Advertisement
by Minions Stadium » Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:42 am
by JURISDICTIONS » Fri May 14, 2010 7:35 am
Jurisdictions wrote:
It has been tradition that laws of the GA are automatically followed; no nation may even be capable of breaking such laws. However, I pose this question.
Can citizens of said nations break WA law? If true; Then this means that government officials can break laws. If government officials can break laws, then the nation in effect can ignore such laws. If this is true; then it brings the WA to the same fate as the "Real World United Nations" which never gets anything done.
This now makes the WAGA a mockery because laws can be put into place but ignored by governments if the question above is true.
This SC proposal should be illegal, in that... General Assembly Law cannot (meaning "totally impossible by all standards") be violated.
Thank you.
-An OCC/IC speech from the Representative from Jurisdictions
NationStates FAQ wrote:The World Assembly is the world's governing body. It's your chance to mold the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.
Proposed Rule: / wrote:
Security Council resolutions may not condemn or commend nations for violation of General Assembly resolutions; as General Assembly resolutions are impossible to violate.
Takaram wrote:Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri May 14, 2010 7:52 am
by JURISDICTIONS » Fri May 14, 2010 8:58 am
Takaram wrote:Irony. Rule 4 prevents a repeal based on Rule 4 violations, meaning that Rule 4 does not comply with Rule 4. It should be struck down.
by Ballotonia » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:51 am
by Mousebumples » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:23 am
Ballotonia wrote:And, of course, it being an overall evaluation would by necessity limit the number of C&C's possible per nation or region to 1.
by Unibot » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:07 pm
Mousebumples wrote:In the event where a given nation or region is awarded 2 or more badges, should one be subject to a repeal attempt, I can better understand your assertions. However, sometimes items that were omitted in the original C&C text should have been noted but were not - perhaps due to bias, etc. To be obligated by rule to avoid talking about such things seems counter-intuitive and perhaps motivated by frustration due to the current repeal that is up for a vote. (Please note that I am not saying that such items were omitted in the original Commend Sedge ... I'm more trying to point out the potential future logical fallacies.)
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Mousebumples » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:08 pm
Unibot wrote:But they could not have been removed out of biasness, if they hadn't happened yet.
by Ardchoille » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:02 pm
by Unibot » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:18 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Unibot wrote:But they could not have been removed out of biasness, if they hadn't happened yet.
If there's no rule against presenting a biased case in favor of whatever argument you're trying to make ... What prevents such a proposal from being made?
Also, who is going to judge bias? Moderators cannot be expected to know everything there is to know about each C&C proposal subject.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ballotonia » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:25 pm
Ardchoille wrote:This is one of those things I didn't think needed to be said: if you're repealing a resolution, your repeal should at least give a nod to what's in the resolution. I'm not talking rules here, I'm talking logical argument.
Since C&Cs generally follow the format, "Commend Fred because (a) he's alive (b) I like him a lot and (c) he's a nice guy", you'd expect a repeal to be based on the assertions that (a) he's dead OR (b) he and the original author have fallen out OR (c) he's a very nasty guy.
I suppose it's reasonable also to repeal a resolution because new information relevant to the original has become available, eg, Fred is in fact a zombie, rendering (a) inexact, (b) moot and (c) improbable.
Mods aren't expected to know if an original C&C's assertions are true, so I don't suppose we're expected to know if a repeal's assertions are true, either. It's not like a General Assembly resolution, where the content of the original is not a matter of truth or falsehood, but of legality.
With C&Cs/repeals, truth is up to the delegates to decide, and in convincing other delegates I can see previously unmentioned old information has some relevance, too -- they said he was a nice guy, but at the time nobody knew (or the author covered up) that he'd kicked a puppy (link in debate thread), monstered an old lady (link in debate thread) and taken candy from a baby (link in debate thread).
It seems to me that all this is just "make sure you argue repeals properly", which is simply common sense, and not needing a rule. I'm open to further argument, but we're trying to avoid making SC proposals rule-heavy.
by Ardchoille » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:27 am
Repeals: A REPEAL of a C&C should address the contents of the C&C in question. However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Commend X because he is a good guy, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC already discussed this in the original debate. (cf "I don't like this" being forbidden in GA Repeal arguments.)
