NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems many people don't know what the function of the UN is.
The UN is not an entity that passes laws for all nations to obey. A good example is the recycling resolution. It's ok for the UN to discuss, or even pass resolutions to improve recycling through education or funding programs, but the UN does not pass laws that are binding to governments.
The way things are looking is there are no separate nations, the UN dictates world policy on everything. The UN has no business trying to run nations day to day business. War/Genocide/Human rights, these are issues that they can try to impact on a nation level. Gay rights, recycling, there are nation issues that the UN has no right dictating too. Come on people, lets get with the program.

Read the bloody FAQ. In Nationstates, the UN is supposed to do that.

What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

As you can see the general FAQ text says the UN passes resolutions. It's my stance many of the resolutions passed are B.S. and not what the UN should be used for.

Well, while I respect your opinion, the majority of UN members and Delegates seem to disagree with you. I mean, people vote on these things. Seeing as how there is no "Constitution" of the UN, one could argue that we are suffering a tyranny of the majority here, but I don't see anything in the FAQ about the UN only being allowed to pass certain types of resolutions. Until there is something in writing that says the UN is not allowed to pass certain types of resolutions, then you don't really have a cogent argument against the will of the majority.

It would be more constructive to advocate a council that could exercise some type of judicial review, but that would of course require a constitution which would provide guidelines for what is and isn't appropriate for a UN resolution. The council could veto resolutions seen as unconstitutional.

-DMH, FCNL

What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

As you can see the general FAQ text says the UN passes resolutions. It's my stance many of the resolutions passed are B.S. and not what the UN should be used for.

The UN is not a part of the Holy Empire of Bilbringi. Even if we were a member of the UN, none of the workers or agents of the UN would be allowed in our Empire. If any were discovered, they would be immedietly arrested and deported. The agendas of foreign individuals and the "morals" of other nations shall never be allowed to cross our sacred borders.

The Holy Bilbringian Emperor

The United Nations
What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

I rest my case.

The United Nations
What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

I rest my case.

I belive there was a loud sharp crack of a whip following that.

The United Nations
What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

I rest my case.

The problem, as I just mentioned elsewhere, is that the UN is a totally unaccountable governing body. In my democracy, unpopular decisions results in removal of politicians during the next election cycle. But UN nations only have to answer to their own populations (if even then). They can mess up other nations to their heart's content (if they are one of the lucky enlightened ones within the plurality bloc), and never have to worry about facing any responsibility for the action.

Power without accountability is not democracy. It's majoritarianism in its most authoritarian form.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin.

The United Nations
What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

I rest my case.

I belive there was a loud sharp crack of a whip following that.

This would be a good point, except that the UN is the worlds governing body, not the governments of individual nations. The nations themselves reserve the right to decide domestic and social policy, not the United Nations.

The Holy Emperor of Bilbringi

The United Nations
What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

I rest my case.

The problem, as I just mentioned elsewhere, is that the UN is a totally unaccountable governing body. In my democracy, unpopular decisions results in removal of politicians during the next election cycle. But UN nations only have to answer to their own populations (if even then). They can mess up other nations to their heart's content (if they are one of the lucky enlightened ones within the plurality bloc), and never have to worry about facing any responsibility for the action.

Power without accountability is not democracy. It's majoritarianism in its most authoritarian form.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin.

Hey, it's the way the game is. If you want an ineffectual international body, make one in the forums. Programming one would just be a waste of [violet]'s time.

[/quote]This would be a good point, except that the UN is the worlds governing body, not the governments of individual nations. The nations themselves reserve the right to decide domestic and social policy, not the United Nations.

The Holy Emperor of Bilbringi[/quote]

The Republic of Ansion fully agrees with the Holy Empire of Bilbringi. THE UN HAS ABSOLUTLY NO RIGHT TO DICTATE DOMESTIC AND SOCIAL POLICY TO INDIVIDUAL NATIONS! (The caps lock was for emphasis, I couldn't find the bold.) This is why we left the UN.

TO: Representative of Kitsylvania

FROM: Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Commonwealth of Oakeshottland

Greetings. I understand that: "Hey, it's the way the game is. If you want an ineffectual international body, make one in the forums. Programming one would just be a waste of [violet]'s time." Rather, what I am trying to get across is two things.

1.) That one can do something does not mean one should do it (and thus making an argument against using UN powers in certain ways, not because we cannot, but because we should not).

2.) That those who harp on about the "democratic" nature of the UN be put in their place, and realize that their rhetoric rings hollow - majoritarian authoritarianism is not democracy (well, at least not the warm-fuzzy version that usually comes to mind).

Simply making sure the plurality does not become too comfortable (heck, they might even give an argument sometime!).

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin.

