik and I just want to make sure everything's crystal clear.

As for committees... OK, I'll go to the other thread.

Once again...

If the entire basis for your Proposal is previous Resolutions, and if the Resolutions are Repealed you no longer have any base for your Proposal.

Using the Universal Library Coalition as an example:

"If the work is not in the public domain (as per resolution #60 - Public Domain),"

If Resolution #60 is Repealed, the ULC no longer has a definition of Public Domain documents. The Repeal of #60 would cripple that clause of this Resolution.


Well, I understand concern for proposals which lean on a previous resolution's enforcement and need them to be internationally enforced/un-repealed or the new proposal's enforcement would be damaged (such as "Reformed Literacy Initiative", which states many of its literacy programs as functions of #28's enforcement). But I think references to offer definition, context, and garner support, even if they are large in number, aren't harmful.

I mean, just because #60 gets repealed and becomes unenforcable doesn't mean "Public Domain"'s definition of 'in the public domain' is no longer existent or usable. Resolution #60 would still be widely available for use as a reference to lend definition to "Public Domain". According to my reading of it, if #60 were repealed, the ULC would still be enforced as if it hadn't. Perhaps others have differing understandings.

Yes, I understand it could be dangerous it proposals rely on previous resoution's effects, but just utilizing their wording/defintions to add context doesn't seem a problem to me.

Then again, maybe it is time to start lessening the interconnectedness between resolutions...

Well, I understand concern for proposals which lean on a previous resolution's enforcement and need them to be internationally enforced/un-repealed or the new proposal's enforcement would be damaged (such as "Reformed Literacy Initiative", which states many of its literacy programs as functions of #28's enforcement). But I think references to offer definition, context, and garner support, even if they are large in number, aren't harmful.

I mean, just because #60 gets repealed and becomes unenforcable doesn't mean "Public Domain"'s definition of 'in the public domain' is no longer existent or usable. Resolution #60 would still be widely available for use as a reference to lend definition to "Public Domain". According to my reading of it, if #60 were repealed, the ULC would still be enforced as if it hadn't. Perhaps others have differing understandings.

Yes, I understand it could be dangerous it proposals rely on previous resoution's effects, but just utilizing their wording/defintions to add context doesn't seem a problem to me.

Then again, maybe it is time to start lessening the interconnectedness between resolutions...

I agree. I'd also like to add that in certain cases, having set definitions for terms is required for future resolutions. Resolutions that further human rights definitely need a base for how the UN looks at human rights in order to get a sense on what the UN feels is appropriate. If the UN decreed that people DON'T have the freedom of choice, then any future resolutions that may give people some of those freedoms are thrown out, while an undefined "freedom of choice" also presents problems for those resolutions because they don't have a idea for what exactly the UN allows and doesn't. This may seem trivial but many resolutions are founded on the principle of human rights- and if we don't have any idea what they are, then resolutions of those types are useless.

Also, it's a matter of precedent- if a resolution sets a definition for future use then it should be referenced. Laws work in that matter too. Besides, the whole point of new Resolutions is to cover what hasn't been covered before, so, essentially, everything builds upon everything. This is why I think we need to maintain referencing at least, because precedents become important in the scope of where future resolutions can go.

Mr. Secretary-General, I rise to discuss fully, point-by-point, the merits of the draft proposed ruleset by the UN Gnomes. I have no objection to the background information as written and therefore will immediately proceed to the list of violations.

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this.

The Game Mechanics point of order is perhaps the most fundamental, non-negotiable rule in the UN manual. I will never oppose a restatement of the extant Game Mechanics point of order.

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

Given the impossibility of organizing a command structure for a United Nations Army under existing law and precedent, I have no objection to this minor amendment to the Game Mechanics point of order, unless somebody could show an otherwise legal proposal to establish the same (which I deem incredibly unlikely).

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology.

I support in principle a point of order against ideological bans. However, I am concerned that the draft text mind be a little too broad. It could be argued that slavery constitutes an "economic ideology", for instance.

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

I have usually viewed the Metagaming point of order similarly to the Game Mechanics point of order. Although it also serves an "Attainder" point of order. Of course, I support.

Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules.

Under the previous request of the Chair, I will withhold my thoughts on committees at this time.

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

I support a strict interpretation of this rule, with the caveat that a "Strong" proposal containing phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES" should not be ruled out of order under this rule. However, such a proposal may be out of order under a Strength Violation point of order.

Format

Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This also includes Repeals with no argument, Proposals that are questions ("Don't you think we should...?"), and Proposals that are just too incomprehensible to make sense of. I realise that not everybody speaks English as a first language (or at all, for that matter). Unfortunately, NS is a game in English. If you cannot compose in proper English, seek the help of somebody (hint-hint, run it through an online translator and post here for clean-up). A Proposal won't be nuked for the occasional typo, but if I have to spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out what's going on, it'll be nuked.

Proposals written entirely in other languages are out, too.

I support this, given the degree of incomprehensibility we often see in the UN. The Goobergunchian Ministry of United Nations Compliance has often had to submit opinions that it could not interpret a UN resolution at vote because it was incomprehensible. For an example, see Internet Advertising Pop-ups (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Internet_Advertising_Pop-ups_%28failed%29).


Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted.

I support the continuation of this point of order. Note that proposals that attempt to claim that so-called "real world" references are actually NationStates references are subject to the metagaming point of order, as I interpret it. For more of my thoughts on this topic, see the United Nations Forum on the "John Ashcroft is a Hero" proposal of September 2003.

Category

Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc income inequality and increas basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.

I support a moderate enforcement of this rule. However, for some proposals it is possible to see two valid categories for the aforementioned proposal, as with "Outlaw Pedophilia" (Resolution #22, July 2003). If the category is arguably appropriate, the proposal should be allowed and UN members should vote against it if they disagree with the categorization.

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, [i]provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted.

Just a reiteration of NationStates v. Tisonica (~14 September 2003). Although I argued against that ruling at the time, given the Repeal Motion introduced on 23 September 2004 I now support this wholeheartedly.

Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

I support a point of order against direct amendments to existing resolutions. I believe that the question of add-ons would fall more directly under the proposed House of Cards point of order and will address it there.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal [i]must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

I'm generally against adding new points of order, seeing as we want the UN proposal rules to be fairly common-sense. Of course, I remember when they weren't even written down. :)

I essentially agree with the representative from Powerhungry Chipmunks' assessment of this rule. UN Resolutions are not purged when repealed, and they can still serve as reference documents. For instance, I would oppose a point of order against the following line:

.... a minor, as defined in Article 1 of Resolution #25 (The Child Protection Act), ....

However, I don't mind a resolution being struck down if a clause therein would be rendered inoperable by the repeal of another resolution, as its actions are dependent upon the actions that occur in another resolution.

Strength Violation

This is very rare, but has been used in extreme cases. If your Proposal calls for the immediate destruction of all nuclear weapons and forbids their construction, and you list it as 'mild', it'll probably be deleted.

I support this if used only in the aforementioned "extreme cases".

Jokes

"The Right To Arm Bears" isn't funny any more, okay? I don't care that we have 'Freedom of Humor'. That Resolution doesn't give you the right to make joke Proposals.

This has been in effect since Enodia codified UN law and the revised also reflects the NationStates v. Architeuthis (HIPPOS ARE BIG) ruling. So I support it.

Grossly Offensive

If you want to execute left-handed men named "Earl" in your country, that's fine. Don't go yammering about it in a Proposal. Yes, this includes screwing with a 'majority' group. Killing all whites is just as bad as killing all jews. Or blacks. Or poor people. Things such as eliminating "all rights for $group", forced deportation of said group and the like fall under this too.

I support this, as long as it isn't used as a point of order against things like eliminating gay marriage. That violates several other rules and would draw my opposition

Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to mandate that all cars be pink, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes things that are unworthy of UN consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables).

The problem I have with this is that it's an inherently subjective point of order. Although I (being a former Delegate myself) understand why Delegates don't want to be reading these kinds of proposals, it still remains the responsibility of the UN Delegates to reject proposals that are just generally dumb. I think that a "Power of Deletion" system, most notably championed by Westrogocidae in the spring and summer of 2003 and not implemented at this time, remains the best method for dealing with stupid proposals that do not violate any actual rule.

Also, many of these stupid proposals can be dealt with under a different rule because they are often in an incorrect category. And if no proper category exists, then the Incorrect Category point of order still lies. For instance, HIPPOS ARE BIG was deleted for being generally stupid, but Enodia pointed out that a UN declaration that "Hippos Are Big" in no way furthers Human Rights.

Lastly, I could probably write a good-sounding (while still generally stupid) resolution on car coloration (due to safety or some such), and I could quite definitely write a good-sounding resolution on "encouraging the good health of the world's youth by issuing subsidies to families who demonstrate that their children are eating a proper amount of vegetables daily, PROVIDED that a fixed, non-zero percentage of such subsidy be given by the head of the household that receives said subsidy to the child or children that consumed the aforementioned food substance." It sounds a lot better than "Alowances should be given to children that eat there vegtables!" but it means essentially the same thing. And it seems a better use of the UN's time, in my opinion, than Resolution #5.

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (UN Taxation Ban comes to mind...)

No objection, but this seems superfluous.

Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)

I strongly support this, having raised a few points of order against essentially duplicate proposals in the past. However, I would not want to see this overzealously enforced; there are 89 extant UN resolutions (repeals and repealed resolutions discounted) and a minor duplication that is a very small part of an otherwise legal resolution should not cause the entire resolution to fall.

Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.

Strongly support per Duplication. And since contradictions in UN laws cause rather large problems, I support more stringent enforcement of Contradiction violations than Duplication violations.

Branding

Still under discussion.

Okay then. :) However, my position is that it should be legal to a limited extent, although it is a good way to draw my "no" vote.

Excessive Pimping

<Cogitation> Proposals will be removed if their authors are covered in too much Bling Bling!

No, Lil' Cog, what I'm talking about is the insane spamming of Regional Message Boards with your Proposal. Irritating your regionmates about it is fine, but don't go on a world tour hawking it. While this doesn't deal with the Proposal itself, excessive hustling will still result in the Proposal being deleted, and the person pushing it may face UN ejection.

