Difference between revisions of "Proposal categories"
Gruenberg2 (Talk | contribs) (Expanding Education and Creativity section.) |
Gruenberg2 (Talk | contribs) (Expanding article.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | :''This article has | + | :''This article has been partly taken from [http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2] and [http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10564309&postcount=5]. However, please note that NSwiki is '''not''' an official source for game rules.'' |
| − | + | '''Proposal categories''' describe the effects of [[resolution]]s upon [[UN member]]s. Every [[proposal]] submitted to the [[UN]] must be included in the correct category. Some have proved more popular over the years, with more [[#Human Rights|Human Rights]] resolutions than almost all others put together; [[#Environmental|Environmental]], [[#Social Justice|Social Justice]] and [[#Free Trade|Free Trade]] have also been widely used, whilst no resolution has ever passed in some other categories, such as [[#Gambling|Gambling]] and [[#Gun Control|Gun Control]]. | |
| − | + | ||
[[image:goldUN.png|right|The UN logo]] | [[image:goldUN.png|right|The UN logo]] | ||
== Environmental == | == Environmental == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.'' | + | :''A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.'' |
| − | + | Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. Environmental resolutions can affect the Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining or Woodchipping industries, or affect All Businesses, the latter having a more significant overall impact. | |
| − | Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. | + | |
| + | The Environmental category is the second-most popular: as of October 2006, 25 resolutions had passed in this category, with only one, the infamous [[HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE]], failing. However, the quality of many Environmental resolutions has been criticised: seven of them have been [[repeal]]ed, with a number of others also generally considered to be sub-par, even by those supportive of environmental protection. Reform of this category was the aim of the now largely defunct [[Green Think Tank]]. | ||
== Human Rights == | == Human Rights == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.'' | + | :''A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.'' |
| − | + | Human Rights is the polar opposite to [[#Moral Decency|Moral Decency]]. Resolutions in this category increase [[Economic, Civil and Political Rankings|Civil Freedoms]], and are in theory about allowing citizens greater control over personal aspects of their own lives. Human Rights is by far the most popular category for UN legislators, with 57 resolutions having passed in this category as of October 2006; as with [[#Environmental|Environmental]], however, the quality of earlier resolutions has been criticised, with seven being repealed. There have also been moves to reform and replace such resolutions with better alternatives, for example with [[Individual Self-Determination]] replacing [[Legalise Euthanasia]]. | |
== Moral Decency == | == Moral Decency == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.'' | + | :''A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.'' |
| − | + | Whereas [[#Human Rights|Human Rights]] resolutions increase [[Economic, Civil and Political Rankings|Civil Freedoms]], Moral Decency ones decrease them. It has proved a significantly less popular category, with only six resolutions in this category passing as of October 2006; however, only one Moral Decency proposal has ever failed plenary vote, and none have been repealed. Contrary to some perceptions, the Moral Decency proposal has not been used exclusively to deal with matters of sexual rights, with resolutions such as [[Good Samaritan Laws]] and [[Epidemic Prevention Protocol]] demonstrating viable alternate uses. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
== Free Trade == | == Free Trade == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.'' | + | :''A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.'' |
| − | Proposals in this category increase Economic Freedoms. | + | Proposals in this category increase [[Economic, Civil and Political Rankings|Economic Freedoms]], though not necessarily economic strength. Free Trade was underused as a category in comparison to its [[#Social Justice|Social Justice]] alternative, but has become increasingly, and possibly overly, popular. Most earlier resolutions did not deal with [[free trade]] itself, but rather tangential aspects such as standardising measurement, intellectual property rights, or promoting scientific freedom; most of these have since been repealed. The [[Global Food Distribution Act]] was the first free trade agreement to be approved by the UN, and several others have since followed. The failures of the [[Auto Free Trade Agreement]] and [[Clothing Supply Pact]] have been seen as reaffirming the UN's slight antipathy to this category, however. |
| − | + | ||
== Social Justice == | == Social Justice == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.'' | + | :''A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.'' |
| − | + | Social Justice is arguably the most complex category in the game. It is not a direct opposite to [[#Free Trade|Free Trade]], in that it not only reduces [[Economic, Civil and Political Rankings|Economic Freedoms]] (and seemingly economic strength) but also boosts spending in Social Welfare and Healthcare, as well as making tax rates higher and more progressive. Although Social Justice has been a reasonably popular category, its effects have not been, with many nations complaining of recessions in the wake of Significant or Strong resolutions in this category passing. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
== The Furtherment of Democracy == | == The Furtherment of Democracy == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.'' | + | :''A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.'' |
