NationStates Jolt Archive

There are a number of problems with the UN that would require coding. I'd like to make a list of suggestions in no particular order - obviously some of them have been made before, but that doesn't make them any less reasonable (in fact, probably the contrary). Here goes:

1 ) A UN resolution should require a 2/3 "yes" vote to pass, not a mere majority.

This is common sense. If something is really controversial it shouldn't be enforced on all member nations.

2 ) A UN resolution should be able to be repealed.

Again, common sense. And I can't imagine that would require THAT much coding.

3 ) There ought to be some minimal quorum required to endorse a resolution - perhaps 1,000 votes.

Certainly two votes shouldn't make a binding pact on all member nations...

4 ) A region ought to have at least five UN members in order for the delegate to be recognized as a UN regional delegate for purposes of endorsing resolutions.

The current system gives tremendous weight to regions with only two UN members. Instead of regions with a lot of nations, the norm is many, many tiny regions with only a few countries in them. That's because the game rewards tiny regions with political clout. Sure, the larger delegations get more power when it comes to a vote. But few resolutions actually fail once they're brought to the floor. The "two-country" region is nonsensical and not very democratic, and the UN should require some assurance that the place is an actual region and not "a guy and his buddy". Also, the current system requires an absurd number of endorsements, because there are so many non-functioning recognized "regions".

5 ) Member nations ought to have a checkmarked list of resolutions that they can choose to follow or not follow.

Obviously this would be the hardest to implement. But it also would probably be the most fun, from an RP standpoint. The effects could be:
a) an economic hit, from sanctions;
b) a different icon (perhaps a red "SANCTIONED UN MEMBER");
c) a list of the resolutions the country was ignoring in the country description field;
d) the removal of voting power, or reduction in voting power, from the member nation. They could still make resolutions, though - they'd have to be able to in order to try to get the evil law repealed! They'd also be unable to be a delegate.

6 ) A "docket" of resolutions that have received ten endorsements should be made, separate from the main group of resolutions.

This would allow busier delegates to browse the "serious" resolutions, rather than looking through the clutter of dozens of ridiculous and un-endorsed resolutions.

7 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to be edited for spelling and grammar.

I can't be the only one this bothers.

8 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to have a "PRO" and "CON" explanation attached to them.

Often member nations aren't going to understand the ramifications of certain turns of phrase, and not everyone can be expected to browse the forums.

Anyhow, I'm sure this will spark some argument if anyone bothers to read it, but they're just some ideas I've had while watching UN chaos.

I guess I kinda agree with some of it. But you should be able to submit an issue with only 2 endorsements, otherwise everything'll get hectic, and pretty soon we'll have small region that can do nothing for the UN delegate would have to have at least 5 endorsements, which aren't always easy to find!

But, 2/3, or 5/7, or something like that would be better than just a majority, for one of the more recent resolutions had almost lost by 110 votes! :shock:

I guess I kinda agree with some of it. But you should be able to submit an issue with only 2 endorsements, otherwise everything'll get hectic, and pretty soon we'll have small region that can do nothing for the UN delegate would have to have at least 5 endorsements, which aren't always easy to find!

But, 2/3, or 5/7, or something like that would be better than just a majority, for one of the more recent resolutions had almost lost by 110 votes! :shock:

A smoother running UN wouldn't necessarily be that realistic though...

No major changes are going to be made to the gameplay of NationStates.
A few minor tweaks here and there, but I doubt anything on this scale would be implemented.

Well, it still seems worth discussing, especially if he ever rewrites the stuff. At any rate it's something that comes up over and over again, judging by brief glances at the forums (especially the bare majority issue, lately).

As to the submission issue, I agree that you should be able to submit an issue, but the fact that any random issue gets tossed in there with the "serious" ones makes it impossible for the average delegate to read through the proposals (hence the "docket" suggestion). Also, note that I didn't say a delegate should need five endorsements, but that a region would have to have at least five UN members - making it a region of large enough size that the UN should consider it as serious.

I like the looks of Midget Isles's recommendations. Actually, I totally agreed with them. Though they are most likely to not be implemented in NS (which is truly a shame), they may very well show up in NS 2.

