NationStates Jolt Archive

We need to make a strict limit on how repeals of UN issues work. We need to have a limit of one repeal per year on an issue. This will stop making the NationStates UN look like the real UN. That way everyone will stop voting for everything and make an issue actually worth something

As this would involve a change in how the game actually works, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg to Technical.

Short answer: not likely.

And I think it's proposals and resolutions you're talking about, not issues.

We need to make a strict limit on how repeals of UN issues work. We need to have a limit of one repeal per year on an issue. This will stop making the NationStates UN look like the real UN.
There's no possible way we can escape that. ;)

Such a limit wouldn't exactly be fair, seeing as some random new person could create a repeal on an issue without properly researching the resolution, and will ruin it for an entire year for the rest of the UN. Sometimes we need to stick with some of the ideas that the real UN has, rather than going completely radical.

Perhaps we can make repealing more difficult. We could have any one who wants to repeal a resolution read the issue they wish to repeal over, write a summury on the topic and provide a logical explanation on why the repeal is so important. Then with that the repeal proposal should be approved by at least three moderators or advisors.

Riiiight... as if we didn't have enough to do already. Instead of having to only take care of flamers, spammers, trolls, make sure the regions run right, run through the UN proposals and remove the incorrect, abusive, and stupid ones...

...we'd get to vet dozens of repeal proposals daily too!

http://www.precisionwebsurveys.com/images/thumbs-up.jpg
Brilliant idea!

Actually Scolo, I'm none too sure on this but I think when Hack and Cog check the listings they also sweep the repeals to some degree, so we at least don't get common stuff like " Cut Down Trees Again Because My Penis Says So ", you know, and the other silly rubbish that pops up in proposals now and again ...
* But wouldn't it make life interesting if it did ? *
At least, I think they do ... ( shrug )

The thing of it is, we've had 5 repeals actually reach the floor. We've had over 100 resolutions reach the floor. Even though only 1 of the 5 repeals failed, the repeal on prostitution and the global library were both overturned within a month, and one could argue that in reality, only 2 of the 5 repeals have "stuck" -- those were honestly targeted at two very early and poorly worded resolutions.

I've not crunched the "percentiles" for support on repeals yet, but plan too. Though I think many players like repeals, and I've certainly seen the UN become a Neocon hotbed as of late (they still don't control it, lets a dozen or so other HR, SJ, and EN resolutions would be out the door), I think they are an interesting part of the game. In fact, I've been a big fan of the ability to repeal since they were first announced.

What I'm not is a big supporter of voting for repeals. The language used in them is still pretty bad. The arguements are actually kinda like what Komokom was teasing about.

How can we stop idiots from destroying the UN by just voting 'for' across the board? :headbang:
I mean I have even tried to send a telegram to as many delegates as possible to tell them to help fight this nonsense. Is it possible to write a telegram to every nation, and one to every new nation after that, telling them to vote for what they really feel and not just 'for.'

How can we stop idiots from destroying the UN by just voting 'for' across the board? :headbang:
I mean I have even tried to send a telegram to as many delegates as possible to tell them to help fight this nonsense. Is it possible to write a telegram to every nation, and one to every new nation after that, telling them to vote for what they really feel and not just 'for.'

Two observations ... calling people idiots and accusing them from destroying things (true or not) will likely just close doors.

Instead of hoping to telegram enough delegates to make a difference, I suggest taking a diffferent approach. Actively participate in the NationStates UN forum. Don't tell people why they are wrong, don't even tell people what your nation feels. Instead make small changes to the text of the __draft__ proposals.

The place you can have the most impact in is in the quality of proposals.

Though you may not approve of the Ballast Water resolution, the original proposal for it was frankly very poorly written. In Real Life I'm an environmental engineer, and when I noticed that a player (whos age I have no idea of) was writing a proposal for a very real and important problem, I was interested. However, he didn't define what ballast water was nor have a solution to the problem with a bit of flexibility. So I took it upon myself to write his proposal and telegrammed him my version (which is 90% of what you see in the Balast Water resolution that passed).

Most players whom are submitting resolutions are doing so because they just want to really talk about an idea. Only a few of us (resolution authors) have been so dead set on a particular language that we'll really steer the process or a part of it in a very narrow direction. But most players are open minded and would love _constructive_ feedback.

Giving somebody an alternative (without explaining why) might just help them.

I've done this on Ballast Water, Children in War, the Tsunami Warning System in very significant ways (as in complete rewrites). For other resolutions I've added small suggestions, like "please add a reference to the International Red Cross" or "you might want to define this" or "please move this section here".

Anyways, I wish you good luck!

10kMichael

We need to make a strict limit on how repeals of UN issues work. We need to have a limit of one repeal per year on an issue. This will stop making the NationStates UN look like the real UN. That way everyone will stop voting for everything and make an issue actually worth something
generally this is done by n00bs coming in, not doing any research, seeing a resolution that they dont like (it has gotten down to being one of about 4, maybe 6 resolutions) and instantly hit repeal when they have the required ammount of endorsements.