No objection, provided that [violet]'s previous ruling on garnering proposal support stands, to wit:
"]Telegramming other nations to lobby them for support is fine, of course. That's half the game. But if they're trying to talk to the entire region, they should use the regional message board. Players who use a macro or similar to send the same message to hundreds of people should be warned not to spam.
This ruling can be found in the United Nations Forum at Final Word From [violet] (telegrams, spam or not) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=280314) (19 September 2003).

Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.

A rare case where I'll support a new Point of Order. My usual protests about new member protection do not apply here.


I yield the floor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

[ooc: I'm essentially speaking through Evif here. OOC and IC kind of blur when I'm talking about the UN rules. --Goob]

Having read this thread (feeling I ought to after taking exception to the Silly proposal thread) all Bahgum can add is: Oh my God. A little over the top guys, it's just a game, and some of us want to have a bit of fun, not a nightmare of a elite groups rules and regulations. Besides, those that are infringing these rules, aren't going to bother reading this lot, and there are thousands in that category, constantly being replaced as one nation fades away....

Mr. Secretary-General, I rise to discuss fully, point-by-point, the merits of the draft proposed ruleset by the UN Gnomes. I have no objection to the background information as written and therefore will immediately proceed to the list of violations.

<snipped for brevity>

I yield the floor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

[ooc: I'm essentially speaking through Evif here. OOC and IC kind of blur when I'm talking about the UN rules. --Goob]

I concur with Lord Evif on these points of order.

So...I'm off to the pub for a drink. :D

Having read this thread (feeling I ought to after taking exception to the Silly proposal thread) all Bahgum can add is: Oh my God. A little over the top guys, it's just a game, and some of us want to have a bit of fun, not a nightmare of a elite groups rules and regulations. Besides, those that are infringing these rules, aren't going to bother reading this lot, and there are thousands in that category, constantly being replaced as one nation fades away....

More like the same small group using multiple accounts. I've seen six cases where the writing was the exact same but the nation name was different. This is leading me to think we have a group taking advantage of the UN and trying to cause trouble, but I don't have the authority to persue here.

More like the same small group using multiple accounts. I've seen six cases where the writing was the exact same but the nation name was different. This is leading me to think we have a group taking advantage of the UN and trying to cause trouble, but I don't have the authority to persue here.

*Inhales*

"Trust no one, Mr. Mulder"

*Exhales*

*Inhales*

"Trust no one, Mr. Mulder"

*Exhales*

I think your Cancer Man license just expired. Sorry. ;)

More like the same small group using multiple accounts. I've seen six cases where the writing was the exact same but the nation name was different. This is leading me to think we have a group taking advantage of the UN and trying to cause trouble, but I don't have the authority to persue here.

Why don't you just file a complaint to the moderators or name those six cases.

Hack, Cog, and Fris are all paying *some* attention to these discussions, and I'm going to guess they can finger our IPs (I can on the UNO boards) and have a pretty good idea who is a puppet and who is not.

But it is bad form to hint of a conspiracy without providing some actual proof or making your accusation already. It comes off as a scare tactic and only serves to cast a shadow on everything that is said.

So please do something constructive like sharing whom you think is multing or puppetwanking here and explain why you've come to this conclusion.

Why don't you just file a complaint to the moderators or name those six cases.

Because at the same time it could just be coincidence. Writing styles don't diverge that much when you only have a small sample to work on and people attempting to use proper grammar. No need in blaming people outright until I'm sure.

Hack, Cog, and Fris are all paying *some* attention to these discussions, and I'm going to guess they can finger our IPs (I can on the UNO boards) and have a pretty good idea who is a puppet and who is not.

But it is bad form to hint of a conspiracy without providing some actual proof or making your accusation already. It comes off as a scare tactic and only serves to cast a shadow on everything that is said.

How about this: If I accuse and it's wrong, I've wasted time. If I state I think there is one but wait and see, I save everyone some time and get a chance to see whether I am right or wrong. A scare tactic it is not meant to be, as I am stating I am not positive enough to actually make an accusation. And the mods have enough on their plates without wasting time on a possibility that goes nowhere.

I would rather wait and see than accuse now and take up effort that could go elsewhere.

So please do something constructive like sharing whom you think is multing or puppetwanking here and explain why you've come to this conclusion.

Actually, I don't know it would be constructive. If I'm wrong, it's not constructive. As it is, I cannot be sure without more time of watching. Besides, I have seen people yelled at by mods in the past for what you are asking for.

Either you are bluffing and don't know what you are talking about, or you shouldn't hint that there are boogie men or aliens out to sabotage Hack's rules.

Here is something to consider ... if you aren't sure enough to NAME those "six" nations, then how about not even bringing it up in the first place?

Either you are bluffing and don't know what you are talking about, or you shouldn't hint that there are boogie men or aliens out to sabotage Hack's rules.

Here is something to consider ... if you aren't sure enough to NAME those "six" nations, then how about not even bringing it up in the first place?

For reasons I shall not share with you, Mik. The ones who need to know the reasons behind this either have figured it out from conversations elsewhere or knew the moment they saw it.

