NationStates Jolt Archive

First, this isn't just another EFA-bashing thread, but the discussion over this proposal has lead me to ask, "Is the UN useless?" Ever since EFA reached quorum there were people outraged by its wording. As it finally reached the voting stage, many more people joined the fight against it. There was little to no support for it in the forums until the voting looked to be going against it becoming a resolution.

The main problem with EFA is its wording. Those who are against EFA interpret it as a proposal that would ban the consuming of meat and other foods, as well as bathing, medicine, capital punishment, abortion, and possibly some other stuff I can't recall. The secondary problem is that it goes against a past resolution for propper grammar. While this second problem may seem silly or part of a hollow attempt to defeat EFA on a technicality, it's a useful point for this thread. Anyway, once more people started voicing their support for EFA in the forum, their main argument has been that those against EFA were misinterpreting the wording. They have also argued that even if those against EFA are right, they should vote for EFA anyway because once it becomes a resolution it has no efffect other than the changing of stats.

This is why I'm asking if the UN is useless. If I am to believe these people, all our resolutions are worthless. The words mean nothing, the debates mean nothing, and the voting means nothing, save, of course, for the effect it will have on nations' stats. Take, for example, this resolution that was passed a while back:

Elimination of Bio Weapons

A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Significant Proposed by: Lovinia
Description: Biological weapons, if used during warfare or covertly, represent an enormous risk to the well-being of not just the target of said weapons, but potentially everyone on the planet. It is therefore imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons.

Am I to take it, then, that no biological weapons were ever actually destroyed? The resolution was passed, the stats were modified, but that was it? If I wanted, I could throw around some bio-engineered weapons and when somebody says, "Hey, you can't do that, the UN passed laws against those kind of weapons," I could reply with "So? Those resolutions don't compel action or instate punishment for my non-compliance. All that resolution did was change a couple statistics those boys in the home offices like to keep. Yup, instead of being #35 in ____ I'm #34 now. I'm moving up in the world and I still have my bio-engineered weapons to keep me company."

Just to be clear, this is about the NS UN, right?

And if it is, the UN is kinda useless in the aspect that none of the resolutions changes anything but at the same time it does add more depth to the game and encourages political debates (wheter this is a good or a bad thing is hard to tell).

The UN is like the nation you run, it doesnt change the world but its fun and it might broaden your perspectiv. (Mr. Bush, you should play this game instead, less collateral damage :P )

In actual fact the wording IS very important. After all, this is a roleplay. Therefore, when we roleplay things like wars, we have to play on the wording of a proposal, rather than obscure stat changes. In other words, if there is a resolution banning biological weapons, all UN members who roleplay warfare have to pretend biological weapons are outlawed. Otherwise we open a large plothole.

Think of the UN as a big overarching story, with hundreds of little stories being played around it. The little stories have to be written in accordance with what happens in the big story, otherwise there are inconsistencies, mistakes, contradictions, and ultimately not as good a story. That's why delegates throw fits, lobby against proposals, and argue based on the wording, because it's all part of the story.

And now you know the rest of the story. :D

Is this about NS-UN or the real one? :?:

the UN is full of it

While the NS-UN's resolutions only modify the stats (they have no other overreaching effects), the fact is that we are role-playing (as Glorious Humanity has already stated). As such, wording matters, and matters tremendously.

The entire benefit to being in the UN is the aspect of roleplay. Without it, there really is no point to being in the UN (other than having a near icon in your national profile). We argue against or for resolutions based on what we feel is a logical, or moral, or reasonable, or correct course of action on RW problems.

That is the reason why absurd resolutions like the "World Heritage List" are so damaging. Basically, every nation in the UN is compelled to pretend that the resolution doesn't exist, if they want to continue participating in the game; this compromises the internal consistency that is instrumental to role playing. Stupid resolutions make the game look silly, not only in real terms but on its own terms.

In the current debate over the resolution I have campaigned on this very idea but was drug down on pointless details of technical solutions and moderation from people who had not read my arguement.

In essence what I had called for is this: That the member states have it within themselves to give the UN some relevency. If we can campagn the member states to take into regard the text of the proposals in the light of the proposals that have already been passed then we could usher in a new age of relevance for the UN.

