NationStates Jolt Archive

We the People's Republic Of Amyth have noticed the excessive number of non-NSun nations browsing through this forum causing dissent. These non-member nations have no right to be here corrupting the innocent morals of most NSun members. Therefore we the PROA would like to propose a resolution that all non-member nations be banned from speaking to the NSun general assembly.

We thank you all...

That's just silly. Any one is welcome to voice an opinion, UN member or not.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Maybe they are curious and considering joining the UN, ja?

We don't think the idea is silly at all. Membership in any organization brings with it certian rights. If a nation state chooses not to join the UN, then they should not have the right to discuss issues facing the UN. Furthermore, their agendas are unknown, they're paying no UN dues, and (though this should go without saying) they are not, by choice, members. Does any other organization allow people off the street to stroll in and influence whatever debate is raging at the time? No, and for good reason. They could be insane. They could be sworn enemies. At best they waste the members' time, at worst they influence policy. And from a pragmatic sense, if you do not need membership to enter the fray, where's the incentive to join? If you're tired of the lame conversation in your regional forum, or if you're sick of the insipid UN resolutions that are continuously passed by large majorities, then join the UN and get involved. Otherwise you're just a joy rider with no skin in the game.

Anyone who refuses to join the UN yet wants an equal voice in making policy is simply dabbling. And as for free speach, all that concept does is allow you to march outside our meeting space and shout rhyming slogans at the building. It doesn't give you the right to enter the private space of an established organization and drown out the conversation with a blowhorn (or, in this case, a blowhard).

Idumeans Know They're Cool 8)

We don't think the idea is silly at all. Membership in any organization brings with it certian rights. If a nation state chooses not to join the UN, then they should not have the right to discuss issues facing the UN.

The last UN resolution to reach the floor had opposition because some felt that it did not have power outside the UN...

I think that concerns them.

The last UN resolution to reach the floor had opposition because some felt that it did not have power outside the UN...

I think that concerns them.

Sure it concerns them. Many organizations do things that concern others - that doesn't open their doors to all non-members, though. The real-life UN has membership standards - i.e. membership is a privilege. This is the case everywhere you look - if you want to influence an outcome, you have to put yourself on the line somehow, be it by becoming a member or joining with others in protest of the group you're not a member of. However, the group being protested is under no obligation to give you equal floor time.

Besides, UN resolutions do not, by definition, have any power outside of the UN member states. Each resolution is binding only by choice; put another way, each resolution is binding only to nations who have chosen UN membership. Requiring membership for participation makes the reach of UN resolutions that much longer, and that much more effective.

8)

Ok, so let's say we decided that non UN members shouldn't have a say in this forum, how do you expect to enforce it? Cause if you think I'm checking every post to make sure the person is in fact a UN member.. well all I can say to that is :lol:

Stephanie
Forum Mod.

Ok, so let's say we decided that non UN members shouldn't have a say in this forum, how do you expect to enforce it? Cause if you think I'm checking every post to make sure the person is in fact a UN member.. well all I can say to that is :lol:

Stephanie
Forum Mod.

A solid pragmatic point. We could all adopt a resolution to ignore non-members. That could be fun.

8)

UN resolutions do not, by definition, have any power outside of the UN member states.

Or even WITHIN if you have enough power like America.

Ok, so let's say we decided that non UN members shouldn't have a say in this forum, how do you expect to enforce it? Cause if you think I'm checking every post to make sure the person is in fact a UN member.. well all I can say to that is :lol:

Stephanie
Forum Mod.

A solid pragmatic point. We could all adopt a resolution to ignore non-members. That could be fun.

8)

Sure feel free to make any proposal you like.. debate it all you want.. but I think that if you did start to ignore people based on the fact that they are not UN members, then a new problem would arise.. I could see a lot of flaming happening. It might be a lose-lose situation. *shrug*

Peace,
Stephanie.