1 ) A UN resolution should require a 2/3 "yes" vote to pass, not a mere majority.
Nope. We don't have enough UN involvement for this (though I will be double checking my numbers).

2 ) A UN resolution should be able to be repealed. You are correct, and we are working on this.

3 ) There ought to be some minimal quorum required to endorse a resolution - perhaps 1,000 votes.
Not sure what you're saying here. It seems to be the same as point 1.

4 ) A region ought to have at least five UN members in order for the delegate to be recognized as a UN regional delegate for purposes of endorsing resolutions.
I believe that this has been proposed before and vetoed.

5 ) Member nations ought to have a checkmarked list of resolutions that they can choose to follow or not follow.
Major game mechanics reworking, and thus we have no current plans for this.

6 ) A "docket" of resolutions that have received ten endorsements should be made, separate from the main group of resolutions.
Non-trivial (though not intractable). We are looking into several better search functions.

7 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to be edited for spelling and grammar.
This is the responsibility of the nation submitting it.

8 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to have a "PRO" and "CON" explanation attached to them.
Check out the UN forum.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling / Game Admin

I like these ideas, also

1 ) A UN resolution should require a 2/3 "yes" vote to pass, not a mere majority.
Nope. We don't have enough UN involvement for this (though I will be double checking my numbers).


But then why does everything pass? Thats why I stopped caring about the UN, it used to be the main thing I did :(



3 ) There ought to be some minimal quorum required to endorse a resolution - perhaps 1,000 votes.
Not sure what you're saying here. It seems to be the same as point 1.

I think he means minmum endorsements for a proposal to go to vote

The Midget Isles wrote:
Nope. We don't have enough UN involvement for this (though I will be double checking my numbers).


I'm not sure I understand what your criticism is here.

3 ) There ought to be some minimal quorum required to endorse a resolution - perhaps 1,000 votes.

Not sure what you're saying here. It seems to be the same as point 1.
I was actually mainly referring to the early proposals, which don't really make any sense and now apply unrepealably to thousands of member states.

Quote:
4 ) A region ought to have at least five UN members in order for the delegate to be recognized as a UN regional delegate for purposes of endorsing resolutions.
I believe that this has been proposed before and vetoed.

I don't see how that's possible - given that it would require mechanics it could never come up for a vote.

Quote:
5 ) Member nations ought to have a checkmarked list of resolutions that they can choose to follow or not follow.
Major game mechanics reworking, and thus we have no current plans for this.


I thought I might as well include it while I was pipe-dreaming... :)

Quote:
6 ) A "docket" of resolutions that have received ten endorsements should be made, separate from the main group of resolutions.
Non-trivial (though not intractable). We are looking into several better search functions.


This is actually one of the biggest problems with the UN - it is swamped with ridiculous proposals, and not that many people are going to have the free time to read through them all to find the "good" ones.

Quote:
7 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to be edited for spelling and grammar.
This is the responsibility of the nation submitting it.


Yeah, but that system REALLY doesn't work. Most of the adopted proposals have errors in them. It'd be nicer if there was some way to correct it before it became law. Which they usually do.

Quote:
8 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to have a "PRO" and "CON" explanation attached to them.
Check out the UN forum.


I do, sometimes. But I don't need to - I have a pretty good grasp on the issues. You can't expect that the thousands of nations who might vote are all going to check on the issues carefully and read threads dedicated to them - it might be nice to have SOME kind of summary attached to the bill. After all, in any real world legislature you're exposed to PRO and CON arguments - in this version it's not only easy to vote without hearing any opinions on the issue whatsoever, it's actually DIFFICULT to access the forums most of the time, so many people don't bother.

My point isn't that you can't find out what a bill means, it's that it's not obvious even which kinds of people oppose such a bill, and which kinds support it - like the current bill, which is terribly vague and problematic, but will pass on the basis of sounding uncontroversial.


Thanks a lot for your responses, though - even though I disagree with some of them I'm glad that you actually read what I had to say. :D

The Midget Isles wrote:
Nope. We don't have enough UN involvement for this (though I will be double checking my numbers).


I'm not sure I understand what your criticism is here.
I don't think that a high enough percentage of our nations are active. I don't think we have even 25% of nations even vote on any given issue (still hasn't checked the numbers).

