NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually, I was surprised to discover that you can endorse more than one nation. It is not logical, it gives room to endorsement swapping, and it leads to fiascos as the one we are seeing in the Pacific Region, where the delegate bans (not ejects, but bans) any nation that starts getting enough endorsements to threaten his power base, without any reason.

So the change I suggest is precisely this one: one nation, one endorsement. And then nations will need to campaign, participate, even (gasp!) RolePlay, IF they are interested in gaining the status of UN Delegate. Of course, nations negligent with their endorsements can easily give power to someone that later on will be almost impossible to remove.

It may be also of interest to note that Mr. Franco's Spain hasn't voted ONCE in the UN proposals. And that should be a UN Delegate primary function.

So, I also suggest a mechanism of the sort "IF UN delegate doesn't vote X proposals, THEN invalid Delegate (and have it marked as such)". Of course it could be even better if the delegate actually asked to his/her endorsers their position, but it can be assumed that if you endorse someone is because your views and his/hers are coincidental.

EDIT: Changed the thread title to a less provocative one.

how long has Franco's Spain been the delegate and how many proposals have been up for vote during this time?

Endorsement swapping between more than two nations is often more than just a technical maneuvre. Endorsing another player is a vote of confidence. If there are two or three nations in your region whose attitude you like, you should be able to endorse all of them. To limit nations to endorsing a maximum of one player would not be fair. I can understand that some players abuse this feature, but for the reasonable majority, it serves as a useful and tangible expression of support.

The idea of a required amount of proposal endorsements would be unreasonable, in that in many cases, it would drive Delegates to support proposals they don't like in order to meet quota.

Also, endorsing proposals is not the main activity of the Delegate. The Delegate, in many cases, serves as the ambassador, leader, judge, and in some cases the despot of his/her region.

I agree....one nation=one endorsement. It is fair, it is how most real elections work. I can't vote for everyone I want to be president, I have to choose just one.

This would go along way in solving the Pacific problem.

I agree....one nation=one endorsement. It is fair, it is how most real elections work. I can't vote for everyone I want to be president, I have to choose just one.

This would go along way in solving the Pacific problem.

Yes, but what happens when you get past the region of "one person in charge?" Say you have a region where there are second or third in commands. If you want them to take over when the leader is gone, then you take some endorsements off the leader and the next highest guy gets the votes. Then when he returns, you give the leader the endorsments back. Besides that, this would in no way solve the Pacific's problem. One of the charms of the game is that you often have to contend with dictators and such. If this was implemented, then yes, Francos would lose power. But the fun of the game would quickly be sucked out; no conflict, nothing interesting happens, people stop logging in, the game gradually dies. It's a vicious cycle.

I agree....one nation=one endorsement. It is fair, it is how most real elections work. I can't vote for everyone I want to be president, I have to choose just one.

This would go along way in solving the Pacific problem.

Yes, but what happens when you get past the region of "one person in charge?" Say you have a region where there are second or third in commands. If you want them to take over when the leader is gone, then you take some endorsements off the leader and the next highest guy gets the votes. Then when he returns, you give the leader the endorsments back. Besides that, this would in no way solve the Pacific's problem. One of the charms of the game is that you often have to contend with dictators and such. If this was implemented, then yes, Francos would lose power. But the fun of the game would quickly be sucked out; no conflict, nothing interesting happens, people stop logging in, the game gradually dies. It's a vicious cycle.

I see there is a problem here. There should be two positions:

UN delegate: representant of a group of Nations before the UN. A group, not a region. Endorsements could be interregional. If I want say, Melky to represent me in the UN, why do I need to move to his region?

In a region as big as the Pacific, with lots nations that don't want to move to another region, you can see leftist nations, fascist ones. There is, I think, a need for a different approach than a regional one. You need more than one delegate to really represent all posible factions. And it can be the case with other regions.

Also, I have voted in UN resolutions even against my endorsed delegate. Does my vote count or just his as my endorsee? Till now I understood that the role of the UN Delegate was vote for or against a proposal to be submitted for general vote AND vote for the group that has endorsed him/her in the general voting.

Regional delegate: some one all the nations in a region trust enough to be the Founder's second-in-command. Strictly Regional and not UN related.

The idea of a required amount of proposal endorsements would be unreasonable, in that in many cases, it would drive Delegates to support proposals they don't like in order to meet quota.

Actually, only IF it is passed for general voting, and voting against a proposal to be submitted is as good as voting for it. As long as he/she votes. Not voting is the problem. Apathy, regional-power lust,negligence, lack of interest... you name it.

From the mechanics of UN voting i have observed, it seems that your UN delegate's vote and yours are both counted. Effectively doubling votes.

Nice.

I see there is a problem here. There should be two positions:

UN delegate: representant of a group of Nations before the UN. A group, not a region. Endorsements could be interregional. If I want say, Melky to represent me in the UN, why do I need to move to his region?

In a region as big as the Pacific, with lots nations that don't want to move to another region, you can see leftist nations, fascist ones. There is, I think, a need for a different approach than a regional one. You need more than one delegate to really represent all posible factions. And it can be the case with other regions.

Also, I have voted in UN resolutions even against my endorsed delegate. Does my vote count or just his as my endorsee? Till now I understood that the role of the UN Delegate was vote for or against a proposal to be submitted for general vote AND vote for the group that has endorsed him/her in the general voting.

Regional delegate: some one all the nations in a region trust enough to be the Founder's second-in-command. Strictly Regional and not UN related.

The idea of a required amount of proposal endorsements would be unreasonable, in that in many cases, it would drive Delegates to support proposals they don't like in order to meet quota.

Actually, only IF it is passed for general voting, and voting against a proposal to be submitted is as good as voting for it. As long as he/she votes. Not voting is the problem. Apathy, regional-power lust,negligence, lack of interest... you name it.

I took the liberty of copying the delegate votes on the Cato Acts just before it closed and can confirm that Poskrebyshev voted against.

I know, I know. I saw that when I cast my vote. Against, too. But probably for different reasons.

BUT FS didn't even vote in at least the two or three resolutions that went for voting under his iron-fist rule. He was too busy banning nations. :evil:

And besides, this thread wasn't exactly about The Problem, though it was a possible solution to it.