Well, the forum index says:

A forum FOR UN MEMBERS to debate proposals and resolutions.
Which, in theory, would say that only UN members would be here. Although, I personally think the input of the people who resign every week so that the resolutions don't affect them when they get passed is important. Resisting the system is everyone's right, so who are we to steal their right to speak their mind? It is not as if we could actually notice their resignation and see that as a statement. Maybe if there was 1/100th of the UN nations we have. And Newbies should also browse for a while, and then ask questions before they become UN members. Most importantly, however, is that Stephanie has better things to do!

Well, the forum index says:

A forum FOR UN MEMBERS to debate proposals and resolutions.
Which, in theory, would say that only UN members would be here. Although, I personally think the input of the people who resign every week so that the resolutions don't affect them when they get passed is important. Resisting the system is everyone's right, so who are we to steal their right to speak their mind? It is not as if we could actually notice their resignation and see that as a statement. Maybe if there was 1/100th of the UN nations we have. And Newbies should also browse for a while, and then ask questions before they become UN members. Most importantly, however, is that Stephanie has better things to do!

I agree.. and more over I don't believe it's right to stop freedom of speech on this. You don't have to belong to a body to protest it. People in RL protest things that don't directly affect them all the time. They are still unable to be part of the process or decision making in the UN if they're not a UN member. So, I don't personally see the real harm in letting them voice their views here where it really makes no difference in the process, other then they might change some one's mind.

I see it as no different then a lobbyist. People who live in the US and other free countries that let's say don't have land mines.. lobby politicians all the time to make policy about these type of subjects.

Let's just look at them like lobbyists instead of intruders. :idea:

Peace,
Stephanie.

We could also look at them as "observer states." In the Real UN, some organizations, like the PLO, are allowed to be present and speak at the General Assembly without being allowed to cast votes. So let us just say that the NS UN allows any state that wishes to do so to become an observer. Perhaps to encourage more states to become full members, as someone has already mentioned.

All in all, however, our government would prefer it if this forum were closed to non-UN members. We feel the pros of having non-members speak here are outweighed by the cons, and we fully agree with several points raised to that effect so far. Membership has its priveleges.

However, since there appears to be no way to enforce a rule stating that only UN members may post here, and just ignoring non-UN members is... well... silly, we will simply view non-UN members as observer states.

We could also look at them as "observer states." In the Real UN, some organizations, like the PLO, are allowed to be present and speak at the General Assembly without being allowed to cast votes. So let us just say that the NS UN allows any state that wishes to do so to become an observer. Perhaps to encourage more states to become full members, as someone has already mentioned.

All in all, however, our government would prefer it if this forum were closed to non-UN members. We feel the pros of having non-members speak here are outweighed by the cons, and we fully agree with several points raised to that effect so far. Membership has its priveleges.

However, since there appears to be no way to enforce a rule stating that only UN members may post here, and just ignoring non-UN members is... well... silly, we will simply view non-UN members as observer states.

I think this is a very mature and thoughtful compromise. Well said The Planetian Empire :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

... since there appears to be no way to enforce a rule stating that only UN members may post here, and just ignoring non-UN members is... well... silly, we will simply view non-UN members as observer states.

Yes, PE, well said indeed. BTW, ignoring non-members was not meant to be taken seriously as a solution. Should have used a laughter icon, I guess.

The People's Republic Of Amyth's Minitsry of Extrantional Affairs would like to clear the floor for a statement by our glorious leader, the right honourable Prime Minister.

"In my country when a farmer tries to grow the best crop he can he takes the time to pull the weeds of dissent from the fields of unity. This allows the grains to grow without being hampered by the detrimental influence of these nation-weeds which take vital nutrients and space from the proper crops. In many ways these non-un member states are doin gthe same thing. By allowing them to run amok throughout the NSun forum they are causing dissent and harming the ideals of unity, all the while they are not contributing anything productive to the unity of the international community. These rogue nations must be weeded out before, through the use of silly, unenforceable resolutions they cause the eventual breakdown and dissolution of this most worthy organisation."

We at the PROA freely admit that we haven't yet come up with a plan to bar these weed-nations from growing within the feilds of the NSun, however, like our farmers, that is no reason not to try.

