NationStates Jolt Archive

I see that only 48% of member nations voted on the last 2 resolutions and that very few if any resolutions have failed. I think a few small changes would be benifical. I think that since this a coding change I have posted it here and not in the UN board. You can tweak the numbers, of course.

Require at least 55% of nations to vote on a resolution before it can pass(Quorum) and active member nations that fail to vote on 3 resolutions in a row should be ejected.

Many resolutions fail, they just don't get recorded in the Passed Resolutions list. We do record the failures offsite at the NSwiki UN timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).

As for the rest of your argument, it's been suggested and rejected in one form or another on multiple occasions. There are no current plans to change the existing system.

Some have low vote counts due to abstination.... There have been things which came up, which I considered non-issues, to which I have abstained on before (abstination by voters are not recorded, on the yea/nay votes.... unlike most "real" legislatures where vote numbers are requires, and they are recorded).

I see no reason to change it...

Agreed. Abstention should not be an excuse for deletion. Also, what if you happen to be on Vacation Mode? Many resolutions could pass through by the time you come back online.

No, a thousand times, no.

Agreed. Abstention should not be an excuse for deletion. Also, what if you happen to be on Vacation Mode? Many resolutions could pass through by the time you come back online.

No, a thousand times, no.

I said active members, meaning not in vaction mode. And not deletion, just ejection. Abstain option could be added, also how about the idea of adding UN resolutions to the list with daily issues? My goal in suggesting this is to increase voter turnout. Oh, perhapes hiding the resultes until the voting is over?

The abstain option has been suggested, but I think turned down.

Still say that UN inactivity should not warrant a ejection, though. (sorry for typo)

As has been said many times before, no coding changes will be made to NationStates.

As has been said many times before, no coding changes will be made to NationStates.
So I guess that means we won't be getting UN repeals, BBcode in World Factbooks, Warzones, or moving to Jolt? The topic immediately below this one (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380527) chronicles a problem we had today because Salusa was fiddling with the code.

Coding changes happen fairly often, Jjuulliiaann. Here's a list of them (http://www.nationstates.net/HISTORY). Please stop trying to speak factually about things you don't know to be true.

Seems he forgot the word "major"...

Would voting changes classify as "Major", Hack/Astroman?

So I guess that means we won't be getting UN repeals, BBcode in World Factbooks, Warzones, or moving to Jolt? The topic immediately below this one (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380527) chronicles a problem we had today because Salusa was fiddling with the code.

Coding changes happen fairly often, Jjuulliiaann. Here's a list of them (http://www.nationstates.net/HISTORY). Please stop trying to speak factually about things you don't know to be true.

I think perhaps what he ment to say was the no changes would be made to the game engine itself.

In absolutely no way should nations be ejected from the UN from not voting; that's ludicrous!

Would voting changes classify as "Major", Hack/Astroman?
Hm. Depends. Changing the percetage for quorum would not be a "major" change: it's been done before (from 10% to 6%, I believe; there was a Resolution about it pre-move).

Requiring x% of total nations to vote on a Resolution probably wouldn't be too difficult (note: I am not a Perl programmer), but would probably mean even less Resolutions passing than we have now. I am 99.99% positive that ejecting members for not voting will never happen.