NationStates Jolt Archive

In the real UN, delegations have the ability to abstain from voting on a resolution. I believe that this is imperative to prevent conflicts of interest (IE a democracy doesnt want compulsory voting, and a resolution would force it), and it would add a touch of realism to the game.

Another thing I would suggest for consideration is a lessening of the effects resolutions have on UN nations. In real life, the UN is unable to force any member nation to do anything (at least the general assembly cannot, but at any rate, their power is limited), merely suggest; this is the essence of a resolution.

I envision UN member nations being able to decide if they will follow the terms of a resolution passed by the UN, and being able to specify on which grounds they disagree with the resolution. ("yes with rights/no with rights" is how this is termed in UN and parliamentary procedure) This could lead to some interesting new developments in RP and wars. (EG xNation refused to sign Resolution I, sponsered by yNation and zNation, so y and zNations attack xNation)

Another interesting addition would be friendly and unfriendly amendments, which could be submitted through a process similar to the proposal submission process. After a resolution is made public, it can be locked for an interval of time to allow amendments to be filtered through the system and posted. If the amendment(s) pass, they could be applied and voting would commence on the amended resolution.

Yes, a ton of ideas, and probably really tough to implement, but I hope that this is noticed by someone and that it makes its way up to Mr. Barry and the other designers. I think at the very least, the right to abstain from voting is a very good addition. BTW I wrote these suggestions in order of importance (as I percieve it).

Anyone have constructive criticism?

ps- spelling errors throughout, sorry, but I honestly dont have any time to peruse what I just wrote :-p

Well, first off, you already can abstain from voteing for something or you can also vote against it. It has been ruled that All UN members must abide by the resolutions by the moderators. Amendments of any type to current resolutions have been banned by the moderators. Why the moderators choose this, I can't say, but they have. Most importandly, this is not real life, and it's not meant to be.

In the real UN, delegations have the ability to abstain from voting on a resolution. I believe that this is imperative to prevent conflicts of interest (IE a democracy doesnt want compulsory voting, and a resolution would force it), and it would add a touch of realism to the game.

Okay, a few issues:

1) This belongs in the Technical, not UN, forum.

2) Abstaining is refusing to vote on the issue. You are not forced to vote on any resolution, and thus can abstain your entire time in the UN if you want to.

3) This isn't the real UN. This is as far from it as you can get.

Another thing I would suggest for consideration is a lessening of the effects resolutions have on UN nations. In real life, the UN is unable to force any member nation to do anything (at least the general assembly cannot, but at any rate, their power is limited), merely suggest; this is the essence of a resolution.

That won't fly. For one thing, this UN was set up to be as it is. This UN is able to enforce its resolutions on its members because the game creator wanted it to. The only limitations are what the players can get passed and what the mods will allow.

For another, I doubt many of us want this to be like the real UN.

I envision UN member nations being able to decide if they will follow the terms of a resolution passed by the UN, and being able to specify on which grounds they disagree with the resolution. ("yes with rights/no with rights" is how this is termed in UN and parliamentary procedure) This could lead to some interesting new developments in RP and wars. (EG xNation refused to sign Resolution I, sponsered by yNation and zNation, so y and zNations attack xNation)

~Sighs~ Why don't they ever read the FAQ?

You can actually roleplay not abiding by a resolution. Vegana did that once, and the results were hilarious. As for why you disagree: Guess what the forums are for. Just make sure your reason hasn't already been dealt with and be prepared for an arguement. Other forums, such as the regional forums of the Pacifics, can allow you to state why without an arguement.

Another interesting addition would be friendly and unfriendly amendments, which could be submitted through a process similar to the proposal submission process. After a resolution is made public, it can be locked for an interval of time to allow amendments to be filtered through the system and posted. If the amendment(s) pass, they could be applied and voting would commence on the amended resolution.

Actually, they can't even dare to attempt that. You have to remember the admins are the ones who deal with coding, and they are not wanting to put in the effort to even bother with that. That's why amendments are outright banned by the mods. It would require months of effort to code that, and frankly I doubt anyone is willing to put in that much effort.

Yes, a ton of ideas, and probably really tough to implement, but I hope that this is noticed by someone and that it makes its way up to Mr. Barry and the other designers. I think at the very least, the right to abstain from voting is a very good addition. BTW I wrote these suggestions in order of importance (as I percieve it).

