NationStates Jolt Archive

After the much heated "Common Sense Act" here is a proposal that both upholds national sovereignty, and actually gives some back to individual governments:

Description: As many previous and future resolutions have and will cause economic hardships upon member nations, and as many economically restrictive resolutions, such as "Replanting Trees" "Mandatory Recycling" or "Free Education" are inapplicable to many nations, the UN should be limited in its power in such matters.

UN member nations shall no longer be forced to follow any previously passed resolution which forces them to lose excessive revenue at no forseeable gain.

This would include (but not be exclusive to) ending the forced replanting of trees where trees naturally retake the landscape, forced recycling where a nation has excessive quantities of raw materials, and forced "free" education where a child's education is considered the job of parents and community and there are no public schools.

Nations will no longer be forced to do things that are financially draining on the economy and have no practical application which applies for their country.

Please support this fine proposal.

This proposal can't really be taken serious. Mostly because of the rules of N.S.

From the FAQ page.

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.

Therefore this proposal is useless. If you don't like the resolutions that pass try to repeal them. If you can't and still don't like them. You can always resign from the UN.

Fantasan If you would like to see this happen, you'll have to take it to the tech forum and request a change to the game.

Peace,
Stephanie.

This has nothing to do with changing the game. This basically repeals the "mandatory" parts of those past resolutions.

Now you're just being partisan.

oh, give us all a break.

This has nothing to do with changing the game. This basically repeals the "mandatory" parts of those past resolutions.

Now you're just being partisan.

Then it should be worded that way. What you have said is;

UN member nations shall no longer be forced to follow any previously passed resolution which forces them to lose excessive revenue at no forseeable gain.

You should state that you are asking for these resolutions to be repealed. Not saying that the members will no longer be bound by them.

Also for the record I'm not being partisan, however even if I was I'm allowed. I'm not telling you as a mod you can't put it up. I'm telling you as a player it won't fly and it shouldn't. Not all my actions are done as a mod. If I am acting as a mod I will state so.

Peace,
Stephanie.

To back Steph up here we've had quite a few discussions about what the UN is or should be, if you look up at the top there's a big sticky with about 84 pages of discussion in it.

My opinion is that the NS UN is completely different to the real world one, resolutions can be passed that are similar to the ones that the real world would pass, however with out some major system changes (which aren't going to happen) we have to live with what we got. For example, which NS countries would you have on the security council, I'm for the oldest 1%, how about you?

Loads a love

Dev
Today's spokeslamb for Nebbyland

To back Steph up here we've had quite a few discussions about what the UN is or should be, if you look up at the top there's a big sticky with about 84 pages of discussion in it.

My opinion is that the NS UN is completely different to the real world one, resolutions can be passed that are similar to the ones that the real world would pass, however with out some major system changes (which aren't going to happen) we have to live with what we got. For example, which NS countries would you have on the security council, I'm for the oldest 1%, how about you?

Loads a love

Dev
Today's spokeslamb for Nebbyland

I personally think that if we were allowed to create a security council, the people on that security council should be picked the same way mods are picked. For being level-headed and for having the respect of a lot of players. If we were to just put the oldest 1% in, there would be nothing saying that some of those nations would not be nutcases..LOL

However the odds of us being allowed to create a security council is probably very slim. :?

Peace,
Stephanie.

Um, why not have nutcases on the security council? Don't we have them in the real world?

Um, why not have nutcases on the security council? Don't we have them in the real world?

Perhaps, however in NS they would be able to disrupt the process, where as in the real world they are not because of the 5 permitted members that reside over the security council. Unless we have 5 stable nations and people like the real UN and allow rotating members, then I guess it would be ok..I think it's all just a discussion though, I don't think it will come to pass. Just my own personal view.

Peace,
Stephanie.