I, Bosk, may regretfully need to withdraw my U.N. delegation. I will not destroy the moral fabric of my glorious nation at the whim of some lib-left pantywaists :!: I must admit that most of these resolutions are useful in forging an agreeable new world order ,but I shall not inflict upon my subjects all of these fanciful ideas being bandied about.

Bosk
Director: Apologists

It seems many people don't know what the function of the UN is.
The UN is not an entity that passes laws for all nations to obey. A good example is the recycling resolution. It's ok for the UN to discuss, or even pass resolutions to improve recycling through education or funding programs, but the UN does not pass laws that are binding to governments.
The way things are looking is there are no separate nations, the UN dictates world policy on everything. The UN has no business trying to run nations day to day business. War/Genocide/Human rights, these are issues that they can try to impact on a nation level. Gay rights, recycling, there are nation issues that the UN has no right dictating too. Come on people, lets get with the program.

I agree 100% they tie up and watse time with nation policies instead of taking time for world policies.

The UN is mob rule, plain and simple. You've got to be aware of this when you sign up; any cries for it to be any different will be met with cries of godmod and "leave if you don't like it."

It seems many people don't know what the function of the UN is.
The UN is not an entity that passes laws for all nations to obey. A good example is the recycling resolution. It's ok for the UN to discuss, or even pass resolutions to improve recycling through education or funding programs, but the UN does not pass laws that are binding to governments.
The way things are looking is there are no separate nations, the UN dictates world policy on everything. The UN has no business trying to run nations day to day business. War/Genocide/Human rights, these are issues that they can try to impact on a nation level. Gay rights, recycling, there are nation issues that the UN has no right dictating too. Come on people, lets get with the program.

Got really bad news for you here but treaties are laws. Treaties are what the UN passes.

So when you think of it as a governing body, think UN=USA+Nations+50 States. Its that fundamental purpose and ideal behind the UN. Specially since when the US was the lead benefactors when it was established, the US shaped most of t he policies. Hey UNITED Nations.... UNITED States....

Get it?!?!

The United Nations
What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

I rest my case.

Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own political ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

I rest my case. Let me treat my people as I feel as right.

Nomadic Tribes; well said and exactly the point of my post. :idea:

The United Nations
What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

I rest my case.

Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own political ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

I rest my case. Let me treat my people as I feel as right.

What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.


I re-rest my case. If you don't like other people telling you what to do, don't join up. It's your decision.

What kind of governing body would the UN make? If you look at any system that tries to resemble a democracy there can be seen a certain measure of checks and balances. Whether it is a bicameral legislature, a judicial branch with the powers of judicial review, or an executive branch with the power of veto or dissolution of the legislature. To have only the UN, one body voting all the laws is not only foolish, but it provides an example of why democracy cannot exist without a system to make sure that the majority doesn't dominate and steamroll the minorities. And that is exactly what is happening here, the UN is dominated by a majority of left wing liberals, and anyone else cannot get their views even up for a vote, let alone pass a resolution. Through the history of the UN, it seems that almost every resolution passes with a resounding majority. To think that democracy is really the rule of the majority is to entertain folly as reason.

What kind of governing body would the UN make? If you look at any system that tries to resemble a democracy there can be seen a certain measure of checks and balances. Whether it is a bicameral legislature, a judicial branch with the powers of judicial review, or an executive branch with the power of veto or dissolution of the legislature. To have only the UN, one body voting all the laws is not only foolish, but it provides an example of why democracy cannot exist without a system to make sure that the majority doesn't dominate and steamroll the minorities. And that is exactly what is happening here, the UN is dominated by a majority of left wing liberals, and anyone else cannot get their views even up for a vote, let alone pass a resolution. Through the history of the UN, it seems that almost every resolution passes with a resounding majority. To think that democracy is really the rule of the majority is to entertain folly as reason.
Again the point of my post is advanced. Thank you.

Fantasan obeys the UN resolutions, but since there is no specific directive as to how most of these resolutions are to be implemented, things don't change much in our nation. Our batteries are recycled by having the acid drained for chemical warfare purposes, and the lead extracted to cast bullets. The plastic is burned and the ashes used as fill (all recycled). Our paper is mulched into compost and used to feed our grazing pastures and forestland (recycled). Glass was already recycled, and is used by various commercial enterprises to make whatever (no change in recycling there). And plastic is melted down to make landmine casings. This resolution has not changed Fantasan one bit. Unless a resolution details specifics on what a nation has to do, it's easy to get out of it one way or another. (of course, if they were specific, nobody would vote for the Ghestapo crap the original draftors intended it to impose.)

Just to point out that the REAL UN does not have the authority to dictate internal laws - such actions would constitute a violation of the member state's sovereignty, something the UN considers a core tenet.

According to basic international law theory, treaty law is binding above all else. But if a nation has not signed the treaty, it is not bound by it. Just look at any UN treaty you want, and find a list of states that have ratified it, I can pretty much guarantee it will not be more than 3/4 of the entire UN. These nations are not being hounded by the UN.