Max Barry doesn't really deal with this site much from what I have heard. He's not the one you have to convince.

I really had no idea about roleplay rules, never really looked into it..

Yeah, I figured it would takes months of work to implement some of these ideas..

Thanks for answering so quickly, I think I understand why everything in the UN is set up the way it is now, and it makes sense.

Hm. Actually, I kinda like having an 'abstain' option on UN Proposals.

People saying "not voting is abstaining" are missing the point, I have to say. The point of having a recorded abstain option is to let the public see that you like the Proposal, in theory, but that it has too many errors for you support (or, the converse, you don't like it, but it has some redeeming qualities). This would be a way for authors to get more accurate feedback during the voting process.

Currently, if you aren't comfortable with a Proposal your options are limited, and rather unpleasant. You can vote up/down on it, but if you have serious problems, you're left with not-voting. Well, then you feel like a slacker who can't be bothered to vote (or an invader who's using the UN as a means to an end).

An abstain option means players can signify that they studied the Proposal, but didn't feel comfortable one way or the other. Also, if 'abstain' gets the most votes, the author knows that their Proposal may very well be close to being passable with minor changes. A wise author might nab a few names from the Abstain list and ask them their concerns.

Hm. Actually, I kinda like having an 'abstain' option on UN Proposals.

People saying "not voting is abstaining" are missing the point, I have to say. The point of having a recorded abstain option is to let the public see that you like the Proposal, in theory, but that it has too many errors for you support (or, the converse, you don't like it, but it has some redeeming qualities). This would be a way for authors to get more accurate feedback during the voting process.

Currently, if you aren't comfortable with a Proposal your options are limited, and rather unpleasant. You can vote up/down on it, but if you have serious problems, you're left with not-voting. Well, then you feel like a slacker who can't be bothered to vote (or an invader who's using the UN as a means to an end).

An abstain option means players can signify that they studied the Proposal, but didn't feel comfortable one way or the other. Also, if 'abstain' gets the most votes, the author knows that their Proposal may very well be close to being passable with minor changes. A wise author might nab a few names from the Abstain list and ask them their concerns.

Those are the lines along which I was thinking.

Hm. Actually, I kinda like having an 'abstain' option on UN Proposals.

People saying "not voting is abstaining" are missing the point, I have to say. The point of having a recorded abstain option is to let the public see that you like the Proposal, in theory, but that it has too many errors for you support (or, the converse, you don't like it, but it has some redeeming qualities). This would be a way for authors to get more accurate feedback during the voting process.

Actually, it's also used for issues you really don't care about. As it is, an abstaining option is a bad idea because no resolution that has ever failed in a vote has succeeded in ever reaching quorum again, with most not even being submitted again. And if it passes the vote, the author can't do anything about problems at that point. Either way, it's pretty much guaranteed that you don't have to worry about seeing it in quorum again. While it would make a nice symbolic gesture, it just isn't practical.

An abstain option means players can signify that they studied the Proposal, but didn't feel comfortable one way or the other. Also, if 'abstain' gets the most votes, the author knows that their Proposal may very well be close to being passable with minor changes. A wise author might nab a few names from the Abstain list and ask them their concerns.

That's another problem: If abstain gets the most votes, does it pass? Does it fail? Or do we revote on it? The system is set up under pass/fail. It can be one or the other, not both. And no matter how you look at it, you're talking changing game code.

Well, first off, you already can abstain from voteing for something or you can also vote against it. It has been ruled that All UN members must abide by the resolutions by the moderators. Amendments of any type to current resolutions have been banned by the moderators. Why the moderators choose this, I can't say, but they have. Most importandly, this is not real life, and it's not meant to be.

While it is possible to abstain by not voting, the difference between not voting and abstaining (in game terms) would be to provide a count of the total number of UN players that have read the resolution and wanted to signify doing so.

You are right, this isn't real life, but I've always thought it would be interesting to see how many nations are standing on a middle ground after reading a resolution.

I think this is a good suggestion.

As it is, an abstaining option is a bad idea because no resolution that has ever failed in a vote has succeeded in ever reaching quorum again, with most not even being submitted again.