3 ) There ought to be some minimal quorum required to endorse a resolution - perhaps 1,000 votes.

Not sure what you're saying here. It seems to be the same as point 1.
I was actually mainly referring to the early proposals, which don't really make any sense and now apply unrepealably to thousands of member states.

When that resolution was passed, there were only about 3 UN nations.

Quote:
4 ) A region ought to have at least five UN members in order for the delegate to be recognized as a UN regional delegate for purposes of endorsing resolutions.
I believe that this has been proposed before and vetoed.

I don't see how that's possible - given that it would require mechanics it could never come up for a vote.
Sorry, not a UN proposal, a proposal in the Tech forum, and vetoed by the admin.

Quote:
7 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to be edited for spelling and grammar.
This is the responsibility of the nation submitting it.


Yeah, but that system REALLY doesn't work. Most of the adopted proposals have errors in them. It'd be nicer if there was some way to correct it before it became law. Which they usually do.

I'm sorry, but this one really isn't our responsibility or problem. If you don't like the spelling or grammar, don't vote for it. If you get enough people doing that, the issue should solve itself.

Quote:
8 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to have a "PRO" and "CON" explanation attached to them.
Check out the UN forum.


I do, sometimes. But I don't need to - I have a pretty good grasp on the issues. You can't expect that the thousands of nations who might vote are all going to check on the issues carefully and read threads dedicated to them - it might be nice to have SOME kind of summary attached to the bill. After all, in any real world legislature you're exposed to PRO and CON arguments - in this version it's not only easy to vote without hearing any opinions on the issue whatsoever, it's actually DIFFICULT to access the forums most of the time, so many people don't bother.

We are working on the forum problems, but it is the voters responsibility to educate themselves, and we've provided a large area for debate and discussion. If they don't use it, that is their choice.

SalusaSecondus

1 ) A UN resolution should require a 2/3 "yes" vote to pass, not a mere majority.

This is common sense. If something is really controversial it shouldn't be enforced on all member nations.

How is that common sense? Why should 2/3 overrule 1/3 but not 3/5 overrule 2/5? The only two majority systems that are logically sound are simply majority (more for than against) and absolute support (requires no-one to be against - obviously impractical on large scales).

2 ) A UN resolution should be able to be repealed.

Again, common sense. And I can't imagine that would require THAT much coding.

We'd spend all our time repealing proposals and then reprealing the repeals...

3 ) There ought to be some minimal quorum required to endorse a resolution - perhaps 1,000 votes.

Certainly two votes shouldn't make a binding pact on all member nations...

But 1000 should? Not 999 though? This limit would be arbitrary.

4 ) A region ought to have at least five UN members in order for the delegate to be recognized as a UN regional delegate for purposes of endorsing resolutions.

So five is enough? Not four though? This limit would be arbitrary.

Resolutions that reach the vote tend to pass because to be able to reach the vote they must be popular among delegates. You're going to get as many tiny left-wing regions as tiny right-wing regions, so these small regions do not really affect which resolutions pass.

7 ) Resolutions up for vote in the general assembly ought to be edited for spelling and grammar.

I'd agree here. Furthermore, the moderations should strictly enforce the resolution writing guide stickied in this forum.

I'm going to try to answer both of you at once.

I don't think that a high enough percentage of our nations are active. I don't think we have even 25% of nations even vote on any given issue (still hasn't checked the numbers).

Ahhh, I see your problem. I mean that a 2/3 vote among voting members should be required, not a 2/3 vote of the general membership.

How is that common sense? Why should 2/3 overrule 1/3 but not 3/5 overrule 2/5? The only two majority systems that are logically sound are simply majority (more for than against) and absolute support (requires no-one to be against - obviously impractical on large scales).

A 2/3 majority is the simplest majority fraction, for one. It suggests that for every pair of matched opinions (one for, one against), there is another person for, which means it's a truly dominant issue. The American constitution requires a 2/3 majority for amending the constitution or overriding a presidential veto, because a bare majority can rule public policy, but a bare majority shouldn't be able to change the way the rules work. I think it's a good system, and America isn't the only country to use it.


2 ) A UN resolution should be able to be repealed.
Again, common sense. And I can't imagine that would require THAT much coding.
We'd spend all our time repealing proposals and then reprealing the repeals...