For reasons I shall not share with you, Mik. The ones who need to know the reasons behind this either have figured it out from conversations elsewhere or knew the moment they saw it.

That is just a lame way of saying "I don't know."

Because you've YET to provide a single fact. You just talk about "conversations elsewhere" and hint that there is a conspiracy. Consider this ... if you are having "conversations elsewhere", what in the world do you have to hide???

The moderators can read our IP addies and have a good idea who is puppetwanking and who is not. Since they are the ones whom always decide what the rules of the game are, I'm sure they'll know exactly what to do.

How about this: If I accuse and it's wrong, I've wasted time. If I state I think there is one but wait and see, I save everyone some time and get a chance to see whether I am right or wrong. A scare tactic it is not meant to be, as I am stating I am not positive enough to actually make an accusation. And the mods have enough on their plates without wasting time on a possibility that goes nowhere.

But you've already accused the forum population of puppetwanking--tipping your hand to whatever conspiracy is out there. I'm no expert on investigations or clandestine affairs, but presenting your argument only half-way through seems counter-productive. If you were investigating someone for murder, would you contact them and say ""Hey, at some point in the future I think I'm going to arrest you for murder; don't skip town"?

I can assure you that now, if there were a puppet-conspiracy, you'd never find enough evidence to prove it. The conspirators have surely been alerted to your "investigation" and have heightened whatever measures of non-detection they have. I personally would be excited to see such a conspiracy exposed--if it existed--but there's little chance of that now.

Beyond that, a forum puppet-conspiracy seems unprofitable. Unless, of course, one were ill-convinced that forum prowess grants UN power or proposal favor. The illusion of support in the forum would help in only a small way. People would still disagree with your proposals and arguments, and forum-puppets don’t help in sending out telegrams and contacting delegates. It would only provide a semblance of support—which would not necessarily spawn the real thing.

Plus, there's too much risk. The Mods have repeatedly come out, rather vehemently, against puppetwanking. Being caught in the act of a puppetwank would be a death sentence to forum respectability. The owner of this puppet-conspiracy would lose quite a bit of trust in the forum once his/her identity were revealed and he/she were chastised by the Mods. For something that is intended to create the [slight] appearance of favor, it risks an awful large amount of real disfavor.

There are just too many risks and not a big enough pay-off for this to be plausible.

Not that we'd ever know now.


I think your Cancer Man license just expired. Sorry.

Darnit, I did good sexual favors for that license. Oh well, I still have these pet crabs to keep me company.


Category

Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc income inequality and increas[ing] basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.

When the final draft of this is created, it might be advantageous to refer to another thread where the specific purposes of each category are spelled out. I can just see a new player proposing something in the wrong category, then reading this, "[i]What is wrong with my proposal's category?! I know it's wrong, But WHY?! WHYYYYYY!?!"

When the final draft of this is created, it might be advantageous to refer to another thread where the specific purposes of each category are spelled out.

Cog's descriptions will be included with the final draft. Since his definitions aren't up for discussion, there was no need to add them now. (Yes, that's it. It's not because I forgot...)

More like the same small group using multiple accounts. I've seen six cases where the writing was the exact same but the nation name was different. This is leading me to think we have a group taking advantage of the UN and trying to cause trouble, but I don't have the authority to persue here.
I would just like to state definitively that I am not, to my knowledge, a member of any such small group.


That is to say, I am a member of some such group, but not on the UN forum.

I see this seems to be continuing...

Let's move back to topic. I have my reasons for what I have done and why I am moving away from it now. And, no, I won't state them.

Hack, is there a timetable by which these become official?

I mean, just because #60 gets repealed and becomes unenforcable doesn't mean "Public Domain"'s definition of 'in the public domain' is no longer existent or usable. Resolution #60 would still be widely available for use as a reference to lend definition to "Public Domain". According to my reading of it, if #60 were repealed, the ULC would still be enforced as if it hadn't. Perhaps others have differing understandings.

I agree with this interpretation. It's like if we passed a resolution X (like the one currently in the works) defining what constitutes a sapient being, and declaring that previously passed resolutions shall apply equally to those sapient beings. A future resolution Y could reference "sapient beings, as defined by resolution X". Resolution X never said that it applied to future legislation like Y, so if it was repealed, the effect of X on Y would not be changed. However Y can still refer back to the definition, because the text of X stays on record - references like these are, to me, equivalent to copying out a useful part of old legislation into new legislation.

Hack, is there a timetable by which these become official?Not as such, no. It will still need aproval from the higher ups before being implimented. Right now I just want the bugs worked out before I send it on up. The Enodian law was largely GM fiat, as Enodia was pretty much the only GM who handled the UN.

I support in principle a point of order against ideological bans. However, I am concerned that the draft text mind be a little too broad. It could be argued that slavery constitutes an "economic ideology", for instance.Fair enough. I can tighten up the text a little. If nothing else, I'll mention that the definition of an "ideology" is up to Mod interp.