If too many of the nations simply vote based on the title of the proposal or the benifits it will give their stats then the UN, as I have said, is nothing more than a body that puts cherries in a cherry jar. But if we consider the text, and the text of the resolutions that have already passed, then we have a real politic.

You do not have to RP war in the threads to enjoy the benefits of this agency. The current proposal retread ground, poorly, and while it is a technicallity, violated an early proposal. The only way that this or any other proposal has any meaning is if we give regard to the resolutions that have passed and consider them when we vote on new ones. As more and more resolutions are passed we have a standard of practice and a body of law and precident that we can argue on and hope to shape. This is the RPing that I wish to do, this is the world politics I had hoped to play.

What is happening is a revolution. For the first time I've seen there is a real chance that a proposal will lose based on it's wording. While I have not been the biggest fan of the "But what about the plants" arguement, there is no denying that the activists of that movement fully engaged politics and grass-roots campaigning to get the voting members of the UN to consider the text of what they were voting on and not just the catagory. For that, they deserve a medal.

But we cannot rest, now we have sent the message to the proposal writters that the text does indeed matter to the most imortant people: The Voters. We cannot rely on mechinisms to effect things, this doesn't happen in the real world, why should it here? It is the UN members who must enforce the UN with their vote. If a proposal is a retread-Vote it down! If a proposal is a violation of earlier proposals-Vote it down! If a proposal is poorly worded-Vote it down! If the proposal is pointlessly utopian and has no real meaning-Vote it down!

Simarly, if you want a standard imposed-Make a proposal and campaign it. Campaign a standard that already exists. We don't have to be trapped by the apathy of the past UN, we can make a new UN, a UN that recognizes itself! We can make the UN relevant with our voting power!

Take back the UN!

Do you not think, Vid, that you are slightly missing the point? Of course the UN is 'worthless', in fact so is the whole game if you want to think about it will acheive. The point is not the destination, but to enjoy the journey.

Do you not think, Vid, that you are slightly missing the point? Of course the UN is 'worthless', in fact so is the whole game if you want to think about it will acheive. The point is not the destination, but to enjoy the journey.
You missed his point, and since I spent the better part of last night being poked by it, I'll try.

You led a campaign against the proposal based on it's wording. I did, too, but it was based on a linear president in the UN's past resolutions in an attempt to make those resolutions relevant. The counter arguements that came were, in essence and in some cases directly, that the wording doesn't matter-only the catagory and strength. What the author of this thread, and I, are concerned with is that very notion. If I cannot campaign against a resolution on presedent because the text "doesn't matter" then the UN really does have no value. He is not calling for world change or technical change. He is asking if we as member states are taking into account what we are voting for and recognizing it or are we just collecting cookies so we score better on daily lists.

The revolution you are part of can change this. But I believe all too well the author here gets the point.

My mistake.

My mistake.

The UN is not useless!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "You say 'heavy deposit
of fat on the thighs and butt' as
though it were a bad thing."

The NS-UN has proved itself powerless because of the last resolution (The World Heritage List, if any of you forgot) because some did declair all of the UN nations but thier own a Heritage site. The NS-UN has no power, and infact i think needs a revamping, almost a restart, the things that people want to go through do cause upsets. So far no one has listen to the things, and how would anyone expect the Equality for All to work out, it would just be ignored. So far i have not seen any power from the UN.

The UN is for RP value. That's what these forums are for in the first place. If you get into a war in the international incidents board and the other guy wipes you off the face of the planet, he doesn't actually.

Besides, debating is fun :)

But "Cannot think of a name" does have a point. If he is not allowed to argue against a current resolution based on a previously passed one, then the RP value of the UN diminishes greatly. If that resolution really did break the rules and suggests game play mechanics change (that of which is not supposed to exist) then get rid of it. If it never should have passed and did, then why is it still sitting there! Moderators are the gods of NS. They shouldn't abuse their power, but if they really wanted to, I'm sure a resolution can be deleted. [Note that I am not condoning a wanton deleting of resolutions.]

Rad Kom
UN AMbassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

I agree with you Baron Porkonia.

I like debating about these resolutions but when one passes that one doesn't agree with it of course makes others disagree, but the current resolution up that is stupid i have to say, and would have to be recalled if it went into act by people, because the wording makes it so people would have to to go hungry, altho as of right now it seems that it will not.

The game moderators shouldn't go deleting the resolutions, i think that it should be fixed by the people RP in this game.