UN resolutions and declarations no legal status - they are merely guidelines. The UNDHR (Declaration of Human Rights) is a good example - a nation can break it at its will by passing legislation without accepting any consequences (within reason of course).

Customary law is the next most binding type of law after treaty law - if a nation has a long standing custom of having Christian government and denying rights to gays (although I would be opposed to that standpoint :x , but whatever), they would certainly have the right to ignore the law guaranteeing gay rights, even if the law were binding, which it's not.

The UN's judiciary role is only limited to INTERNATIONAL POLITICS - the ICJ, for instance, can only handle disputes between nations, else it lacks jurisdiction. Look it up if you want. A nation's right to legislate itself is a fundamental UN right, and the only time it comes under fire is when it interferes internationally (a good example being the right of a nation to override medical patents).

As this applies to the game, mandatory recycling and mandatory gay rights legislation are illegal.

As this applies to the game, mandatory recycling and mandatory gay rights legislation are illegal.

It doesnt apply to the game, the UN on the game and the one in real life are nothin alike. This can even bee seen in the first two paragraphs of the FAQ.

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

In real life it isnt a governing body and it isnt binding to all member nations. It is just basically a suggestion forum.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

In real life even non members are affected, or else we would never be able to get support for disarming N. Korea.

At no point did they say that the UN on the game should be like the UN in real life so we do not obey the rules of the real life UN.

If the UN of this game is not to be representative of the UN of the real world, I propose two things. First that the the organization cease to be called the UN, and secondly to introduce a system to balance the one house of legislature currently present. Perhaps the creation of a bicameral legislature would even the grounds and create a more acceptable model of governance. However, I may be wrong, I do not know the affiliation of the majority of the nations involved, and if the current majority of leftists is great enough, it won't even matter, because the weight of their vote would nullify any attempt at reform. We appear to be stuck in a quandry, perhaps us nations unfortunate enough to have to have legislation enforced on us, should forsake the UN, in favor of our own form of regional government.

As this applies to the game, mandatory recycling and mandatory gay rights legislation are illegal.

It doesnt apply to the game, the UN on the game and the one in real life are nothin alike. This can even bee seen in the first two paragraphs of the FAQ.

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

In real life it isnt a governing body and it isnt binding to all member nations. It is just basically a suggestion forum.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

In real life even non members are affected, or else we would never be able to get support for disarming N. Korea.

At no point did they say that the UN on the game should be like the UN in real life so we do not obey the rules of the real life UN.

I do not consider the UN a suggestion forum. It does not "suggest" that countries should avoid attacking UN members. It does not "suggest" that genocide should be avoided. Countries have been invaded and economies destroyed (through trade embragos) for violating these "suggestions". Don't confuse a lack of power to enforce all of its resolutions with calling their resolutions suggestions.

As for your North Korea example, I recall from an earlier post you argued that the environment is a global issue, therefore it affects all states. In your above post you say, "in real life even non-members are affected". You therefor say that the NationStates UN both does and does not affect non-member states.

Finally, if the NationStates United Nations is not based on the real United Nations, why call it the United Nations. That's like saying the corrupt dictatorships in the game are not corrupt dictatorships at all since they are not based on their real life equivalent. I realize this argument sounds a little odd but I can't find anything wrong with it. If anyone sees a problem with it (other then is just sounds odd) I encourage you to point it out.

I realize this is the second post of yours I've tried to refute and I hope you don't take it as a personal insult. Quite the contrary, there arn't many posts on this forum that are worth arguing with. :(

As this applies to the game, mandatory recycling and mandatory gay rights legislation are illegal.

It doesnt apply to the game, the UN on the game and the one in real life are nothin alike. This can even bee seen in the first two paragraphs of the FAQ.

The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

In real life it isnt a governing body and it isnt binding to all member nations. It is just basically a suggestion forum.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

In real life even non members are affected, or else we would never be able to get support for disarming N. Korea.

At no point did they say that the UN on the game should be like the UN in real life so we do not obey the rules of the real life UN.

I do not consider the UN a suggestion forum. It does not "suggest" that countries should avoid attacking UN members. It does not "suggest" that genocide should be avoided. Countries have been invaded and economies destroyed (through trade embragos) for violating these "suggestions". Don't confuse a lack of power to enforce all of its resolutions with calling their resolutions suggestions.

As for your North Korea example, I recall from an earlier post you argued that the environment is a global issue, therefore it affects all states. In your above post you say, "in real life even non-members are affected". You therefor say that the NationStates UN both does and does not affect non-member states.

Finally, if the NationStates United Nations is not based on the real United Nations, why call it the United Nations. That's like saying the corrupt dictatorships in the game are not corrupt dictatorships at all since they are not based on their real life equivalent. I realize this argument sounds a little odd but I can't find anything wrong with it. If anyone sees a problem with it (other then is just sounds odd) I encourage you to point it out.