Not quite accurate. Compare Resolution 17a (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Curb_Illicit_Arms_Transfers_%28failed%29) and Resolution #57 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=56).

Not quite accurate. Compare Resolution 17a (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Curb_Illicit_Arms_Transfers_%28failed%29) and Resolution #57 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=56).

They're mostly the same, but not exactly the same. The differences involved in the two partially resulted from admin inteference during the vote for the first one. The copy in the archive, according to its very notes, is not an exact reproduction of what was originally voted on due to it being changed during the vote.

They're not the same resolutions, just very close.

They're mostly the same, but not exactly the same. The differences involved in the two partially resulted from admin inteference during the vote for the first one. The copy in the archive, according to its very notes, is not an exact reproduction of what was originally voted on due to it being changed during the vote.

They're not the same resolutions, just very close.

I think you should telegram Galdago. He is the author of both resolutions, and an admin on the United Nations Organization forum (link in my signature). When he was campaigning for the "Reduce Black Market Arms Sales" resolution last April and May, I remember him being very honest that this resolution was in fact a re-design of the original resolution.

A number of us felt that the reasons his previous resolution failed (this was before I joined the game ... I started playing in Jan. 2004), was because the formatting of resolutions on the floor was "loose". Carriage returns and spacings were lost when a proposal moved from the proposal queue to the resolution stage. There were supposedly many complaints about the great length of his resolution (it was the first one to fail), and in response the game admins instituted some changes to the game's coding for UN resolutions.

Unlike the 2003 resolutions, 2004 resolutions maintained their formatting.

In any event, when Galdago resubmitted his original "Gun Control" resolution, it was debated by a number of players prior to reaching the UN forum that perhaps the category "Gun Control" is a poor "political" choice. It was felt that statwanking resulted in some negative votes.

But the truth of the matter is that there have been at least two resolutions that have been adopted that are flat out reimplementations of failed resolutions:

Curb Illicit Arms Transfers --> Reduce Black Market Arms Sales
Space Defense Initiative --> Tracking Near Earth Objects

I know this, because I was the author of the Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution, and if you look closely at Reduce Black Market Arms Sales, you'll see a reference to Miervatia Mikitivity. I was very active in the UN forum in 2004 and in the process of drafting these two resolutions.

I think the larger point, abstaining on a resolution, is that having a mechanism for players to pick a middle ground may slightly change the outcome of resolution votes.

It is difficult to tell, but I bet Reduce Black Market Arms Sales and Tracking Near Earth Objects might not have been necessary if more of the no votes had been "abstain". I say this, because in the 15 months I've been playing the game and helping newbies, I've noticed a number of them asking if they have to vote on UN resolutions. The point is that some players might be inclined to take the middle ground.

The question is how many yes votes would also swing to abstain? (I'm kinda thinking more than the no votes, based on my UN Resolution Category surveys and UN resolution vote tallies.)

If anybody is interested in the text (and some very limited notes) on the Space Defense Initiative and Tracking Near Earth Objects resolutions, you can read my pdf of International Security Resolutions:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/IS.pdf


---

I find it a bit ironic that in roleplay I'm not a future tech society, but that I'm always so involved with UN and space issues. Of course, I have plans for what I hope will be a fun space resolution this summer, something that can be applied to nations of any tech level and placed into a resolution category is that is a real challenge! :)

So, Goobergunchia, do you have another resolution that could perhaps be an example? I see the examples you posted as different enough for them not to count as the same resolution. One is definitely an evolution of the other, but still not the same.

Essentially, what Mikitivity said. Based on what Galdago himself said at the time, I've always kind of considered them to be essentially the same resolutions, if tweaked a bit.

Which actually goes to justifying the addition of an "abstain" button. Many of the "against" votes in the June 2003 vote were because people couldn't read the resolution as an unformatted mess. I bet that many of those against votes might have changed into "abstain" votes had that option been present.

However, you bring up a more important (IMO) point:

That's another problem: If abstain gets the most votes, does it pass? Does it fail? Or do we revote on it? The system is set up under pass/fail. It can be one or the other, not both. And no matter how you look at it, you're talking changing game code.