A Commendation or Condemnation is an expression of opinion by the WA. Repealing it is saying that the WA has changed its mind. You should therefore give reasons for the change of mind. These may include matters that have come to light or changed since the original resolution. See further discussion here.
by Mousebumples » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:35 am
by Unibot » Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:37 am
Mousebumples wrote:Ard, just to clarify (based on some discussions I've had elsewhere, largely in the Repeal Commend AO debate, I believe) -
Can new events that happened after the original resolution's passage be included in a repeal? As per the above rule statement, they should (somehow) tie into the original, of course. However, if a nation was commended for being a great feeder delegate and guide for new nations (for example) and then proceeded to start acting like Durk and banning new nations left and right ... Would that be legal to include in a repeal argument? It's different (good actions and bad actions) but both are tied into their being a feeder delegate in this instance. Certainly, the new details could also be used to create a condemnation, but I can see that being a decent argument for why a commendation should be repealed.
Thanks for the clarification.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ardchoille » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:21 pm
by Unibot » Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:24 pm
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Ardchoille » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:30 pm
by Unibot » Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:38 pm
Ardchoille wrote:Yes, it is supposed to go without saying. You're supposed to recognise that the WA, being an official international body, conducts its official affairs with some degree of dignity -- whatever the delegates may choose to do. (And the "tolerate swearing" thing isn't about individual words as much as it is about intent: if your intention is to flame, even mild terms could be actionable.)
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Darenjo » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:38 pm
by A mean old man » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:06 pm
Unibot wrote:I have a question, generally speaking we tolerate swearing on the forums so long as it not flame-baiting, it is suppose to just go without saying that swearing is not allowed in a WA proposal?
by Unibot » Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:40 am
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Sedgistan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:16 am
There are four rules for Security Council proposals:
- 1. You cannot commend or condemn a moderator for moderating (or an admin for administrating). If you want to commend any of the mods for their actions as a moderator, you can start a thread in Moderation and put up with all the jokes. If you think you've got reason to condemn any of the mods for their actions as a moderator, submit a Getting Help Request.
- 2. Use your common sense:
- (a) Don't copy someone else's proposal. That's plagiarism, and will get your nation expelled from the WA.
- (b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, a region cannot be liberated more than once.
- (c) Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere. Complaints about rules violations should be made in Moderation or via Getting Help Requests, and game mechanics suggestions should be made in Technical.
- (d) Repeals should address the contents of the resolution they're repealing, and not by just stating the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.
- 3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actual does. Commendations/Condemnation can only commend/condemn the nominee, Liberations can only liberate the targeted region, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, your proposal cannot impose fine, sanctions or a boycott on a condemned nation.
- 4. Your proposal must be able to be read as being submitted by a Nation, and as targeting a Nation or Region, and therefore must use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).
For example, you proposal cannot:
- (a) Refer directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.
- (b) Refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.
- (c) Read as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)
- (d) Reference the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community.
- (e) Contain reference to ideologies without explaining how they apply to NationStates in terms of actions, policies or attributes of nations/regions.
The primary responsibility for determining the standards of Security Council resolutions lies with delegates. Unless a proposal violates one of the above rules, it is unlikely to be deleted. If you don't like misspelled proposals, or proposals condemning raiders just because they're raiders, or proposals commending your region's bitterest enemies, or the way a group of nations has got together to push a particular line, it's up to you to do something about it. And the "something" is not "call the mods".
by Mahaj WA Seat » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:38 am
or something like that.COMMENDS Mahaj for sheer awesomeness.
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Sedgistan » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:44 am
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:was rule 4 (e) just added? Because I haven't seen it before.
And also, explaining rule 3, you might want to give an example, likeor something like that.COMMENDS Mahaj for sheer awesomeness.
other than that, it seems fine!
by Unibot » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:50 am
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Warzone Codger
Advertisement