I realize this is the second post of yours I've tried to refute and I'm not trying to single you out, but there are not many posts on this forum that are worth arguing with. :(

What kind of governing body would the UN make? If you look at any system that tries to resemble a democracy there can be seen a certain measure of checks and balances. Whether it is a bicameral legislature, a judicial branch with the powers of judicial review, or an executive branch with the power of veto or dissolution of the legislature. To have only the UN, one body voting all the laws is not only foolish, but it provides an example of why democracy cannot exist without a system to make sure that the majority doesn't dominate and steamroll the minorities. And that is exactly what is happening here, the UN is dominated by a majority of left wing liberals, and anyone else cannot get their views even up for a vote, let alone pass a resolution. Through the history of the UN, it seems that almost every resolution passes with a resounding majority. To think that democracy is really the rule of the majority is to entertain folly as reason.

Well once again, since the UNITED States came up with the proposal for the UNITED Nations after WWII, there lie the answer to your questions.

Think about it, for UNITED States; Declaration of Independance. The UNITED Nations equal is the UN Charter. Now, there are fifty (50) states that joined the UNITED States on shared fundamentals of the Declaration of Independence, but where allowed to create there own Constitutions based on principal. These states would be the equivalent to the member States in the UNITED Nations.

If you need me to explain more, just let me know. I hope this starts and get the general point across however.

...Before you ask, for enforcement in the UN... you only have to look at how the UNITED State will use Federal Highway dollars as a bargaining chip, just for starters

What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.


I re-rest my case. If you don't like other people telling you what to do, don't join up. It's your decision.
I love it when people argue about holy scripture and commandments from on high. :D

Since most nations in the world are not UN members, how can the UN be called "the world's governing body" when it does not in fact rule the world?

If the Great Game Maker wanted there to be a world government, why didn't he create one that was called "The World Government" instead of something called the "United Nations", an existing institution known to have a limited focus and restricted jurisdiction?

Or was there a flaw in the Great Game Maker's vision here, as in so many other parts of the Great Game?

I do not consider the UN a suggestion forum. It does not "suggest" that countries should avoid attacking UN members. It does not "suggest" that genocide should be avoided. Countries have been invaded and economies destroyed (through trade embragos) for violating these "suggestions". Don't confuse a lack of power to enforce all of its resolutions with calling their resolutions suggestions.

I was talking about in the real life UN, and thier resolutions ARE suggestsions to countries that are bigger than the UN. If you dont have the power to make them do what you say it is a suggestion because you cannot succesfully order someone bigger than you to do something.

As for your North Korea example, I recall from an earlier post you argued that the environment is a global issue, therefore it affects all states. In your above post you say, "in real life even non-members are affected". You therefor say that the NationStates UN both does and does not affect non-member states.

I dont remember saying that but if I did It wouldnt matter If I did. I am havning trouble understanding what you wrote, I think you are confusing the real UN with the games UN. I said that in the real life UN we can impose reolutions on countries not in the UN but we cannot do that in the game so I dont know how you came up with that.

Finally, if the NationStates United Nations is not based on the real United Nations, why call it the United Nations. That's like saying the corrupt dictatorships in the game are not corrupt dictatorships at all since they are not based on their real life equivalent. I realize this argument sounds a little odd but I can't find anything wrong with it. If anyone sees a problem with it (other then is just sounds odd) I encourage you to point it out.

We call it that because we are United, and we are Nations. And how many people would have any Idea what it was if it was called the "Group of NationStates players". And corrupt dictatorship is not a proper noun it is an adjective therefor it is describing something. United Nations is a proper noun, therefore it is something. There is a big difference.

If you disagree with what the UN does, and the laws it passes. Leave the UN.

It seems a very simple issue to me, there is no benefit to being in the UN, and no penalty for being outside it. You have nothing to lose by being outside of the UN, but you lose some control over your nation for being a member.

It's really quite simple. If you don't wish for the UN to govern you, don't join.

But if everyone who doesn't like the UN leaves, what purpose does it serve? If the only nations who remain are liberal democracies, how can you promote democracy or human rights, or environmental protection? The nations involved would most likely not have problems in these areas.

Your desire to have everyone who doesn't like being ruled by the UN leave would make the UN completely useless. It would serve no function except to let the liberal states pat themselves on the back.

Please see our thread on 'UN Needs a Constitution' for more information.

What purpose does it serve anyway? Except to slowly reform all nations into liberal democracies?

If you're a state who doesn't like that, then sitting about and complaining all the while it's happening won't change matters any.

I was talking about in the real life UN, and thier resolutions ARE suggestsions to countries that are bigger than the UN. If you dont have the power to make them do what you say it is a suggestion because you cannot succesfully order someone bigger than you to do something.