| − | + | These proposals increase [[Economic, Civil and Political Rankings|Political Freedoms]], but do not necessarily force governments to become democracies (despite what many inexperienced players might argue). As of Oct. 2006 there have been 14 Furtherment of Democracy resolutions adopted by the United Nations, making less than 10% of the adopted resolutions from this category. Very few of the Furtherment of Democracy proposals that reach the UN floor actually deal with elections or democratic rule, but instead simply focus on increasing political freedoms. | |
| − | These proposals increase | + | |
In late 2002 and early 2003 a number of proposals were submitted using this category that recommended changes to how the United Nations and NationStates were designed. When the NationStates forum switched to the [[Jolt]] forum in July 2004 these resolutions were removed on the grounds that the text of the resolutions were really calling for changes in [[game mechanics]]. Today it is illegal submit a proposal in any category that proposes a change in game mechanics. | In late 2002 and early 2003 a number of proposals were submitted using this category that recommended changes to how the United Nations and NationStates were designed. When the NationStates forum switched to the [[Jolt]] forum in July 2004 these resolutions were removed on the grounds that the text of the resolutions were really calling for changes in [[game mechanics]]. Today it is illegal submit a proposal in any category that proposes a change in game mechanics. | ||
| − | |||
=== Examples === | === Examples === | ||
There are a few more ''traditional'' resolutions that illustrate the basic idea behind this category, including: | There are a few more ''traditional'' resolutions that illustrate the basic idea behind this category, including: | ||
| − | |||
*[[Representation in Taxation]] #128 | *[[Representation in Taxation]] #128 | ||
*[[Freedom of Assembly]] #179 | *[[Freedom of Assembly]] #179 | ||
| − | |||
== Political Stability == | == Political Stability == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.'' | + | :''A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.'' |
| − | + | The direct opposite to [[#The Furtherment of Democracy|The Furtherment of Democracy]], the Political Stability is designed to decrease [[[[Economic, Civil and Political Rankings|Political Freedoms]]. It does not necessarily force dictatorships or abolish democracy, however: it could simply be removing certain issues from democratic control. It has been little used as a category, with only two resolutions passing: both of these are slightly atypical, in that they deal more with the rights of states than of individuals, and whilst both continue to be regarded as excellent resolutions, should probably not be taken as reliable examples for future proposals in this category. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
== Gun Control == | == Gun Control == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.'' | + | :''A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.'' |
| − | + | ||
Remember that Personal/Civil Freedoms have subcategories. (Actually, Economic and Political Freedoms also have subcategories, but it's Civil that concerns us here.) "Human Rights" and "Moral Decency" affect the overall government control on the personal lives of citizens. "Gun Control" affects the degree of freedom regarding the private possession and use of firearms. | Remember that Personal/Civil Freedoms have subcategories. (Actually, Economic and Political Freedoms also have subcategories, but it's Civil that concerns us here.) "Human Rights" and "Moral Decency" affect the overall government control on the personal lives of citizens. "Gun Control" affects the degree of freedom regarding the private possession and use of firearms. | ||
| Line 63: | Line 39: | ||
'''This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms, and does NOT address the use of guns by agents of the government (the police and military).''' If you want to talk about police or military weaponry, then use either "Global Disarmament" or "International Security". | '''This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms, and does NOT address the use of guns by agents of the government (the police and military).''' If you want to talk about police or military weaponry, then use either "Global Disarmament" or "International Security". | ||
| + | No resolution has ever passed in the Gun Control category; one proposal did reach quorum but failed heavily - it later passed as [[Reduce Black Market Arms Sales]] in the [[#International Security|International Security]] category. | ||
== International Security == | == International Security == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.'' | + | :''A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.'' |
| + | International Security increases both Defence and Law & Order budgets, though has a greater effect on the former. A reasonable number of resolutions have used this category: 12 as of October 2006, including [[Fight the Axis of Evil]], which was repealed. Most have dealt with more with disaster relief and combatting crime than in pushing an overtly militaristic agenda, however. | ||
| + | '''Do not use this category to establish a UN military force'''. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances. | ||
== Global Disarmament == | == Global Disarmament == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.'' | + | :''A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.'' |
| − | + | The opposite to the [[#International Security|International Security]] category, Global Disarmament proposals cut military and police spending. The category has been used almost solely as a way of prohibiting specific weapons types, be they nuclear, biological, chemical, or other. At present, only bans on [[Banning the Use of Landmines|landmines]] and [[UN Biological Weapons Ban|biological weapons]] remain; nuclear weapons are [[Nuclear Armaments|allowed]], though their proliferation [[Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act|prohibited]]. There are no restrictions on chemical weapons, following [[Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"]]. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
== Gambling == | == Gambling == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.'' | + | :''A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.'' |
