NationStates Jolt Archive

"Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of Esamopia into compliance with the United Nations "Global AIDS Initiative" resolution."

The law may be enacted, but it certainly will NEVER be enforced... we donate one penny to the entire fund!

"Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of Esamopia into compliance with the United Nations "Global AIDS Initiative" resolution."

The law may be enacted, but it certainly will NEVER be enforced... we donate one penny to the entire fund!

Esamopia, you are one rude dude.

I agree with Esamopia.

Of course, no one has any clue what the resolution REALLY does, that's up to the moderators and they aren't telling - but they haven't asked you how much you're going to donate, have they?
The only rational way to deal with the UN is to leave it.

"Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of Esamopia into compliance with the United Nations "Global AIDS Initiative" resolution."

The law may be enacted, but it certainly will NEVER be enforced... we donate one penny to the entire fund!

Dude, you've already been brought into compliance. I'm choosing to donate -$1,000,000,000. I'll use the money to buy funny hats.

that's up to the moderators and they aren't telling

Not so fast. It's easy enough to get a general idea about what each resolution does. For example, the AIDS initiative one was "Social Justice" with "Strong" as the strength. Social Justice covers - or at least it does in my understanding - things like redistribution of income and so on. Given that it's a "Strong" resolution (midway between "Mild" and "Significant"), the effect is for a fair bit of income redistribution to take place - not as much as there might be or as little as there might be, but a noticable amount certainly.
As for what you want to RP about in relation to this, the sky's the limit.

the only rational way to deal with the UN is to leave it
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "rational". If you feel as though you absolutely have to work towards the goals of the political Right (an assumption I'm making, since it tends to be those to the Right of Centre who kick up the biggest stinks about resolutions), then surely you can propose and attempt to pass Resolutions relating to that aim. "Gun Control", "Political Stability", "Moral Decency" - three categories in which the option is certainly there for the more conservative among you to speak your piece.

I agree with Esamopia, but unfortunately it is not up to us to decide how much we donate. My economy fell THREE categories because of this resolution! As for being rude: Well, this is a game, and the rethoric that is used when we recieve proposals is quite naughty anyway, so people really shouldn't be upset. But if the UN continue in this way, I'm going to leave it!

Just as I said, there's no way to tell what the effect of a resolution is going to be. It depends on what the moderators make of it, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its logical consequences at all, as was the case with the AIDS initiative.

The actual effect on income distribution would, of course, be from the poor to the rich - it's the largest corporate subsidy in history, making governments captive customers of monopolies who can charge whatever they like. And it doesn't really distribute any income (back) to the poor, either - the benefit they are receiving, in proportion to the cost of it, is negligible. Only one person out of thousands would receive any benefit.

It's appropriate that this resolution would cause an economic crash, but for opposite reasons than seem to have been considered - the resolution increases income disparities, weakening consumer spending. Are you all supply siders here? Has no one ever peeked into an economics text?

P.S. Please don't imply that I am a rightist or a conservative. That's insulting.

Just as I said, there's no way to tell what the effect of a resolution is going to be. It depends on what the moderators make of it, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its logical consequences at all, as was the case with the AIDS initiative.
It's not a case of what the moderators make of it. It's a case of what the proposal was listed as being. A "social justice" proposal will result in an increase in "social justice", a "moral decency" proposal will make your nation more morally decent, a "gun control" proposal will (depending on whether it's a "tighten" or "relax" one) tighten or relax gun control, a "furtherment of democracy" proposal will...well, you get the general idea.
The only time that the moderators "decide on what the effect of a proposal will be" is if someone proposes something in the wrong category. It might sound utterly bizarre to you, but I've seen proposals listed as "Gun Control: Tighten" with the text saying "Let's give everyone as many guns as they want". Even then, we don't exactly decide on the effect of the proposal, we simply look at it and say "hang on a second, this isn't going to do what people might think it will."

P.S. Please don't imply that I am a rightist or a conservative. That's insulting.
My apologies, consider the statement rescinded. It was made because, in my experience, the nations who object most vehemently to resolutions tend to have rather conservative views. Clearly there are exceptions to every rule.

In other words, the entire text of resolutions is completely irrelevant, as far as game mechanics go; they might as well be left blank, except for category and strength. Oh well, I can see that it would not be practical to do it any differently....

In other words, the entire text of resolutions is completely irrelevant, as far as game mechanics go; they might as well be left blank, except for category and strength. Oh well, I can see that it would not be practical to do it any differently....

I believe he was explaining that they reveiw the text to decide wether it fits that catergory and the the relivant game mechanic changes.

Rational Self Interest - yep, you're pretty much correct. The text of a UN Resolution/Proposal is just about irrelevant. Hence the argument that the "income redistribution" required by the recent AIDS initiative would actually go from the poor to the rich rather than the other way around. It would be a wonderful thing if the game would actually implement the text of the proposal rather than just the category - but obviously the coding required for such a change would be quite a task. Not to mention exactly what would happen where something was poorly expressed or misspelled.

I say "just about irrelevant", because there is a certain amount of relevance attached. Namely, a proposal which has text completely at odds with its intended effect (category) should be killed if I pick it up in time. Classic examples would be the one mentioned earlier about "tightening gun control" by "giving everyone guns" and the rash of "human rights" proposals which deal with "let's all kill <insert particular group, often homosexuals>" which seem to pop up every now and then. You could theoretically (as Reason and Compassion's original FAQ explained) submit a proposal with the text "boogie boogie boogie" and have it passed without causing a major problem to the game.

Rotovia - the only time that "game mechanics changes" come into it is if people propose them. Then the proposal is deleted.