Now you're changing your argument. Before you said the "UN is basically a suggestion forum". Now you say it's only a suggestion forum to countries bigger than the UN. That is a big clause to sneak in under the word "basically", especially since I can only think of 5 (P5). Just in case you start arguing it's still a suggestion forum to all countries, the UN did not suggest to North Korea that invading South Korea would be a bad idea. When North Korea invaded, a force was mobilized, and they were kicked out. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, a force was mobilized and they were kicked out. That is enforcement.

Additionaly, I said just because the UN doesn't have the power to enforce ALL its resolutions doesn't mean its resolutions are suggestions. They do enforce some resolutions, and that makes them no longer suggestions.

I'll admit when I'm wrong but I don't appreciate your argument as well as mine.

I dont remember saying that but if I did It wouldnt matter If I did. I am havning trouble understanding what you wrote, I think you are confusing the real UN with the games UN. I said that in the real life UN we can impose reolutions on countries not in the UN but we cannot do that in the game so I dont know how you came up with that.

I pretty sure to said something to that affect. IF you did, then it does matter very much. [the following information is based on the possibility that you did say or think that recycling is a global issue]

By creating mandatory recycling for all member nations, one improves the global ecology which affects all nations (regardless of the membership status).

[If you did not say something to that affect, then I apologize. I was wrong :oops: ]



We call it that because we are United, and we are Nations. And how many people would have any Idea what it was if it was called the "Group of NationStates players". And corrupt dictatorship is not a proper noun it is an adjective therefor it is describing something. United Nations is a proper noun, therefore it is something. There is a big difference.

Come on. You have a better imagination than that. World Forum, World Union, League of Nations, and Global Union are all perfectly good names.

As for the corrupt dictatorship thing, yes, it is not a proper noun. However, I think it is fair to say that the initial regions created by the programer were based on their real life equivalents and not some imaginary land mass that just happened to have the same name. Granted, I can't think of what the real life equivalent of "Nukes4U" might be so I'll let this argument go. My argument in the above paragraph, on the other hand, remains valid.

I was talking about in the real life UN, and thier resolutions ARE suggestsions to countries that are bigger than the UN. If you dont have the power to make them do what you say it is a suggestion because you cannot succesfully order someone bigger than you to do something.

Now you're changing your argument. Before you said the "UN is basically a suggestion forum". Now you say it's only a suggestion forum to countries bigger than the UN. That is a big clause to sneak in under the word "basically", especially since I can only think of 5 (P5). Just in case you start arguing it's still a suggestion forum to all countries, the UN did not suggest to North Korea that invading South Korea would be a bad idea. When North Korea invaded, a force was mobilized, and they were kicked out. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, a force was mobilized and they were kicked out. That is enforcement.

I'm not changing my argument, it doesnt really matter if they are suggestions or not for smaller countries because they can get invaded if they dont follow them. Which is nothing like in the game.

Additionaly, I said just because the UN doesn't have the power to enforce ALL its resolutions doesn't mean its resolutions are suggestions. They do enforce some resolutions, and that makes them no longer suggestions.

But our nationstates UN is nothing like that.


I dont remember saying that but if I did It wouldnt matter If I did. I am havning trouble understanding what you wrote, I think you are confusing the real UN with the games UN. I said that in the real life UN we can impose reolutions on countries not in the UN but we cannot do that in the game so I dont know how you came up with that.

I pretty sure to said something to that affect. IF you did, then it does matter very much. [the following information is based on the possibility that you did say or think that recycling is a global issue]

By creating mandatory recycling for all member nations, one improves the global ecology which affects all nations (regardless of the membership status).

[If you did not say something to that affect, then I apologize. I was wrong :oops: ]

I didnt say that but I agree with it. I still fail to see what your argument was in the previous post.



We call it that because we are United, and we are Nations. And how many people would have any Idea what it was if it was called the "Group of NationStates players". And corrupt dictatorship is not a proper noun it is an adjective therefor it is describing something. United Nations is a proper noun, therefore it is something. There is a big difference.

Come on. You have a better imagination than that. World Forum, World Union, League of Nations, and Global Union are all perfectly good names. [/quote]

But why should the name make any difference, if I were to make a country called America in this game I wouldnt be the same as the real America.

As for the corrupt dictatorship thing, yes, it is not a proper noun. However, I think it is fair to say that the initial regions created by the programer were based on their real life equivalents and not some imaginary land mass that just happened to have the same name. Granted, I can't think of what the real life equivalent of "Nukes4U" might be so I'll let this argument go. My argument in the above paragraph, on the other hand, remains valid.

