NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that there should be a time limit before a new nation can become regional delegate.
Due to the increasing number of new nations and of new regions (therefore more regional delegates) it is getting harder to get an approval of a un resolution. Many of the new regional delegates do not even know what their position implies and do not participate in the un activities.
Therefore i consider that it would be better if a nation could not be elected RD before it proves itself worthy.
By Wworthy i do not mean to other members of the region, but to other delegates that must have a say in receiving new collegues.
What can we do about that, considering that others bad gameplay affects us all?
:mad: :mad: :mad:

I'm not sure a time limit would help anything. It would make things much more complicated. You're correct in the fact that it may make things harder to pass in the UN, however, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It weeds out the resolutions that do not need to be passed by the UN.

You're always going to have specific people who don't know exactly what they should be doing, in practically any site. There's no way you'll be able to get rid of them. You just have to deal with it.

How exactly can one nation 'prove itself worthy', to become a regional delegate?

"worthy".... that's just why i posted this thread... i was looking for other ideas to solve this problem....

"worthy".... that's just why i posted this thread... i was looking for other ideas to solve this problem....

Determining if a nation is 'worthy' to become the regional delegate would become far too detailed. The moderators would have to keep track of each individual nations' activity in the UN and whether they have been voting on the resolutions and supporting/rejecting resolutions, if that is what you call 'worthy' of a nation in becoming a regional delegate. I think it's best that we leave everything how it is.

Meh, we delegates don't particularly like slogging through five pages of proposals, most of which suck, on a daily basis. So maybe if proposals got really hard to approve, the proposal whores/spammers would get the hint?

Well, at least I don't like going through five pages of proposals, anyway. But you'd have to be pretty fanatical about the UN to enjoy it. I only campaigned for the delegate position for the regional controls :D

Why? A lot of the proposals are quite funny. You need to lean back and enjoy life. Stop takign everythign so seriopously. I read em to add to stupid proposal treads.

Why? A lot of the proposals are quite funny. You need to lean back and enjoy life. Stop takign everythign so seriopously. I read em to add to stupid proposal treads.

Unfortunately, the humor of most of them is lost on me, though every now and then, I admit I run into a good laugh.

Meh, we delegates don't particularly like slogging through five pages of proposals, most of which suck, on a daily basis. So maybe if proposals got really hard to approve, the proposal whores/spammers would get the hint?

Well, at least I don't like going through five pages of proposals, anyway. But you'd have to be pretty fanatical about the UN to enjoy it. I only campaigned for the delegate position for the regional controls :D

Why not make only delegates able to submit proposals?

Why not make only delegates able to submit proposals?

That probably wouldn't be a good idea, seeing as some regions have well over 100 members in the UN. Limiting the entire region to one nation with the ability to submit proposals would be completely unfair to the rest of the UN members.

That probably wouldn't be a good idea, seeing as some regions have well over 100 members in the UN. Limiting the entire region to one nation with the ability to submit proposals would be completely unfair to the rest of the UN members.

Not right. If you must contact your Delegate to submit a proposal, you enforce it to become an active UN member. If he will not make his role, you can remove your endorsement and give your endors to a more active player. In this way you remove the inactives.

Not right. If you must contact your Delegate to submit a proposal, you enforce it to become an active UN member. If he will not make his role, you can remove your endorsement and give your endors to a more active player. In this way you remove the inactives.

I personally think its a decent idea, and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing this being enforced, but I know for a fact that a lot of people wouldn't want other people taking their proposal and posting it. Everyone wants to have credit for their own unique proposal, rather than giving it up to their UN delegate.

You look at it wrongly. You should see it like this.. Imagine the scream from the feeder delegates when they start being bombardered by t-grams about 'please, I have written this proposal.. could you submit it'

:D

You look at it wrongly. You should see it like this.. Imagine the scream from the feeder delegates when they start being bombardered by t-grams about 'please, I have written this proposal.. could you submit it'

:D

That's why I'm not a feeder delegate :D

My own limited experience of dealing with my UN Delegate has been extremely helpful, giving sound advice where needed on this games little quirks where needed.

Another solution about the huge number of proposals could be to increment the endorsement limit to, could be, 5?

I'll respond to the basic problem noted here: "it is getting harder to get an approval of a un resolution".

There is only so much time in the UN to vote on resolutions, so proposals are basically competing for the UN floor's voting time. The competition is quite strong, that much is true, and so it is difficult to have ones proposal make it to the floor. There are still a lot of resolutions up for vote, so the problem isn't that not enough proposals are making it through the process. Making it easier for proposals to make it into the floor queue (quorum reached) simply means a queue delay could develop.

A real solution to your problem would be to increase the available "UN floor time", by:
1- reducing the alloted time to vote on the UN floor. While slightly less might be ok, the requirement IMHO still is that there needs to be enough time for discussion / regional voting to take place.
2- have more than one resolution up for vote at the same time. Downside of having a lot to vote on is that it might become cumbersome.
Another, more general, downside of increasing the number of proposals the UN votes, is that the selection value of the proposal queue is diminished greatly. Imagine a system without that selection mechanism, where all proposals are voted on immediately by all UN members. I predict the number of proposals up for vote would be enormous, and hence a lot of legislation would be passed that really is below par.

Ballotonia

Another solution about the huge number of proposals could be to increment the endorsement limit to, could be, 5?