| − | + | ||
Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will ban gambling (and eliminate the gambling industry) in all UN member nations while "Legalize" will allow gambling in all UN member nations. | Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will ban gambling (and eliminate the gambling industry) in all UN member nations while "Legalize" will allow gambling in all UN member nations. | ||
| + | This is the only category in which no proposal has ever even reached quorum, and proposals in this category have tended to be chronically poor. | ||
== Recreational Drug Use == | == Recreational Drug Use == | ||
| − | ''A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.'' | + | :''A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.'' |
| + | Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, "Legalize" and "Promote" will remove drug bans. They also have effects on the "Drugs" subcategory of Civil Freedoms; "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs, "Legalize" will relax government control on drugs, and "Promote" will impose zero government control on drugs. "Promote" will also increse overall Civil Freedoms, but will not push it past the center. | ||
| − | + | No resolution has passed in this category; [[Recreational Drug Legalization]] reached quorum, but failed heavily, casting some doubt on the chances of future proposals. | |
== Advancement of Industry == | == Advancement of Industry == | ||
''A resolution to develop industry around the world.'' | ''A resolution to develop industry around the world.'' | ||
| − | + | This is a wide-ranging pro-business Category that more accurately reflects the power of corporations in [[Jennifer Government]]. [[History of UN Resolutions#First Quarter 4|Added in March 2006]], this category has four possible areas of effect: Labor Deregulation, Environmental Deregulation, Protective Tariffs and Tort Reform. As yet, it has not been widely used, with only one resolution passing. | |
| − | This is a wide-ranging pro-business Category that more accurately reflects the power of corporations in Jennifer Government. | + | |
| − | + | ||
== Education and Creativity == | == Education and Creativity == | ||
''A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.''<br> | ''A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.''<br> | ||
Revision as of 09:09, 24 October 2006
- This article has been partly taken from [1] and [2]. However, please note that NSwiki is not an official source for game rules.
Proposal categories describe the effects of resolutions upon UN members. Every proposal submitted to the UN must be included in the correct category. Some have proved more popular over the years, with more Human Rights resolutions than almost all others put together; Environmental, Social Justice and Free Trade have also been widely used, whilst no resolution has ever passed in some other categories, such as Gambling and Gun Control.
Contents
- 1 Environmental
- 2 Human Rights
- 3 Moral Decency
- 4 Free Trade
- 5 Social Justice
- 6 The Furtherment of Democracy
- 7 Political Stability
- 8 Gun Control
- 9 International Security
- 10 Global Disarmament
- 11 Gambling
- 12 Recreational Drug Use
- 13 Advancement of Industry
- 14 Education and Creativity
- 15 Additional Information
Environmental
- A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. Environmental resolutions can affect the Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining or Woodchipping industries, or affect All Businesses, the latter having a more significant overall impact.
The Environmental category is the second-most popular: as of October 2006, 25 resolutions had passed in this category, with only one, the infamous HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE, failing. However, the quality of many Environmental resolutions has been criticised: seven of them have been repealed, with a number of others also generally considered to be sub-par, even by those supportive of environmental protection. Reform of this category was the aim of the now largely defunct Green Think Tank.
Human Rights
- A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Human Rights is the polar opposite to Moral Decency. Resolutions in this category increase Civil Freedoms, and are in theory about allowing citizens greater control over personal aspects of their own lives. Human Rights is by far the most popular category for UN legislators, with 57 resolutions having passed in this category as of October 2006; as with Environmental, however, the quality of earlier resolutions has been criticised, with seven being repealed. There have also been moves to reform and replace such resolutions with better alternatives, for example with Individual Self-Determination replacing Legalise Euthanasia.
Moral Decency
- A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Whereas Human Rights resolutions increase Civil Freedoms, Moral Decency ones decrease them. It has proved a significantly less popular category, with only six resolutions in this category passing as of October 2006; however, only one Moral Decency proposal has ever failed plenary vote, and none have been repealed. Contrary to some perceptions, the Moral Decency proposal has not been used exclusively to deal with matters of sexual rights, with resolutions such as Good Samaritan Laws and Epidemic Prevention Protocol demonstrating viable alternate uses.
Free Trade
- A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Proposals in this category increase Economic Freedoms, though not necessarily economic strength. Free Trade was underused as a category in comparison to its Social Justice alternative, but has become increasingly, and possibly overly, popular. Most earlier resolutions did not deal with free trade itself, but rather tangential aspects such as standardising measurement, intellectual property rights, or promoting scientific freedom; most of these have since been repealed. The Global Food Distribution Act was the first free trade agreement to be approved by the UN, and several others have since followed. The failures of the Auto Free Trade Agreement and Clothing Supply Pact have been seen as reaffirming the UN's slight antipathy to this category, however.