I support a moderate enforcement of this [category] rule. However, for some proposals it is possible to see two valid categories for the aforementioned proposal, as with "Outlaw Pedophilia" (Resolution #22, July 2003). If the category is arguably appropriate, the proposal should be allowed and UN members should vote against it if they disagree with the categorization.That's generally how things are run now. Innocent mix ups usually happen when people don't read the definition of 'Social Justice' and submit what is clearly a 'Human Rights' proposal (as per current coded definitions). We usually allow for "best fit" exemptions (see the current Proposal at vote), but we do reserve the right to delete Proposals that simply don't fit anything at all.

<concerns about 'Bloody Stupid'>The Bloody Stupid category is rarely used, often phrased as "not worthy of the UN's consideration". The reason I added 'Bloody' to the description was to signify that this is a final catch-all for staggeringly stupid Proposals.

No objection, but this [Honest Mistakes] seems superfluous.It is, but was added to let it be known that we realise mistakes happen. It may be removed in the final draft.

Seems I also forgot Multi-Part Proposals, however these could easily fall (HA!) under the House of Cards rule.

I have a Question.

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is.

In resolution #96 UNWODC the Option was given as it is in the RL wither or not a donor card was carried and wither those cards were distributed by Governments who were against Organ Donation.
how would the New rule of Optionality apply to such a resolution?

I have a Question.



In resolution #96 UNWODC the Option was given as it is in the RL wither or not a donor card was carried and wither those cards were distributed by Governments who were against Organ Donation.
how would the New rule of Optionality apply to such a resolution?

While I'm not Hack, or in fact any game moderator, I always interpreted that as meaning that all UN members have to offer in some form the ability to participate in the program, but that it's up to that nation whether participation is voluntary or mandatory for their citizens.

While I'm not Hack, or in fact any game moderator, I always interpreted that as meaning that all UN members have to offer in some form the ability to participate in the program, but that it's up to that nation whether participation is voluntary or mandatory for their citizens.
Basically, yeah.

So we can't set up programs which are optional to join? The Universal Library Coalition definitely did this.

Actually, looking at the UNWODC, it too clearly did allow nations the choice to opt out:

accepting that the membership of the UNWODC, by any Nation or individual is voluntary

So we can't set up programs which are optional to join? The Universal Library Coalition definitely did this.

Actually, looking at the UNWODC, it too clearly did allow nations the choice to opt out:


Thus the reason i raised the question.

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Thought I was pretty clear about this...

What about your proposed changes to committees? I was expecting a reply and I've not seen one.

To summarize my opinion: I find that creating a committee in a resolution should be allowed with moderation. If a resolution goes overboard (game moderators should have the say in this), ask the author to go back to the drawing board, but otherwise committees allow the debate to be more focused and can enhance player interactions and roleplay. The UNO is a good example of this. I'd hate to see the UN become nothing more than a debate society.


__
n.p. wumpscut :: evoke

What about your proposed changes to committees? I was expecting a reply and I've not seen one.

To summarize my opinion: I find that creating a committee in a resolution should be allowed with moderation. If a resolution goes overboard (game moderators should have the say in this), ask the author to go back to the drawing board, but otherwise committees allow the debate to be more focused and can enhance player interactions and roleplay. The UNO is a good example of this. I'd hate to see the UN become nothing more than a debate society.

Thought I addressed that in the second version posted by the Gnomes:

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules.

Is there another concern?

i agree there should be new laws what they should be i dont :confused: but make sure they suit everyone :fluffle: :fluffle:

FINAL DRAFT.

UN Proposals are attempts to introduce new legislation to member nations. By submitting a Proposal, you are stating that you have found something in the NS world that needs to be addressed and you are attempting to do so by forcing a change to all members. For this reason, UN Proposals must be more than just rhetoric. While they need not be written like "real" UN documents, they do need to be more than just your opinion. Essays belong in the General Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227), or the Serious Discussions Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1038), not the UN floor.

UN members also need to be aware that being in queue is not proof against action. Just because enough Delegates support a proposal to lift it to the queue does not mean it won't be deleted for being illegal. The UN Gnomes are not swayed by appeals to popularity.

With background information out of the way, let's move to discussing the various categories that lead to Proposal deletion.

Types Of Violations

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this.


Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.


Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, christians, atheist, or any other political, religous, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's descretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.


MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.


Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.


Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.


Format

Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This also includes Repeals with no argument, Proposals that are questions ("Don't you think we should...?"), and Proposals that are just too incomprehensible to make sense of. I realise that not everybody speaks English as a first language (or at all, for that matter). Unfortunately, NS is a game in English. If you cannot compose in proper English, seek the help of somebody (hint-hint, run it through an online translator and post here for clean-up). A Proposal won't be nuked for the occasional typo, but if I have to spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out what's going on, it'll be nuked.

Proposals written entirely in other languages are out, too.


Real World Violations

George Bush, Hammas, France, The Michigan Compiled Laws (Annotated), and Smith & Wesson do not exist in the NationStates world. Don't bring them up in Proposals. This includes references to real world documents, movies, and books. This is really easy to grasp and is a "bright line" violation. A Proposal that is wonderfully written, but mentions "the Great Wall of China" will be deleted.


Category

Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc income inequality and increas basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.


Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, [i]provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.


Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.


House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal [i]must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)


Strength Violation

This is very rare, but has been used in extreme cases. If your Proposal calls for the immediate destruction of all nuclear weapons and forbids their construction, and you list it as 'mild', it'll probably be deleted.


Jokes

"The Right To Arm Bears" isn't funny any more, okay? I don't care that we have 'Freedom of Humor'. That Resolution doesn't give you the right to make joke Proposals.


Grossly Offensive

If you want to execute left-handed men named "Earl" in your country, that's fine. Don't go yammering about it in a Proposal. Yes, this includes screwing with a 'majority' group. Killing all whites is just as bad as killing all jews. Or blacks. Or poor people. Things such as eliminating "all rights for $group", forced deportation of said group and the like fall under this too.


Bloody Stupid

Every now and then a Proposal crops up that, for lack of a more tactful description, is stupid. This is clearly a judgment call, but if you're going to mandate that all cars be pink, you're gonna have a dead proposal on your hands. This includes things that are unworthy of UN consideration (such as mandating allowances for children who eat their vegetables).


Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (UN Taxation Ban comes to mind...)


Duplication

If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)


Contradiction

Diametric opposite to Duplication. The UN has already mandated Gay Marriage. You can't ban it without at least one Repeal.


Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of...").


Illicit Activity Outside of Proposals

Excessive Pimping

<Cogitation> Proposals will be removed if their authors are covered in too much Bling Bling!

No, Lil' Cog, what I'm talking about is the insane spamming of Regional Message Boards with your Proposal. Irritating your regionmates about it is fine, but don't go on a world tour hawking it. While this doesn't deal with the Proposal itself, excessive hustling will still result in the Proposal being deleted, and the person pushing it may face UN ejection.


Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.


Schedule of Offences

In general, you get two "freebies" before you're chucked. Usually, after your second deleted Proposal, you'll get a little note letting you know you're on your last chance (but if you don't, don't come crying to the Mods, ignorance of the law and all...). After the third deleted Proposal, you're out.

Exceptions to the Above

Exceptionally minor infractions will not receive a warning. Also, if you've accidentally posted your Proposal three times you probably won't be warned. Same if you realise your error and ask for it to be deleted before a Mod sweeps the list. The definition of "minor" is up to the Mod doing the sweep, of course.

Exceptionally severe infractions will earn you an instant kick. Usually these are Proposals that fall under the 'Grossly Offensive' group. Also, you may be ejected for a second infraction if you submit the exact same Proposal after having it be deleted by the Mods. Unless we expressly told you it was okay to repost, don't.


Final DRAFT.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

I've just had a quick look through, so I may have missed it, but shouldn't there be something about the title and text of a proposal not matching?
eg. A proposal called Free Abortion, but the text is about protecting whales (I know it's a bad analogy, but it was the first one to come to mind).

That would be covered under 'Format'. The major headings are violations in and of themselves, the sub points are specific, and common, examples.

Ooooooooooooo, I like this. Particularly the bit about committees.

That would be covered under 'Format'. The major headings are violations in and of themselves, the sub points are specific, and common, examples.
That should be fine, then.

What are we going to call the new rules? They're not Enodian any more. Hackian? Most Glorious?

The Most Glorious Protocols. I like the sound of that.

That should be fine, then.

What are we going to call the new rules? They're not Enodian any more. Hackian? Most Glorious?

The Most Glorious Protocols. I like the sound of that.
Mmm... there's a certain delicious irony to branding the rules... :p

Hmmm,

After that bit of talk on IRC about it, Hack ... I place my long ago used stamp of :

[ Y E S ]

... upon it. Is great work for sure, Hack ! I'd say that " The Most Glorious Protocols " is just right for it, :p

How about a clause suggesting gender neutrality in any proposal, except where it can only be about one gender (like abortion)?

E.g., the ban on trafficking offers less protection for male than for female prostitutes, and doesn't criminalize female buyers in as many cases as male.

I hereby urge the UN to take action. Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers.

How about a clause suggesting gender neutrality in any resolution, except where it can only be about one gender (like abortion)?

You're talking about UN policy within the game. We're talking about UN rules as they apply TO the game. I don't see your added clause as having any game effect, and as such, it doesn't really belong here.

This new draft is quite exciting, attention-grabbing, and mildly erotic.
I give it five thumbs up, a donut, and 14¢ worth of pocket change.

No, seriously, it's good. Much good.

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's gonna be nuked. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.
I think the Repeals section still needs something like the portion in Red. Max's announcement (http://www.nationstates.net/news/2004/09/23/index.html#repeals) didn't specifically state it in those words, but I think the game mechanics effect is clear:If a repeal is passed by the full UN, the original resolution is stricken from the record and no longer binding on UN member nations. In practical terms, this has an effect on UN member nations similar to the original resolution, but in reverse and milder.So many repeal proposals try to include new law that I think it needs to be part of the official "don'ts".

Thanks for the telegram to alert me to this, Hack, it was very thoughtful. After looking over the final draft, I must say, I'm very impressed and I wholeheartedl support the draft in its entirety. Good job!

Illicit Activity Outside of Proposals

[list] Excessive Pimping

<Cogitation> Proposals will be removed if their authors are covered in too much Bling Bling!