Not for long.... :twisted:

My country is far more left wing than most of the countries in the world. As a sensible and responsible nation I feel that it is my duty to take part in the governing of the world. However by atempting to do so my nation is becoming less left wing. I feel that my nation is my business, and that to have it depersonalised because of other peoples views defeats the entire point of this game. the point of this game is for people to be able to create a personalised nation. however by joining the UN we are allowing other people with different views to determin our nations politics. if we alow or nations laws to be determined by other people then there is no point in playing this game. the only sensible way to allow people to obtain a certain degree of autonomy is to allow people to opt out of some of the UN's resolutions. :!:

IF YOU ARE THE GAMES CREATOR THIS IS FOR YOUR BENIFIT SO READ IT!!!

My country is far more left wing than most of the countries in the world. As a sensible and responsible nation I feel that it is my duty to take part in the governing of the world. However by atempting to do so my nation is becoming less left wing. I feel that my nation is my business, and that to have it depersonalised because of other peoples views defeats the entire point of this game. The point of this game is for people to be able to create a personalised nation. However by joining the UN we are allowing other people with different views to determin our nations politics. If we alow our nations laws to be determined by other people then there is no point in playing this game. The only sensible way to allow people to retain a certain degree of autonomy is to allow people to opt out of some of the UN's resolutions. :!:


IF YOU ARE THE GAMES CREATOR THIS IS FOR YOUR BENIFIT SO READ IT!!!

Sory about mistakes in first copy my typing is not very good :oops: !

I feel that my nation is my business, and that to have it depersonalised because of other peoples views defeats the entire point of this game. the point of this game is for people to be able to create a personalised nation. however by joining the UN we are allowing other people with different views to determin our nations politics. IF YOU ARE THE GAMES CREATOR THIS IS FOR YOUR BENIFIT SO READ IT!!!
Ah! Another appeal to the Creator. :D Here is what the Great Game Maker had to say about why he created the NationStates UN:

Added United Nations. The UN will hopefully provide some player interactivity, which a few people commented seemed to be missing. Nations can join the UN, jockey for the position of Regional Delegate, and vote on UN Resolutions that affect all member nations. You can also endorse other nations, which is just kinda nice even if you don't use it for anything special.
Early beta versions of the NationStates game were criticized for not having enough player interactivity. So, in addition to national issues, an international aspect was added to the game to give the players something more to do by providing an organization where people could debate and vote on things like they do in the real world United Nations.

I see nothing here about creating a World Government. For that matter, I see nothing here that suggests that any more than casual thought was given to specifically what kind of organization this would be or how this part of the game would all work out. The context suggests that the NationStates UN was vaguely patterned after the real world UN as a place for interaction between nations and not as an attempt to introduce an international organization that would micromanage every aspect of individual nations -- something that does not exist in the real world.

Unfortunately however, the fuzzy phrase "... vote on UN Resolutions that would affect all member nations" and the fact that specific goals and jurisdictional limits were never spelled out for this organization have brought things to where they now are.

An additional problem (as I have pointed out elsewhere) is that 9 out 10 players do not understand that the game software pays no attention whatsoever to what UN resolutions say, but it does make automatic changes in the civil rights, economy, and political liberties scores of every UN member every time a UN resolution passes, according to the category the resolution is filed under. The UN does "affect all member nations", but not in the way people think it does.

I seriously doubt that the Game Creator ever intended that an international organization created as an after thought would override the self-chosen identities of the individual nation states that the game is named after.

[Double post.]

Exactly the UN is there for player interaction and not to effect the state of peoples nations. As long as the UN has the power to change the politics of peoples nations it defeats the point of the game. I agree that there should be some form of organisation to promote player interaction. But if this organistion affects the politics of member nations people are going to opt out of it to preserve there nations politics. It is self defeating to have to have a body to facilitate player interaction if that body changes the players country, as these changes will cause people to opt out of the UN :roll: .

I refer you to what I said earlier.

The point of this game is for people to be able to create a personalised nation. However by joining the UN we are allowing other people with different views to determin our nations politics

The only sensible way to allow people to retain a certain degree of autonomy is to allow people to opt out of some of the UN's resolutions.

Exactly the UN is there for player interaction and not to effect the state of peoples nations. As long as the UN has the power to change the politics of peoples nations it defeats the point of the game. I agree that there should be some form of organisation to promote player interaction. But if this organistion affects the politics of member nations people are going to opt out of it to preserve there nations politics. It is self defeating to have to have a body to facilitate player interaction if that body changes the players country, as these changes will cause people to opt out of the UN :roll: .

I refer you to what I said earlier.

The point of this game is for people to be able to create a personalised nation. However by joining the UN we are allowing other people with different views to determin our nations politics

The only sensible way to allow people to retain a certain degree of autonomy is to allow people to opt out of some of the UN's resolutions.should nations be able to opt out of the nuclear prolifertation or the actual use of wmd.

should nations be able to opt out of the wmd laws including the use of such weapons

I'm not changing my argument, it doesnt really matter if they are suggestions or not for smaller countries because they can get invaded if they dont follow them. Which is nothing like in the game.