Social Justice
- A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Social Justice is arguably the most complex category in the game. It is not a direct opposite to Free Trade, in that it not only reduces Economic Freedoms (and seemingly economic strength) but also boosts spending in Social Welfare and Healthcare, as well as making tax rates higher and more progressive. Although Social Justice has been a reasonably popular category, its effects have not been, with many nations complaining of recessions in the wake of Significant or Strong resolutions in this category passing.
The Furtherment of Democracy
- A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
These proposals increase Political Freedoms, but do not necessarily force governments to become democracies (despite what many inexperienced players might argue). As of Oct. 2006 there have been 14 Furtherment of Democracy resolutions adopted by the United Nations, making less than 10% of the adopted resolutions from this category. Very few of the Furtherment of Democracy proposals that reach the UN floor actually deal with elections or democratic rule, but instead simply focus on increasing political freedoms.
In late 2002 and early 2003 a number of proposals were submitted using this category that recommended changes to how the United Nations and NationStates were designed. When the NationStates forum switched to the Jolt forum in July 2004 these resolutions were removed on the grounds that the text of the resolutions were really calling for changes in game mechanics. Today it is illegal submit a proposal in any category that proposes a change in game mechanics.
Examples
There are a few more traditional resolutions that illustrate the basic idea behind this category, including:
Political Stability
- A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
The direct opposite to The Furtherment of Democracy, the Political Stability is designed to decrease [[Political Freedoms. It does not necessarily force dictatorships or abolish democracy, however: it could simply be removing certain issues from democratic control. It has been little used as a category, with only two resolutions passing: both of these are slightly atypical, in that they deal more with the rights of states than of individuals, and whilst both continue to be regarded as excellent resolutions, should probably not be taken as reliable examples for future proposals in this category.
Gun Control
- A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Remember that Personal/Civil Freedoms have subcategories. (Actually, Economic and Political Freedoms also have subcategories, but it's Civil that concerns us here.) "Human Rights" and "Moral Decency" affect the overall government control on the personal lives of citizens. "Gun Control" affects the degree of freedom regarding the private possession and use of firearms.
"Tighten" increases government regulation on the private use of firearms while "Relax" reduces these regulations.
This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms, and does NOT address the use of guns by agents of the government (the police and military). If you want to talk about police or military weaponry, then use either "Global Disarmament" or "International Security".
No resolution has ever passed in the Gun Control category; one proposal did reach quorum but failed heavily - it later passed as Reduce Black Market Arms Sales in the International Security category.
International Security
- A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
International Security increases both Defence and Law & Order budgets, though has a greater effect on the former. A reasonable number of resolutions have used this category: 12 as of October 2006, including Fight the Axis of Evil, which was repealed. Most have dealt with more with disaster relief and combatting crime than in pushing an overtly militaristic agenda, however.
Do not use this category to establish a UN military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.
Global Disarmament
- A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
The opposite to the International Security category, Global Disarmament proposals cut military and police spending. The category has been used almost solely as a way of prohibiting specific weapons types, be they nuclear, biological, chemical, or other. At present, only bans on landmines and biological weapons remain; nuclear weapons are allowed, though their proliferation prohibited. There are no restrictions on chemical weapons, following Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons".
Gambling
- A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.
Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will ban gambling (and eliminate the gambling industry) in all UN member nations while "Legalize" will allow gambling in all UN member nations.
This is the only category in which no proposal has ever even reached quorum, and proposals in this category have tended to be chronically poor.
Recreational Drug Use
- A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.
Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, "Legalize" and "Promote" will remove drug bans. They also have effects on the "Drugs" subcategory of Civil Freedoms; "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs, "Legalize" will relax government control on drugs, and "Promote" will impose zero government control on drugs. "Promote" will also increse overall Civil Freedoms, but will not push it past the center.
No resolution has passed in this category; Recreational Drug Legalization reached quorum, but failed heavily, casting some doubt on the chances of future proposals.
Advancement of Industry
A resolution to develop industry around the world. This is a wide-ranging pro-business Category that more accurately reflects the power of corporations in Jennifer Government. Added in March 2006, this category has four possible areas of effect: Labor Deregulation, Environmental Deregulation, Protective Tariffs and Tort Reform. As yet, it has not been widely used, with only one resolution passing.
Education and Creativity
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
One of two new categories added in March 2006, Education and Creativity has thus far not been widely used. Proposals in this category have one of four possible Areas of Effect: Educational, Artistic, Cultural Heritage and Free Press. It is worth noting that a number of previous resolutions, usually in the Human Rights or Social Justice categories, would now fit better to these.