No, Lil' Cog, what I'm talking about is the insane spamming of Regional Message Boards with your Proposal. Irritating your regionmates about it is fine, but don't go on a world tour hawking it. While this doesn't deal with the Proposal itself, excessive hustling will still result in the Proposal being deleted, and the person pushing it may face UN ejection.

By excessive hustling do you mean nations going from region to region advertising their proposal and asking them to endorse it?

And does that mean telegram campaigns are ok? I'm on the receiving end of a lot of those that make me aware of proposals i did not know existed.

One question, o modly one who graciously sent me a telegram... :)

Proposal Stealing

If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the UN as well.[/list]


Let's say, hypothetically speaking ( ;) ), that somebody had an idea for a proposal and I did them a favor and wrote it up for them. Since I wrote it, and they are going to submit it, would that violate the proposal stealing rule?

What if I gave the person express permission to use it and told them not to give me credit?

Should the proposal stealing rule be clarified to say that with the author's permission a proposal can be copied and submitted by someone else?

By excessive hustling do you mean nations going from region to region advertising their proposal and asking them to endorse it?
from The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)
UN Advertising: Region natives are welcome, even encouraged, to post discussions of UN proposals and resolutions on their regional message boards. UN business is part of the region and part of the game.
Non-natives and region-hoppers are forbidden to post UN advertisements or requests for proposal approval outside of their native region. Note that the Pacifics, Lazarus, and the Rejected Realms do not receive special treatment here. UN approval requests have even less relevance in the feeder regions than they do in player-created regions, and are thus forbidden. Requests for proposal approval may be telegrammed to UN delegates, except where the region's World Factbook entry designates otherwise. More than one request per proposal may be considered spam and should be avoided.

Mmm, yes. Thanks for reminding me about the Repeals. That bit's been added above.

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that somebody had an idea for a proposal and I did them a favor and wrote it up for them. Since I wrote it, and they are going to submit it, would that violate the proposal stealing rule?If I give you $50, did you steal it from me?

What if I gave the person express permission to use it and told them not to give me credit?If I give $50 to a charity but refuse to give my name, did they steal the money?

Should the proposal stealing rule be clarified to say that with the author's permission a proposal can be copied and submitted by someone else?No, I don't think that's needed. If you give someone a Proposal and they use it, they didn't steal it. You gave it to them. Same with refusing to accept co-authoriship credit. If you don't want to be credited, you don't have to be.

Mmm, yes. Thanks for reminding me about the Repeals. That bit's been added above.

If I give you $50, did you steal it from me?

If I give $50 to a charity but refuse to give my name, did they steal the money?

No, I don't think that's needed. If you give someone a Proposal and they use it, they didn't steal it. You gave it to them. Same with refusing to accept co-authoriship credit. If you don't want to be credited, you don't have to be.

Thanks for that clarification on my *ahem* hypothetical scenario. ;)

The new rules look good to me.http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/Smilies/thumbsup.gif

Regarding the House of Cards thing - can we use definitions from previous resolutions?

E.g. say a resolution was passed madating that nations must offer free rehabilitation services to users of certain recreational drugs, giving a detailed set of criteria for identifying them. You then want to propose legalising those drugs, but don't have space to include that definition. Could you say, "Mandates that all member states legalise the class of drugs defined in resolution X"? It still stands if the other is repealed, since repealed resolutions remain on record.

I have one more question about the rules, it seems that no matter what UN resolutions are passed we can still go against them in certain issues, for example the abortion issue, its allowed under UN, yet i can ban it if i want to in an issue or i can decide to restrict it. I'm not sure if that is relevant here or if this forum is the right place for it.

I have one more question about the rules, it seems that no matter what UN resolutions are passed we can still go against them in certain issues, More of a quirk than anything. There's not really anything we can do about it.

say a resolution was passed madating that nations must offer free rehabilitation services to users of certain recreational drugs, giving a detailed set of criteria for identifying them. You then want to propose legalising those drugs, but don't have space to include that definition. Could you say, "Mandates that all member states legalise the class of drugs defined in resolution X"? It still stands if the other is repealed, since repealed resolutions remain on record.This is acceptable, as you're using the previous Resolution to avoid rewriting. House of Cards is somewhat delicate at times, because it doesn't have a bright-line demarcation like, say, Real World References.

Is there somewhere where real world vilations are OK? The International Court of Justice mentioned English and French. While on the one hand English and French are declared languages of man nations and are used to roleplay and the like, George W. Bush himself literally exists in the game. George W. Bush is one of the random names that can pop up in issues. Does this mean we can refer to George W. Bush in proposals?

While I'm on the subject. Does The Right to Learn evolution mentioning the Earth aging 3.5 million years count as a real world violation count? Does mention the Earth at all count as a real world violation?

Is there somewhere where real world vilations are OK? The International Court of Justice mentioned English and French. While on the one hand English and French are declared languages of man nations and are used to roleplay and the like, George W. Bush himself literally exists in the game. George W. Bush is one of the random names that can pop up in issues. Does this mean we can refer to George W. Bush in proposals?

While I'm on the subject. Does The Right to Learn evolution mentioning the Earth aging 3.5 million years count as a real world violation count? Does mention the Earth at all count as a real world violation?