In nationstates UN you must follow them, so invasion is not necessary. When the recycling measure got passed, peoples economies suffered.


But our nationstates UN is nothing like that.

see above



I didnt say that but I agree with it. I still fail to see what your argument was in the previous post.

You agree that in nationstates, a nations enviornment affects the surrounding nations as well. Therefore, when you pass a recycling resolution, it affects all countries regardless of the membership status in the UN. Before you said the nationstates UN can not affect non-members, that is the contradiction


Finaly, as for the calling the nationstates UN the UN, it makes a difference because it was made that way by the programmer. Individual players do not always understand the programmer's intention (hence the debate we are having here). Besides, I think you will still find that the majority of the players nations named America or something similar, are fairly similar to their real life equivalent.

I'm not changing my argument, it doesnt really matter if they are suggestions or not for smaller countries because they can get invaded if they dont follow them. Which is nothing like in the game.

In nationstates UN you must follow them, so invasion is not necessary. When the recycling measure got passed, peoples economies suffered.

Which is exactly why the UN in real life is different from the UN in nationstates.



I didnt say that but I agree with it. I still fail to see what your argument was in the previous post.

You agree that in nationstates, a nations enviornment affects the surrounding nations as well. Therefore, when you pass a recycling resolution, it affects all countries regardless of the membership status in the UN. Before you said the nationstates UN can not affect non-members, that is the contradiction

What the country does to obey it effects the non members but what the UN does doesnt effect the nonmembers.


Finaly, as for the calling the nationstates UN the UN, it makes a difference because it was made that way by the programmer. Individual players do not always understand the programmer's intention (hence the debate we are having here). Besides, I think you will still find that the majority of the players nations named America or something similar, are fairly similar to their real life equivalent.

Thats why when you apply to the UN it tells you to read the FAQ first. If they decide not to it is thier fault. And the countries like America are like it by choice, they arent forced to be like it because of thier name.

Argument 1: Now your just getting picky. You will find differences. Nationstates is not a exact world simulation. Besides your argument, regardless of it pickiness, contradicts

Argument 2: Now your just getting really picky. The members of the nationstates UN change as a direct result of UN resolutions. I admited when I was wrong on some topics. I encourage you to come up with a better argument or give me the same respect. Otherwise this argument will never end.

Argument 3: As for the first sentence, your running your argument in a circle. One of the instigations of this whole debate was your allegation that the FAQ clearly states that the nationstates UN is not akin to the real UN. As for the second sentence, by saying countries are at fault for not emulating the real country they're named after, you admit that they are supposed too. Are you going to repeat this fault by making the nationstates UN unlike the real UN? Consider changing your wording.

Who cares what the UN says?!? We'll just do what we want anyway. Just look how the US and UK ride roughshod over the real UN re war with Iraq. Lets be like that. And anyway, we can always resign. What has the UN ever done for us?!?

Who cares what the UN says?!? We'll just do what we want anyway. Just look how the US and UK ride roughshod over the real UN re war with Iraq. Lets be like that. And anyway, we can always resign. What has the UN ever done for us?!?

Well it has raised my ratings quite a bit, Excellent Civil Rights, Frightening Economy, and Superb Political Freedoms. 8)
You'd think the recycling and single-hulled tanker resolutions would have hurt my economy...nope

[quote=Appethy]I seriously doubt that the Game Creator ever intended that an international organization created as an after thought would override the self-chosen identities of the individual nation states that the game is named after.

Might I point out that in real life that is exactly what the UN is? The UN has not been around since the beginning of time and goverment. Its only a very recent creation in the timeline of existance, and was set up to be legislative body between those who joined.

So then why can this not be the reality in a fantasy game as well?

I seriously doubt that the Game Creator ever intended that an international organization created as an after thought would override the self-chosen identities of the individual nation states that the game is named after.
Might I point out that in real life that is exactly what the UN is? The UN has not been around since the beginning of time and goverment. Its only a very recent creation in the timeline of existance, and was set up to be legislative body between those who joined.

So then why can this not be the reality in a fantasy game as well?
You may point it out, but your parallel is extremely tenuous: the game was created by one person, the world wasn't.

First, I was addressing those who claim that the character of the NationStates should be what was intended by the person who created the game. Apparently, you are not among them.

Second, the real world UN was not "set up to be legislative body between those who joined". It was set up for specific, limited purposes (primarily concerned with the prevention of another world war) and always recognized the sovereignty of its member nations in all other matters.

I seriously doubt that the Game Creator ever intended that an international organization created as an after thought would override the self-chosen identities of the individual nation states that the game is named after.
Might I point out that in real life that is exactly what the UN is? The UN has not been around since the beginning of time and goverment. Its only a very recent creation in the timeline of existance, and was set up to be legislative body between those who joined.

So then why can this not be the reality in a fantasy game as well?
You may point it out, but your parallel is extremely tenuous: the game was created by one person, the world wasn't.