We thank you all for your insightful deabte...

So the UN is the weeds and freedom is the crop?

... These rogue nations must be weeded out before, through the use of silly, unenforceable resolutions they cause the eventual breakdown and dissolution of this most worthy organisation...

But how would observer states propose resolutions? The only way that could happen is if they asked a member state to submit a proposal they wrote. If the member state does so, then the proposal clearly has some support in the UN, and should be considered regardless of its ultimate origins.

Arrrrrr... barbarian heathians! Non-UN members have no say in the UN! In case they have money. My votes are for sale.

We could also look at them as "observer states." In the Real UN, some organizations, like the PLO, are allowed to be present and speak at the General Assembly without being allowed to cast votes. So let us just say that the NS UN allows any state that wishes to do so to become an observer. Perhaps to encourage more states to become full members, as someone has already mentioned.

All in all, however, our government would prefer it if this forum were closed to non-UN members. We feel the pros of having non-members speak here are outweighed by the cons, and we fully agree with several points raised to that effect so far. Membership has its priveleges.

However, since there appears to be no way to enforce a rule stating that only UN members may post here, and just ignoring non-UN members is... well... silly, we will simply view non-UN members as observer states.

I think this is a very mature and thoughtful compromise. Well said The Planetian Empire :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

That is a very good idea since there are a couple of observer states in the real UN so why not have some here :?:

this is a forumn for un members to debate. observers observe, they do not speak. i see no problem with anyone being able to see what is said in the un forumn, but to let them have a voice here is ridiculous.

this is a very simple matter to fix and would make the forumn run much more smoothly. all that would have to be done is for you to have to register to post like a lot of other bulletin boards on the net. non un member states could then read the notes of what we were debating get an idea of what the un is about and register(join the un) if they want to have a voice here.

we could even have a forumn for the lobbyists to lobby un members. again lobbyists are not allowed on the floor when an issue is being debated. lobbyists are lobbyists because they stay in the lobby. lets keep them there. according to the description of the forumn this is how it was meant to be, why don't the mods keep it that way. it would be a fairly simple matter.

I would agree except I have to say that I did take a look-see before deciding on joining the U.N. or not. So perhaps it is good to leave the door open for others to learn what it is all about before making their decisions.

I would agree except I have to say that I did take a look-see before deciding on joining the U.N. or not. So perhaps it is good to leave the door open for others to learn what it is all about before making their decisions.


Hmmm... LOOK-SEE. Look, as in using the eyes, to see. No one cares about who browses the forum. That is very different from adding endless posts about issues a non-UN nation would have no business discussing. Not to mention the countless posts which have nothing to do with UN issues. Now that I think about it, perhaps restricting posts to UN members would be even better than I thought. No more threads asking "how do I join the UN" or threads about war that belong in the NS forum. These things bother me way more than somebody chiming in on the occasional discussion.

candellife they would be able to look and read what was being said, they just wouldn't be able to post without joining. in other words to have a voice in this forumn they would have to be members. this is how it should be. companies don't let non stockholders speak at the stockholders meeting. non member nations have no stock in the un and therefor should have no voice here.

guess they weren't looking for a real and easy to do fix. just wanted to say it's impossible when in fact its easy.

guess they weren't looking for a real and easy to do fix. just wanted to say it's impossible when in fact its easy.

We hope that this is not in reference to the PROA. We at the PROA have no real, or imaginary powers in the NSun as we are not, nor will we likely ever be a member.

guess they weren't looking for a real and easy to do fix. just wanted to say it's impossible when in fact its easy.

We hope that this is not in reference to the PROA. We at the PROA have no real, or imaginary powers in the NSun as we are not, nor will we likely ever be a member.

no it was in reference to the fact the mods wanted to act like it couldn't be done without a great deal of work, and when told exactly how to do it so that it wouldn't require much work at all they just ignored it.

In reading your replies I can see your point, especially after taking more of a look around the forum. Perhaps it would be best to make it so anyone can view, but only U.N.members post. Also this could get more nations interested in joining the U.N. at the same time.