I'm not a moderator, but to touch on this, the "George W. Bush" that appears in the game is NOT the same George W. Bush that exists in RL. In the game, Bush appears as a random person who advocates certain sides to issues, with what he supports being random (e.g., one day, he'd be an environmentalist, while the next he'd argue that we'd bulldoze the rainforest), unlike in RL where he is the United States President, an entity in NS that does not exist. So that's why he can't be brought up in proposals, because the RL character does not exist in the game- only the name does.

EDIT- The rules are great, but concerning committees: the core of the rule is acceptable, but this wording troubles me:

"Nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee."

As it stands, it doesn't allow for people to go on the forums to "act out" the commitee, which should not be prohibited. Perhaps if it read this way, it would be better:

"Committees are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Specific references to nations, regions, the forums, etc., as per the MetaGame rules, are not allowed."

George W. Bush himself literally exists in the game. George W. Bush is one of the random names that can pop up in issues. Does this mean we can refer to George W. Bush in proposals?

Does it say he's the President of a nation called 'America,' or is his role randomly assigned? Why, I think it's the second!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/20050320133126Cerebellumed_Cheerleader.png

If you were looking to repeal a resolution, and the reason to repeal was to pass something to replace the one you are repealing. Is it ok to mention in the repeal something along the lines of,

"This resolution needs to be repealed so that a better one may be passed, one that will be proposed if this repeal is successful"

Is that allowed?

Yes. Suggesting guidelines for a new Resolution is allowed. Stating what the Repealed Resolution will be replaced with isn't.

While on the one hand English and French are declared languages

Does this mean we can refer to George W. Bush in proposals?

Does The Right to Learn evolution mentioning the Earth aging 3.5 million years count as a real world violation count?

Does mention the Earth at all count as a real world violation?
Let's put this absurd notion to bed once and for all.

The game is set on some analog world that somehow uses the same languages, morals, ethics, government types, and international organizations that are used in the so-called Real World, yet somehow we manage to not confuse the two.

If you try to send aid to Africa, it's a real world reference. If you try to send aid to underdevoloped nations in NS, it's not. Claiming that nations use automobiles is legit (even though some FT or PT nations may claim otherwise), as one of the core industries is automobile manufacturing. Claiming that they are Fords or Toyotas is not.

English, French, Earth, and evolution are not trade names nor transient politicians not political parties nor anything else that is illegal to reference. It's obvious to the mods when something is a real-world-reference, which is why Hack calls it a "bright line offense". Rules-lawyering like this is just annoying for annoying's sense.

EDIT- The rules are great, but concerning committees: the core of the rule is acceptable, but this wording troubles me:

"Nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee."

As it stands, it doesn't allow for people to go on the forums to "act out" the commitee, which should not be prohibited. Perhaps if it read this way, it would be better:

"Committees are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Specific references to nations, regions, the forums, etc., as per the MetaGame rules, are not allowed."
I'm sure Hack and co are sick to the back teeth of quibbles over the issue of committees, but I'd like to be clear on this. Do the new rules allow for the creation of committees in the manner of the Pretenama Panel, the International Red Cross, etc?

I promise I'll never mention this again...

I do not agree with one of the rules. I do not agree with the rule of the Amendments. I think if the majority of the members of the UN agree, then the UN should be able to add/take away some of the rules. Many real life countries do it, and i really think that we should too. We shouldn't take the time to go through the repeals.

I'm sure Hack and co are sick to the back teeth of quibbles over the issue of committees, but I'd like to be clear on this. Do the new rules allow for the creation of committees in the manner of the Pretenama Panel, the International Red Cross, etc?

I promise I'll never mention this again...

I know...I don't mean to harp over technicalities, but I think this one needs to be settled, as I don't think the committee rule should prohibit the roleplaying of such committees as the wording stands now. Yes, it's a minor wording issue, but as with anything in law, minor wording issues can have dire consequences.

I do not agree with one of the rules. I do not agree with the rule of the Amendments. I think if the majority of the members of the UN agree, then the UN should be able to add/take away some of the rules. Many real life countries do it, and i really think that we should too. We shouldn't take the time to go through the repeals.
The majority of UN members cannot vote more time to the admins of the game, SimAmerica. That's what it would take to get amendments included. The Most Glorious Hack is not being capricious in this exclusion - it's the only way the game will work unless the whole site is recoded from the ground up. I can assure you that [violet] and Salusa are both far too busy with things that generate an income to spend that much more time on a free game.

This has been a hard and fast rule ever since UN proposal rules were introduced, and it WILL NOT be changing, regardless of what the majority wants. It's a game mechanics issue, and that's that.

From http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419797
Edited in a new clause at the end, as I realised that the worry might be that people use this to pass further restrictions based on this proposal. They still can, but they make themselves look stupid and their chances of success are crippled if they try to use this as a springboard...CONDEMNS any future proposals seeking to use this resolution as a basis for further restrictions on freedom of speech as a perversion of the intent of the resolution, but cannot forbid it, in keeping with UN rules.Unfortunately, you can't do that. Proposals that restrict future proposals are not allowed. I don't think this was covered. Metagaming, perhaps?

From http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419797
I don't think this was covered. Metagaming, perhaps?

Metagaming and Game Mechanics, actually. Hm...