First, I was addressing those who claim that the character of the NationStates should be what was intended by the person who created the game. Apparently, you are not among them.

Second, the real world UN was not "set up to be legislative body between those who joined". It was set up for specific, limited purposes (primarily concerned with the prevention of another world war) and always recognized the sovereignty of its member nations in all other matters.

[quote=PropLab2]I seriously doubt that the Game Creator ever intended that an international organization created as an after thought would override the self-chosen identities of the individual nation states that the game is named after.
Might I point out that in real life that is exactly what the UN is? The UN has not been around since the beginning of time and goverment. Its only a very recent creation in the timeline of existance, and was set up to be legislative body between those who joined.

So then why can this not be the reality in a fantasy game as well?

You may point it out, but your parallel is extremely tenuous: the game was created by one person, the world wasn't..

OK, first of all no reason to go directly to insulting with the "extremely tenuous" editorial. For that I , can say that your editorial in theory is nothing more then an extreme generalization, that boarder on moralistic condemnation.

Productive debate does not occur using "shut-up" undertones instead of "listen please" in your dialect. We all know our opinions are different, so we all need to get over that and realize that we don't have every truely agree, but at least come to a common respect.

As such, attempting to go back to that: Even though I am total with out and faith or belief, please let me point our the flow in your "created by one person" comment. Trust me, I know the religiously inclined on this bored would cry fowl on that one.

The point there is, mine, yours, and theirs are not the only opinions, and know TRUELY know that any of them are right or wrong. However, each of are entitled to our own opinion, beliefs, and indivividual moral and ethical truths

First, I was addressing those who claim that the character of the NationStates should be what was intended by the person who created the game. Apparently, you are not among them..

To that I agree with you on what you point is. Because from the pre press on the book, as well as the tone of some of the instructions, that this has becom MUCH more then the "creator" ever intended it would. (mental note to religious right- you think may your creator might be experience the same "shock in awe" in a round about way?). But, also it seems to be exactly what he intended, it becoming it own living breathing monstrosity of man kind not so quitely sitting in judgement of each other. :lol:

Second, the real world UN was not "set up to be legislative body between those who joined". It was set up for specific, limited purposes (primarily concerned with the prevention of another world war) and always recognized the sovereignty of its member nations in all other matters.

Yes because actually the UN was first proposed by the US to the allies after WWII as more then a preventative to war (i.e. think states in a Union as an example). The allies agreed with the spirit of the proposal only. The US backed out, the allies created the "prevention" identity mentioned by you. When the US then came back on board they where able to get some of the fundamental "sticking points" they had back.

[quote=PropLab2]I seriously doubt that the Game Creator ever intended that an international organization created as an after thought would override the self-chosen identities of the individual nation states that the game is named after.
Might I point out that in real life that is exactly what the UN is? The UN has not been around since the beginning of time and goverment. Its only a very recent creation in the timeline of existance, and was set up to be legislative body between those who joined.

So then why can this not be the reality in a fantasy game as well?

You may point it out, but your parallel is extremely tenuous: the game was created by one person, the world wasn't..

OK, first of all no reason to go directly to insulting with the "extremely tenuous" editorial. For that I , can say that your editorial in theory is nothing more then an extreme generalization, that boarder on moralistic condemnation.

Productive debate does not occur using "shut-up" undertones instead of "listen please" in your dialect. We all know our opinions are different, so we all need to get over that and realize that we don't have every truely agree, but at least come to a common respect.

As such, attempting to go back to that: Even though I am total with out and faith or belief, please let me point our the flow in your "created by one person" comment. Trust me, I know the religiously inclined on this bored would cry fowl on that one.

The point there is, mine, yours, and theirs are not the only opinions, and know TRUELY know that any of them are right or wrong. However, each of are entitled to our own opinion, beliefs, and indivividual moral and ethical truths

First, I was addressing those who claim that the character of the NationStates should be what was intended by the person who created the game. Apparently, you are not among them..

To that I agree with you on what you point is. Because from the pre press on the book, as well as the tone of some of the instructions, that this has becom MUCH more then the "creator" ever intended it would. (mental note to religious right- you think may your creator might be experience the same "shock in awe" in a round about way?). But, also it seems to be exactly what he intended, it becoming it own living breathing monstrosity of man kind not so quitely sitting in judgement of each other. :lol:

Second, the real world UN was not "set up to be legislative body between those who joined". It was set up for specific, limited purposes (primarily concerned with the prevention of another world war) and always recognized the sovereignty of its member nations in all other matters.

Yes because actually the UN was first proposed by the US to the allies after WWII as more then a preventative to war (i.e. think states in a Union as an example). The allies agreed with the spirit of the proposal only. The US backed out, the allies created the "prevention" identity mentioned by you. When the US then came back on board they where able to get some of the fundamental "sticking points" they had back.