Which is the biggest problem that I see. In the U.S. Congress, the abstain votes only count for establishment of a quorum (which doesn't matter in the NS-UN), and have no impact on the outcome of a vote. If we took a similar approach here, there seems to be no point to adding a formal abstention function. UN votes are secret except for Delegates, and there is no permanent record of Delegate votes (that's a feature that I would like to see added).

In DU, the polls for voting on UN resolution read as follows:
How should the Delegate vote on this resolution?
FOR [ 2 ] [100.00%]
AGAINST [ 0 ] [0.00%]
ABSTAIN [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Total Votes: 2
I've always viewed not voting as abstaining. While I can see the arguments for adding an "abstain" function, I really don't see why it would be worthwhile at this time.

Essentially, what Mikitivity said. Based on what Galdago himself said at the time, I've always kind of considered them to be essentially the same resolutions, if tweaked a bit.

Thanks Goober. And as the author of Tracking, I can 100% assure you that it was based on amendements I proposed in the discussions of the proposed Space Defense Initiative. SCOS OJ was around at the time Tracking came up and gave me feedback and his blessing on the resolution.

I honestly believe that a failed resolution is a good chance to learn from our mistakes. Granted a few players might find fault in anything, but it does pay to read through posts instead of just replying and tossing as many insults as possible. Failure doesn't mean the end.

However, you bring up a more important (IMO) point:

Which is the biggest problem that I see. In the U.S. Congress, the abstain votes only count for establishment of a quorum (which doesn't matter in the NS-UN), and have no impact on the outcome of a vote. If we took a similar approach here, there seems to be no point to adding a formal abstention function. UN votes are secret except for Delegates, and there is no permanent record of Delegate votes (that's a feature that I would like to see added).

In DU, the polls for voting on UN resolution read as follows:

I've always viewed not voting as abstaining. While I can see the arguments for adding an "abstain" function, I really don't see why it would be worthwhile at this time.

There is a point ... we could use this as a means to figure out how big the "middle" ground is. When I total up the number of votes, I list the ratio of support, but I think that we'd be wise to figure out which resolutions are being voted on and which ones players are basically saying, "I just don't know". We could take home two messages from low or high abstentions.

One message might be, well, at least players are active and reading the resolution (for a high abstention count). The other message might be, "Wow, people are either not interested in this proposal, or there is a large number of UN nations that are on their 28-day death march" (for a low abstention count).

As for your other idea, Hersfold long ago asked the game admins to consider a change that would display regional voting trends, so that the Delegates would have something more concrete to base their decisions on. Many of us use off-site forums to conduct regional debates and polls, but in the case of a region like a feeder, the percentage of off-site participation is limited.

I'd love to see an abstain button, and eventually I'd love it if Hersfold's idea could be worked into the game as well. If not for NS1, NS2 would be a great way to test these features.

We're all done here. Yet another decent thread turned into a bitchfest.

Powerhungry Chipmunks, DemonLordEnigma, and Mikitivity, go create an InvisionFree forum or something for this ongoing and extremely irritating argument. I'm going to lock this part of the thread and toss EVERY post by the three of you out of it. If you want to come back in and totally disregard each other to reenter the valid points on this thread, you may do so. Otherwise, just put each other on ignore and move on.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

For my point, see the last Goobergunchia post.

I have reviewed the deleted posts and restored those that were unrelated to the deleted arguments.

Just a note: This entire thread is strictly academic.

We're not making any changes to the game in the foreseeable future except for security patches, etc.

Just a note: This entire thread is strictly academic.

We're not making any changes to the game in the foreseeable future except for security patches, etc.

But, I thought there were new proposal categories under consideration. Does "not making any changes to the game" include not going ahead with those?

But, I thought there were new proposal categories under consideration. Does "not making any changes to the game" include not going ahead with those?

Those might happen. I really should modify my statement to say that we aren't adding anything to our (almost empty) list of changes and are working to clear that list and not add anything to it. No, I won't say what may remain on it.

Those might happen. I really should modify my statement to say that we aren't adding anything to our (almost empty) list of changes and are working to clear that list and not add anything to it. No, I won't say what may remain on it.

Well, though I'd love to see an abstain function, I'd much rather see a new category, such as the one Adam Island asked for (International Aid) and Hersfold's Education.