I don't think that would really solve anything. In a sufficiently large region, it wouldn't be much harder to get five endorsements than just two, especially if you get them from someone who doesn't pay attention to what you're doing. Meanwhile, it would eliminate everyone in small regions, including the delegates, from submitting proposals. (Actually, I can't submit proposals anyway, despite being the delegate, becase there are exactly two UN nations in my region. A region needs at least three UN nations for any of them to submit proposals, and it needs at least four for all of them to be able to submit proposals. Requiring five endorsements would inflate those numbers to six and seven.)

I believe that there should be a time limit before a new nation can become regional delegate.

I disagree. A time limit would severely restrict who can and cannot be a UN nation, and some nations only play the game to be involved in the UN right off the bat.

Due to the increasing number of new nations and of new regions (therefore more regional delegates) it is getting harder to get an approval of a un resolution.

It's always been hard to get a UN proposal approved to become a resolution for vote by all UN nations. I don't know where you've been or what you've read, but it's hard to reach quorum. Most proposals take two and sometimes more tries to get on the ballot.

Many of the new regional delegates do not even know what their position implies and do not participate in the un activities.

Some just don't care, because they get involved in other NS activities. They don't have to take part in the UN, even if they are a UN nation, as they might be using that for other purposes such as invading/defending.

Therefore i consider that it would be better if a nation could not be elected RD before it proves itself worthy.

Each region has a different way of electing/endorsing their Delegate. Essentially you want to limit each region from being able to play the way they want to play.

What can we do about that, considering that others bad gameplay affects us all?[/QUOTE]

There's nothing you or any of us can do, because changing the way the UN works would require a massive recoding of the game, and I highly doubt that will happen any time soon or at all.

I'll respond to the basic problem noted here: "it is getting harder to get an approval of a un resolution".
I'll respond as well, with a simple statement of "False".

Here are the number of proposals that achieved quorum since Jan 1 2003. I'm ignoring 2002 as inconclusively small, and I'm counting three classes of resolutions - those that passed, those that failed, and those that achieved quorum but were removed as illegal before voting began. 2003 2004 2005
---- ---- ----
1st Quarter 14 13 14
2nd Quarter 15 14 8*
3rd Quarter 15 13
4th Quarter 15 14I don't see any trend here that indicates that it is getting harder to approve proposals. Quite the contrary - it's steady as a metronome. We're less than halfway* through the 2nd quarter of 2005, and we seem to be entirely on track.

If you only look at passed proposals, it may look harder .. .because we're getting pickier in what we accept. But if you look at the whole UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline), the complaint is groundless.

I'll respond as well, with a simple statement of "False".

Here are the number of proposals that achieved quorum since Jan 1 2003. I'm ignoring 2002 as inconclusively small, and I'm counting three classes of resolutions - those that passed, those that failed, and those that achieved quorum but were removed as illegal before voting began. 2003 2004 2005
---- ---- ----
1st Quarter 14 13 14
2nd Quarter 15 14 8*
3rd Quarter 15 13
4th Quarter 15 14I don't see any trend here that indicates that it is getting harder to approve proposals. Quite the contrary - it's steady as a metronome. We're less than halfway* through the 2nd quarter of 2005, and we seem to be entirely on track.

If you only look at passed proposals, it may look harder .. .because we're getting pickier in what we accept. But if you look at the whole UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline), the complaint is groundless.

Please read the rest of my post, Frisbeeteria. I was pointing out that the competition for getting ones resolution to the floor has been getting more fierce. That is something that in no way is disproven by your stats as (and I pointed this out above) THE UN FLOOR TIME IS LIMITED. That means, more elaborately, that in each given time period only a limited number of resolutions can be processed by the UN. There's only one resolution up for vote at the same time, and each takes a certain amount of time to be voted upon. For instance, the figures you show couldn't possibly be a lot higher as there just aren't enough days in a year to process a lot more resolutions on the UN floor.

The stats you show only prove that there's no shortage of resolutions actually making it to the floor. This translates to noting that the % for approval isn't too high. If one were to also note that no large queue of resolution sin quorum ever develops, one can also conclude that the % required to reach the floor isn't too low either. In other words, the current % is, given the nature of the rest of the game (players submitting / approving proposals, the number of delegates, recognized 'quality' of proposals), pretty much ok.

So, if your historical stats had dropped, the conclusion could *NOT* have been that it was getting harder to get any individual proposal to the UN floor. Perhaps there would have been less resolutions submitted, or they had a lesser quality, or maybe a block had formed which for ideological reasons worked to prevent the UN from doing anything (like: Gatesville). Now, noting that this effect did NOT occur is hence also not sufficient proof that the difficulty for any individual proposal to reach the UN floor has become more or less difficult.

In other words, your evidence does not support your claim.

Ballotonia

Ballo, I really should have removed your name from the quote. I was actually sorta agreeing with you - it's just that your summary of the question was handy.

The short version of my answer is, "It's not broken. It doesn't need fixing."

I feel the UN is corrupt because it does not listen to the proposals submitted by us smaller regions. :mad:

Gravedigging?

I feel the UN is corrupt because it does not listen to the proposals submitted by us smaller regions. :mad:
Definitely not true. The UN does not listen to silly proposals, or proposals that are not campaigned for. The reason why it might seem to you that proposals from bigger regions get more attention is because if you see a proposal by someone in your region, particularily a nation you know well, you might be more inclined to look at it. However, the proposals that get the most attention are not those with a big region, but htose that get discussed and revised in the forum and then get campaigned for by telegram. If you want your proposalreaching quorum, don't just submit it without telling anyone, and expect people to look for it. Submit it to forum, link to it, and the discussion will bring attention to it.