NationStates Jolt Archive

I'ver heard many 'evil' nations complaining that the UN has become too biased towads democracies/socialist.

Poll explaination:
Yes=yes, I agree

Yes with rights= yes, I agree, plus I'll post my reason for agreeing/recomendation to make it better

No=no, I disagree

No with rights=no, I disagree, plus I'll post saying why I think it's a bad idea

No with rights:

The UN is a world government where you try to mold the world to your own viewpoint. If you do not like it you have three options:

1. Make attempts to get like-minded figures to join the UN.
2. Leave.
3. Leave, and create your own unofficial alliance of dictators and right wing nations.

This would not happen in real life, because dictators do not tryust each other to begin with. NationStates being a parody(not complete make believe), would therefore logically be even more so if it was possible.

After all, the NS UN is even less effective than the IRL UN, per nation in NS.

I see no reason why just because some players are not successful in the venue on which they could have equal footing, should demand an entirely new UN, which would take up no server space, and would be unrealistic in real life.

No, with rights.
Well, given that this is based on real life, and as of now I don't believe that there's an official Anti-UN world government/alliance dedicated to being eeevvvill, I'd say no.

And as Qaaolchoura mentioned, the server's slow enough as it is, no need to clog it down even further. lol If you don't like the UN don't join, stay a free agent. <shrugs>

I said plain no, but I'll post my comments anyways.

The UN sucks. There is no point in creating a "counter" UN. There very principles on which the UN is based, ie. goals, how it operates, techniques, practices, etc, are fundamentally flaed. Thus, any creation that models the existing UN would be likewise flawed and useless. Besides, when did the forces of "evil" ever get proper recognition? To be legit is to be acceptable, and I'll be damed if I'm considered "acceptable."

I refuse to answer that question, but anyway, you've been in Model UN way too long. Yes with rights? No with rights? I abstain.

How would you enforce "evil-ness" within this UN? Different people might have different ideas of what "evil" is. Some people might think it's evil to take over the evil UN and force left wing ideals on it's members.

This is also a very sweeping change to the game, and even though a lot of existing code involving the UN could probably be modified to work for a new evil UN, it would still take a whole lot of work to change it.

I think you can all guess what I voted.

-----
The Most Serene People's Republic of Naleth
"Life is a suicide mission"
Shameless Plug for Adelaide (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=Adelaide)
Getting Help Page (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help)
The Tech FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81296)

I personally like the idea, you sign up for the U.N or the other group, but this wouldn't be possible as it would mess up the whole game, so nice idea but not gonna happen, (sadly) :D

No.

If you want to "evilize" the UN, get a bunch of like-minded people and take it over.

and would be unrealistic in real life.You might not have noticed, but this whole game is unrealistic, so that's a moot point.

Goobergunchia, that would be nearly impossible. The United Nations has 32,535 member nations. One would need over sixteen thousand allied nations to achieve controling quorum. It would be interesting to watch, though.

and would be unrealistic in real life.You might not have noticed, but this whole game is unrealistic, so that's a moot point.
NationStates being a parody(not complete make believe), would therefore logically be even more so if it was possible.

I am not, in fact, an evil nation, but merely putting this out as a suggestion, and to see what others think. I am not suggesting taking over the current UN in any way.

The UN is like a potluck. All different sorts of food and goods are brought to make a meal. Everything brought is different in one way or another, but does that doesn't mean we should do anything about it, that's what make a pot luck so...fun.

The UN is a bunch of ideas, people, and backgrounds all mixed up into one organization. There are good members, bad members, and evil members. Everyone has something to add.

I think taking a group out is like taking something away from the UN.

Of course maybe it's just me.

~Bas the Evil Non-Moderator

Yes, but on the other hand, Dictators and Oppressers find the UN going against their personal policies.

Wasnt the Soviet Warsaw pact basically counter UN, even though it failed.. And was deeply misused in its work, because russia ran it.

And if Dictators and Oppressers had their say in the UN, the Lawful and Just nations would find the UN going against their personal policies. Either way someone's not going to be happy.

An evil UN..that would cause a public outcry..

So Basenji...you are saying your support the United Oppressors?

So Basenji...you are saying your support the United Oppressors?

The UN is a bunch of ideas, people, and backgrounds all mixed up into one organization. There are good members, bad members, and evil members. Everyone has something to add.

I think taking a group out is like taking something away from the UN.

Judging by my posts, I'd say I don't support it. :wink:

Eleven for, twelve against.
Closer than I thought. :?

14 for, 13 against.
Wow. Not what I expected.

14-14....

So wait, if this happened, would each region have a UN delegate and a Evil-UN Delegate? :)

I find the idea of multiple UN-class organizations very interesting. For instance, regions could have their own UN-like governing structure that would affect only that region.

Then again, something in the back of my mind says that there is something critically flawed in the idea of allowing nations to choose their own UN... :!:

You've got the problem wrong. Its not that "evil nations" are being completly overriden, its that any conservative nation, or nation that has any idea about Real World funding that are being worked over. There has not been a single conservative act throughout almost the entire history of the UN. Furthermore, virtually every act now passed gives either:
A) Free Things
B) More Rights
C) Restricts either
I) Products
II) Weapons
III) Domestic Laws

The main problem is within A. More and more resolutions give, free healthcare/education/medicine/food and shelter/research into disease...I need not go on. Yet they don't explain how those are going to be funded. Essentially the pass resolutions with no explanation of enforcement, or even preliminary implimention.

The UN is not just flawed, it does nothing. What it passes in resolutions are not enforced, and those nations that disagree with what is being passed are forced out of the way by the ignorant masses. Nothing to be done about it.

My thoughts: There should be some sort of alternative organisation to the UN that is more relaxed wit your government type and home affairs, however are still able to discuss important issues. Something like the comintern perhaps...

As Sovereign of a humble, yet prosperous nation, and a student of those who have walked this path before me, I must say that the Legion of Doom is a poor buisiness model to follow.

In the interest of preserving a government's freedoms and a sovereign's right to rule, there must be unity between the nations who wish to forge a universal organization that will benefit international relations, as opposed to enforcing a fabricated moral code.

The existing U.N. is a fine vehicle for this purpose, it is the lack of unity of those who would see the right to rule remain within their own nations that make it falter.

But what would you do if the so-called "Evil-UN" started becoming less evil and more and more like the regular UN? Who would force the distinction, and how? :?:

There has not been a single conservative act throughout almost the entire history of the UN.

Common Sense Act II was September.