We would? It seems to me that only resolutions that had serious opposition would make it up for vote. You think it's a good idea for resolutions to be unrepealable?


I don't see how that's possible - given that it would require mechanics it could never come up for a vote.
Sorry, not a UN proposal, a proposal in the Tech forum, and vetoed by the admin.

I wish I could know why... it seems like the current system just begs for spam of endless regions.

4 ) A region ought to have at least five UN members in order for the delegate to be recognized as a UN regional delegate for purposes of endorsing resolutions.
So five is enough? Not four though? This limit would be arbitrary.
Resolutions that reach the vote tend to pass because to be able to reach the vote they must be popular among delegates. You're going to get as many tiny left-wing regions as tiny right-wing regions, so these small regions do not really affect which resolutions pass.

Yes, 5 rather than 4 is arbitrary. Arbitrary doesn't automatically mean "bad", though. "2" is arbitrary too, incidentally. If you wanted to make a case for 100, I would say it was too large. My point is that the current system has tons of two-member "regions", and this causes a ton of unnecessary clutter in the resolution system (and the region list). A lot of these regions never even read the resolutions, but they increase the numbers required for endorsements.

My objection isn't that the current system favors leftist or rightist regions, but that it favors two-member regions, which by their nature are reasonably low-RP. There should be incentive to put people in the same regions, not incentive to spread out into a thousand two-member regions.


I'm sorry, but this one really isn't our responsibility or problem. If you don't like the spelling or grammar, don't vote for it. If you get enough people doing that, the issue should solve itself.


Yeah, but since there's no possible editing or "reason opposed" to the proposal, you'd just be shooting your philosophy in the foot. "Gee, I really want to support a 40-hour working week, but I hate how they wrote 'stastician' instead of 'statistician'." You can't really make a voting bloc of spelling/grammar fanatics, and since proposals are uneditable, and anything which actually comes to the floor is likely to pass, it's not really possible to fix it from that end of things.

I agree that it isn't your fault or necessarily your responsibility, but it is a problem.


We are working on the forum problems, but it is the voters responsibility to educate themselves, and we've provided a large area for debate and discussion. If they don't use it, that is their choice.

Well, at the very least, you might consider putting up a stickied thread on the current issue up for vote when one comes up - like "DISCUSSION ON THE 40-HOUR WORKWEEK RESOLUTION". It would also be a very nice touch if a link to that stickied thread was included under the actual resolution up for vote, so that people reading the thread could easily switch from one to the other, rather than hunting down a thread which was discussing it.

Again, I really appreciate that you're taking the time to banter with me about these issues. :D

Ahhh, I see your problem. I mean that a 2/3 vote among voting members should be required, not a 2/3 vote of the general membership.
Ahh, I see what you're staying. However we are not changing the rules, just implementing new laws, thus by your very example, we should have a simple majority. If we chose to allow proposals that would change workings (not out intention) then a simple majority would not be sufficient.[/quote]


I'm sorry, but this one really isn't our responsibility or problem. If you don't like the spelling or grammar, don't vote for it. If you get enough people doing that, the issue should solve itself.


Yeah, but since there's no possible editing or "reason opposed" to the proposal, you'd just be shooting your philosophy in the foot. "Gee, I really want to support a 40-hour working week, but I hate how they wrote 'stastician' instead of 'statistician'." You can't really make a voting bloc of spelling/grammar fanatics, and since proposals are uneditable, and anything which actually comes to the floor is likely to pass, it's not really possible to fix it from that end of things.

We cannot allow editing, otherwise nations would make a popular resolution, wait for the votes and then change the description. You can post your objections in the forums.


Well, at the very least, you might consider putting up a stickied thread on the current issue up for vote when one comes up - like "DISCUSSION ON THE 40-HOUR WORKWEEK RESOLUTION". It would also be a very nice touch if a link to that stickied thread was included under the actual resolution up for vote, so that people reading the thread could easily switch from one to the other, rather than hunting down a thread which was discussing it.

There usually are a few on the first page of the UN forum (not stickied though), I think.

Again, I really appreciate that you're taking the time to banter with me about these issues. :D

Not a problem. Kinda my job.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling