NationStates Jolt Archive

these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-

*Sighs*

Well i've never joined and i don't intend to but i seen sooo many of these whining post. Just stop it. Its life ok? For them to have passed most people must have liked them!?

Dems the brakes kid. I'm sure the Mods are doing their best. As they always do.

I don't care. I have stopped looking at the development of my countries ages ago. I don't do issues anymore and I never vote on resolutions. I only use the membership for war purposes. But I understand that it is very sloppy to let those faults pass.

Owyes, and that all the far left ones are passed, well, thats normal if enough people vote for them, isn't it. Maybe you should make a resolution that bans far left resolutions. Or you could just stop caring, like I did...

Good luck!

America needs to relize that the rest of the world is much more left, and for good reason. Though, that is not the question.

I heeded the advice of another member. I resigned my original country from the UN and placed a second country there, one which I'm not as concerned about. I've since managed to recover my economy to where I was before the Union resolution passed.

I don't think there's a problem with posting the resolution for a vote. I certainly don't expect everyone to think as I do, or to use proper grammer or spelling. It's a might big world.

The problem is, at least from my view, that many members are not reading the resolutions thoroughly. And if they are, then this UN is truly more socialist than the Disputed Territories of New bruno can stomach.

I think this resolution is a good one. After all, what are you going to do when all the oil runs out, hm? What then?

these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The mods allow "such crap" to be voted on because it's actually a lot more sensible than the millions of "Human Rights" proposals saying that homosexuals should be killed and left-wingers should be rounded up and shot. If the collective will of the Rightist members of the UN managed to get a good proposal up to the vote, it'd be voted on in the same manner as the Leftist ones of recent weeks.

<---- notes Common Sense Act II and the Bill of No Rights

<------------------- Doesn't care about spelling or grammer, more interested in the actual proposal than nit-picking. Have you posted a error free spelling & grammer correct proposal that has achieved enough endorsements to be voted on?

America needs to relize that the rest of the world is much more left, and for good reason. Though, that is not the question.
Has anyone ever realized how immpossible it is to maintain a centralist nation around here, I was aiming for moderatly leftist yet after these U.N. purposals I find myself ranked as one of the most radical leftist nations. I this cannot go on.

<---- notes Common Sense Act II and the Bill of No Rights
They were actually quite well-phrased proposals. Not that here's the place to re-hash the arguments for and against, but they were among the better-written proposals in recent months.

The problem is, at least from my view, that many members are not reading the resolutions thoroughly.

Thank you, our nation wholeheartedly agrees with you.

In the current case the U.N. membership is overwhelmingly supporting a resolution that will do nothing new for the environment, but will damage our economies. Several months ago the U.N. membership approved a resolution for research into Hydrogen powered cars. The current resolution is redundant.
Because of this the current resolution will have NO NEW EFFECT upon the enviroment of the world. What it will effect is our economies. Because of the game design all we are doing is effectively doubling the negative economic impact of the first resolution.

They were actually quite well-phrased proposals. Not that here's the place to re-hash the arguments for and against, but they were among the better-written proposals in recent months.

I think the labor rights proposal was one of the best written ones ever. Obviously. It was so well written that some capitalist nation decided it had to carpet bomb my cities over it. Oh, and then there were the threats of n00ks and other fun things...

<---- notes Common Sense Act II and the Bill of No Rights
They were actually quite well-phrased proposals. Not that here's the place to re-hash the arguments for and against, but they were among the better-written proposals in recent months.

Depends what you mean by better written. Both of those (common sense act in particular) came into harsh critisism for thier wording.

The thing that bothers me the most about the current UN resolution is the obvious lack of forethought, research, or even two iotas of common sense in writing it. Regardless, people are voting for it like it's the best damn proposal they have ever heard. If this is what the UN is about, then I am ashamed to be a member.

Co2 DOES NOT DEPLETE OZONE. IT CREATES MORE OF IT. ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READ THE F***ING TEXT OF THE BILL BEFORE YOU GO WILLY-NILLY VOTING FOR SOMETHING.

But hey, who cares? It screws the capitalists more right?

These proposals sound like they were written by 7 year olds.

These proposals sound like they were written by 7 year olds.

That's what I'm saying.

Has anyone else STUDIED the UN? Taken part in a Model UN? Organized and ran a Model UN conference (aka, being the Secretary General)?

This current crop of resolutions is hurting both the fun and educational value of this game. My nation is being hurt because of stupidity.

They are key words and formats to use in writing resolutions.

There's even an excellent thread on how to do this here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55117)

and there's something called SOVEREIGNTY that most nations want. these past few resolutions have spit in the eye of this principle almost as much as the recent unilateral actions of the U.S. in Iraq (although I do agree with removing Saddam, and other cruel dictators.)

I even like the idea of the Alternative Fuels resolution, and I would've voted for it if it wasn't so poorly written.

There are a lot of other words to use in addition to "Whereas" for your clauses.

Getting your facts right and avoiding typos is good to make sure what you've written is taken seriously, and to get others to go along with it.

And no, I have never submitted a grammatically correct resolution because I have never submitted a resolution, I'm not a Delegate.

-

Resolution 245A Proper Grammar
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Significant Proposed by: Scrotalia
Description: Too long have UN Proposals been filled with improper grammar. One can scarcely move between two pages of proposals without seeing some sort of grammar or spelling error. People need to realize that "your" and "you're" are NOT the same word. People also need to realize that "to" and "too" are also not the same word, and that the "Vaticant" does not exist. Any country that files a proposal with such language shall henceforth be banned from proposals until such time as they understand the English language and can properly convey their ideas.

Votes For: 8597

Votes Against: 6885

Implemented: Sat Feb 15 2003



Resolution Restrictions
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Strong Proposed by: Conservative economics
Description: 1. Whereas, the UN proposal forum is overflowing with pointless and carelessly placed proposals, and 2. Whereas, very few of submitted proposals follow correct parlimentary procedure, and 3. Whereas, there is no current monitoring system for the submissions of proposals, and 4. Whereas, the point of the UN is being ignored and is accomplising very little, 5. BE IT RESOLVED THAT, By this here delegation of the United Nations, that all proposals submitted be subject to monitoring and scrict scrutiny.

Votes For: 11556

Votes Against: 6110

Implemented: Tue Apr 8 2003

-

Something wrong with the Grammar, there is?

-Yoda-

Something wrong with the Grammar, there is?

-Yoda-

Talking like Yoda, hazardous to sanity, it can be.

these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-

You appear quite upset about this. Perhaps resigning from the UN would be the right decision for you.

Stephanie
Game Mod

Steph, you're alive!! LoL.

Co2 DOES NOT DEPLETE OZONE. IT CREATES MORE OF IT. ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READ THE F***ING TEXT OF THE BILL BEFORE YOU GO WILLY-NILLY VOTING FOR SOMETHING.


While it might not deplete the Ozone Layer, excess CO2 builds up and causes the greenhouse effect.

Global Warming is nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer. Whether or not it is put accross well in the proposal, there is still a similar threat. Depletion of ozone layer would lead to crippling cancer, for one thing. More CO2 would cause worldwide flooding, eventually.

Not that I'm saying that this should be voted for.. damage to the economy with so much money being re-routed to (perhaps unwanted) research could be crippling to some.

There are other chemicals in fossil fuels that deplete the ozone layer such as Nitrogen. When CO2 is released from fossil fuels it does not actually build up the ozone layer even though that is what the ozone layer is composed of. There is not a lot of money being shifted to research. Only 1% of PROFITS. If an industry doesn't even make money than its not even going to be affected at all. If you resign from the UN because of ONE mistake in the wording of a text that is inconsequential to the actual implementation of the resolution than you are acting ridiculously.

There are other chemicals in fossil fuels that deplete the ozone layer such as Nitrogen. When CO2 is released from fossil fuels it does not actually build up the ozone layer even though that is what the ozone layer is composed of. There is not a lot of money being shifted to research. Only 1% of PROFITS. If an industry doesn't even make money than its not even going to be affected at all. If you resign from the UN because of ONE mistake in the wording of a text that is inconsequential to the actual implementation of the resolution than you are acting ridiculously.

it's not because of ONE mistake, it's because of a series of poor resolutions not only being voted on, but being passed.

I actually do like the ideas behind this resolution; technological progress. But I voted against it because of how poorly written the final copy was.

-

<---- notes Common Sense Act II and the Bill of No Rights
They were actually quite well-phrased proposals. Not that here's the place to re-hash the arguments for and against, but they were among the better-written proposals in recent months.

Depends what you mean by better written. Both of those (common sense act in particular) came into harsh critisism for thier wording.
What I mean is "as an alternative to LETZ KIL ALL TEH FAGGZ".

The problem with the UN is that it regulates. Right leaning nations tend not to regulate things to death. As long as resolutions are being enacted its a left leaning process unless there are de-regulating proposals put forward. What can right leaning countries do but put forward empty or deregulating proposals or pull out altogether? I undersand that revoking proposals that passed is extremely difficult also. This may explain why overall socialist proposals are quickly passed because that is the predominant and encouraged ideology in the UN.

There needs to be a sovereignty or notwithstanding clause or somethign coz the arrangement isn't suitable to other forms of government.

these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-

so.. the world revolves around you now.. if the un was right wing we'd whine and then you'd whine about us whining.. WHICH I AM DOING RIGHT NOW. if there was a balance then there would be no resolutions

The problem with the UN is that it regulates. Right leaning nations tend not to regulate things to death.

What a ridiculous falsehood. If you map out (real life) countries onto the political compass, almost none of them will be in the libertarian bit of the graph, though the ones that are moderately left-leaning will all be closer to it than the right-wing ones - they are all pretty damn authoritarian. The nations here are pretty much the same. The authoritarian right outnumbers the libertarian right.

Right-wing nations' problem with the UN is that it regulates things that they don't want regulated (business) and not things that they do (homosexuality).

these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The mods allow "such crap" to be voted on because it's actually a lot more sensible than the millions of "Human Rights" proposals saying that homosexuals should be killed and left-wingers should be rounded up and shot. If the collective will of the Rightist members of the UN managed to get a good proposal up to the vote, it'd be voted on in the same manner as the Leftist ones of recent weeks.

I would be more inclined to join the UN if it were more neutral. Whether gay marriages should be allowed or not is up to the country! Same with slaves. We don't wish far-right resolutions to pass, i want neutrality.

Nos.

The other solution is to simply ignore the UN and carry on as usual...

I would be more inclined to join the UN if it were more neutral. Whether gay marriages should be allowed or not is up to the country! Same with slaves. We don't wish far-right resolutions to pass, i want neutrality.
Nos.

I've seen that sort of argument being used quite a lot. How certain things should be up to the individual government, and not the UN.

Well, it would appear that every single issue that could ever possibly be put forward could/should be up to the parent country, and not the UN.

Homoxesuality laws, privitsation, military spending, national parks, abortion, religious rights, welfare spending, education.. I could go on and on. Any issue you can think of, you can argue that it should be dealt with by the country itself, and not the UN.

The only issue that might need the UNs approval would be war. Then again, thats not much use if a non-UN country starts a war with you, and you want to retaliate. You will, regardless of the UNs decision. And, of course, the real UN didn't actually stop the war in Iraq, despite how it voted.

My point is, if you want to be able to make decisions by yourself, then you shouldn't even be in the UN at all. The UN exists (in here, anyway) to make a large group of voluntary nations follow a similar set of rules. If you dislike a rule, you vote against it. Regardless of how you vote, if you are in the UN (and stay in the UN) then you are bound to follow its decisions.

If you don't like the decisions being made, just don't join (or stay, if you already joined). Don't complain that the decisions don't suit your country; you gave up that right when you joined the UN. Their decisions trumps your own.

Everything is up to the parent nation, so long as you aren't in the UN. If you are, then you deal with every proposal passed, whether it benefits you, or not.

Myproblem is that there are so many US players, they are using the UN to Americanise NS.

I left the UN ages ago after learning it was corrupt and evil. I suggest that unless you enjoy having no economy and having all your money stolen by the UN to fund pointless arguments, you stay away from the UN.

Frigben wishes to register a strong disapproval of the recent rash of passing resolutions, which have not adhered to the resolution concerning grammar and spelling. The United Nations exists to ensure global peace, not as a do-it-all organisation so everyone is happy.

I see some creative chemistry being bantered about in this thread and I'd like to set the record staight. Ozone is O3 (while oxegon is O2). It is broken down by Chlorine in the high level ozone layer. This chlorine got there as part of Chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) or Hydrochlouroflurocarbons (HCFC's) that were released into the atmosphere. This is unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels. While ozone may be created in automotive emmisions, this low level ozone will not rise to replace that which is depleted in the high level layer and is in itself harmfull (it does contribute to global warming when at this low level). Discussion of the high level ozone layer when dealing with global warming is a red herring.

I have taken part in the Model UN extensively. Yes, virtually every proposal that gets put forward in this game is absurd. Yes, few people here have any clue how to even begin writing one. However, they are in the democratic majority. Just the way things are.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I have taken part in the Model UN extensively. Yes, virtually every proposal that gets put forward in this game is absurd. Yes, few people here have any clue how to even begin writing one. However, they are in the democratic majority. Just the way things are.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

And furthermore, I'd like to know what Machinen's solution is. Are we going to start swatting down every proposal not properly written by someone with full knowledge of parliamentary procedure? Make it mandadtory that you pass a test about mock UN before you can submit anything? Gee, I thought this was a game...

Furthermore, who is going to do this regulating he demands, is he implying that moderators ought to perform yet another regulatory task?

While we're at it, I think a lot of these nations around here are being run horribly. It's clear that few of these players have ever been career politicians, and the way some nations exist now is apalling. I propose that the mods go through and start deleting any nation that doesn't fit my worldview how a nation ought to be run!

I have taken part in the Model UN extensively. Yes, virtually every proposal that gets put forward in this game is absurd. Yes, few people here have any clue how to even begin writing one. However, they are in the democratic majority. Just the way things are.

Unfortunately, things aren't "like" that in any true political orgnaization. In the UN, for example, proposals that vilate international sovereignity are usually killed in committee. Plus, in the real world, there are repercussions from such actions that delegates actually CONSIDER.

To top it all off, the delegates tend to be veyr knowledgeable about what they propose or vote on, rather than just reading a 2 paragraph "let's ban this" proposals.

Therea re parliamentary procedures that act as blockades for frivolous and poorly-conceived ideas as well.


Here, well, there's just the passing whim of anyone who reads the first four lines of a proposal because there's no repercussion for what happens.

Myproblem is that there are so many US players, they are using the UN to Americanise NS.

OOC: Just out of curiosity, how are U.S. "countries" using the UN to americanize NS? It seems that a majority of resolutions passed are decidedly left-leaning. Given the current political climate in the U.S., one would expect the resolutions to be right-leaning if your argument were true.

/Libertarian midwestern US'er looking for enlightenment

I have taken part in the Model UN extensively. Yes, virtually every proposal that gets put forward in this game is absurd. Yes, few people here have any clue how to even begin writing one. However, they are in the democratic majority. Just the way things are.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

And furthermore, I'd like to know what Machinen's solution is. Are we going to start swatting down every proposal not properly written by someone with full knowledge of parliamentary procedure? Make it mandadtory that you pass a test about mock UN before you can submit anything? Gee, I thought this was a game...

Furthermore, who is going to do this regulating he demands, is he implying that moderators ought to perform yet another regulatory task?

While we're at it, I think a lot of these nations around here are being run horribly. It's clear that few of these players have ever been career politicians, and the way some nations exist now is apalling. I propose that the mods go through and start deleting any nation that doesn't fit my worldview how a nation ought to be run!

Easy.

1. Admins/Mods can delete any resolution they see fit, example, one that tries to change game mechanics. If they see gross fact errors, or rational, they can delete it.

2. Maybe make requirements, as a form, for UN proposals, instead of a blank sheet of paper.

3. Change the percentage required to vote on it.

4. This might be impossible because of game mechanics, but make the IMPORTANT QUESTION tag available for types of resolutions. For example, there'd need to be a 2/3 majority for STRONG resolutions. With this in place, the Labor Unions one would never have passed.

5. Good judgment and use of discretion in deleting proposals that are simply ABSURD (like Labor Unions.)

5.5 Use this discretion realistically. Example: To make sure proposals aren't absurd and out of the focus of the UN.

6. More Admins/Mods; have them take some test on UN know-how. Make them UN-exclusive.

No, the world doesn't revolve around me, but as a UN member I have the right to speak my voice, and right now it's one of complaining.

Not because of political ideology, but a complaint of INCOMPETENCE.

I'd complain just as much if, for example, a resolution were passed requiring all nations to enforce the Code of Hamurabai ("Eye for an Eye") on their criminals.

-

As a UN delegate, I would like to state that at least the Labor Union proposal had a clear purpose. Much more of my time is wasted scrolling through the many stupid and pointless proposals, which have no chance of getting approved by the delegates, than the few stupid resolutions that manage to reach the general assembly.

Postscript: The countless number of proposals aiming to ban nonsensical proposals waste just as much of my time as the garbage they hope to eliminate.

5. Good judgment and use of discretion in deleting proposals that are simply ABSURD (like Labor Unions.)

I would like to point out once again that most of the text of The Rights of Labor Unions is taken from/summarizes two real life International Labour Organization conventions that have been ratified by over 100 countries. And the ILO is a UN agency (its actually the only surviving major bit of the League of Nations). So don't be calling it absurd just because you disagree with it.

Machinen, even with all your requirements my resolution still would have passed. You said you voted against my resolution because "of how poorly written the final copy was" but in my resolution there was only one inconsequential mistake and while it won't win a Pulitzer it is was more than competent.

"#1" is pretty much already in effect.

As a UN delegate, I would like to state that at least the Labor Union proposal had a clear purpose. Much more of my time is wasted scrolling through the many stupid and pointless proposals, which have no chance of getting approved by the delegates, than the few stupid resolutions that manage to reach the general assembly.

Postscript: The countless number of proposals aiming to ban nonsensical proposals waste just as much of my time as the garbage they hope to eliminate.

if those few to restrict nonsensical proposals passed your time wouldn't be so wasted.

and those two other resolutions were still terribly written.

-

Must say I am not happy with some of the past resolutions that got passed,

Especially since the labour union one bollock's'd my economy, is now just "very strong" and the "not happy jan" feeling I got now is signifigantly increased by the fact I helped vote it in, not realising until later my brief overview of it was not thorough enough to see its darker implications.

However, to the person who earlier claimed dissatisfaction about their listing, being a radical leftist, and not a more sensible leftist, well, I can only say that it all seems to hinge on your issue choices, for example, for ages I've been a inoffensive centrist democracy, which I'm happy with, as it reveals my views, just as yours simply does the same. Remember its not you judging what your leanings are, its a pre set list of values hinged once again, on your decisions.

And while some of the resolutions passed have been oh so pie in the sky, for example, I wanted better indusrty and voted against the antio oceanic dumping treaty, dispite my knowing that, and this is one of the big problems, if not the biggest, it would be quashed, and why was it quashed, exactly, BECASUE PEOPLE READ THE TITLE, BROWSE A PARAGRAHP OR TWO, AND VOTE YES. WHY, oh, sorry, why? because it sounds good. People who don't take these resolutions seriously enough vote in ignorance of the meanings behind the prose and doom us all to economic or social folly.

Wake up people, if you don't really get it, then abstain from clicking.

BTW, Grammar and spelling matter not, on the provision that said document is readable, and the faulty fault faults involved do not prevent it from being all it can be, that is, do not stop it from presenting its purpose in a clear cut, easy to understand manner, plus, people should be more concerned about how things are actually writtin and described, in conjunction with what they will do if passed.

Having deposited his two Komok Kredits, A Rep of Komokom.

join http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region

join http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region
You want us to join the region that we're already in? :lol:

Easy.

1. Admins/Mods can delete any resolution they see fit, example, one that tries to change game mechanics. If they see gross fact errors, or rational, they can delete it.

For one thing, as I pointed out earlier, I don't think that the mods want any more work. THey already regulate UN proposals and usually get quite a bit of flack for it. I can't imagine how much flack they'd get if the criteria for deletion of a proosal was higher. Furthermore, you're very much getting into the area of what is and is not subjective. The more that mods have to decide what is and is not factually and logically erroneous, the more people will be complaining later. Resolutions are often made by people who oppose one thing or another. That means they may not believe the same things that others do - including what is and is not fact. As it is now, the idea seems to be that players will regulate what is and is not worth voting on, and it seems to work quite well.

2. Maybe make requirements, as a form, for UN proposals, instead of a blank sheet of paper.

So more encoding work for the game designers...I'm sure they'll love that, and having to draw up those requirements. Again, how will a form stop someone from writing a bad proposal?

3. Change the percentage required to vote on it.

It's already pretty difficult to get a proposal voted on. Look how many die on a daily basis. By this time though, I'm thinking that you have more of a political bone to pick with the proposals that have gotten though...

4. This might be impossible because of game mechanics, but make the IMPORTANT QUESTION tag available for types of resolutions. For example, there'd need to be a 2/3 majority for STRONG resolutions. With this in place, the Labor Unions one would never have passed.

...as evidenced by that statement. That aside, hmm, an important question tag. Do you really think that if you put that there, absolutely everyone wouldn't select it for their proposal? If they took the time to write it up, they probably think it's important.

5. Good judgment and use of discretion in deleting proposals that are simply ABSURD (like Labor Unions.)

5.5 Use this discretion realistically. Example: To make sure proposals aren't absurd and out of the focus of the UN.

Again, all subjective. Your political views are not fact.

6. More Admins/Mods; have them take some test on UN know-how. Make them UN-exclusive.

I think it's hard enough to find fair and intelligent mods without testing them. This is all well and good in your mind, but as for running a free game on a public site using volunteers to staff it, it's pretty unrealistic.

No, the world doesn't revolve around me, but as a UN member I have the right to speak my voice, and right now it's one of complaining.

Not because of political ideology, but a complaint of INCOMPETENCE.


You do have a right to speak your voice and complain. I'm just telling you that your complaint is impractical, biased, and elitist.

what a nice assumption/attack to make, saying my suggestion's politcally biased just because I used a great example, the Labor Unions resolution, one with STRONG effects that was VERY CONTROVERSIAL.

some sorry, lazy excuses.

-

what a nice assumption/attack to make, saying my suggestion's politcally biased just because I used a great example, the Labor Unions resolution, one with STRONG effects that was VERY CONTROVERSIAL.

some sorry, lazy excuses.

-

[quote=Machinen]these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-

yes you shuld leave any one who get's this upset over petty things like grammer and spelling needs to lay off the game for a wile.

Btw I have noted the resilutions don't realy afect my country. the region invations are boring.

my spelling errors are intentional.

[quote=Machinen]these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-

yes you shuld leave any one who get's this upset over petty things like grammer and spelling needs to lay off the game for a wile.

Btw I have noted the resilutions don't realy afect my country. the region invations are boring.

my spelling errors are intentional.

harharhar.

-

what a nice assumption/attack to make, saying my suggestion's politcally biased just because I used a great example, the Labor Unions resolution, one with STRONG effects that was VERY CONTROVERSIAL.

some sorry, lazy excuses.

-

Excuse me, but I'm not the first one here to point out that you pretty obviously have ulterior motives. Gee, where could I have gotten this..."there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately..." By the way, nice grammar there, Captain Hypocrisy. Furthermore, out of my entire response, you focus on that single observation, rather than actually addressing my other points. I think it's pretty clear who's dodging arguments and making excuses. Let me put it in a way more appropriate to the level of respect you deserve - your idea is stupid, and quite frankly, no one cares what you think. After 3 pages of not finding any support for what you propose, one would think that you'd figure that out. Players and mods on this forum who actually know what's going on don't have to make excuses to the likes of you.

what a nice assumption/attack to make, saying my suggestion's politcally biased just because I used a great example, the Labor Unions resolution, one with STRONG effects that was VERY CONTROVERSIAL.

some sorry, lazy excuses.

-

Excuse me, but I'm not the first one here to point out that you pretty obviously have ulterior motives. Gee, where could I have gotten this..."there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately..." By the way, nice grammar there, Captain Hypocrisy. Furthermore, out of my entire response, you focus on that single observation, rather than actually addressing my other points. I think it's pretty clear who's dodging arguments and making excuses. Let me put it in a way more appropriate to the level of respect you deserve - your idea is stupid, and quite frankly, no one cares what you think. After 3 pages of not finding any support for what you propose, one would think that you'd figure that out. Players and mods on this forum who actually know what's going on don't have to make excuses to the likes of you.

uhm, really, what's wrong with the grammar there? and I'm talking about good grammar for UN resolutions, Captain Observant.

I addressed your other points. they were all lazy excuses.

there was plenty of support for what I said. some country called for enforcement of the Grammar Resolution.

I guess by ignoring evidence you think you make a good argument, and convince yourself you've done a good job.

you're not even a UN member...

-

First of all, most people use plural verbs with plural nouns ("there has been...resolutions?") for subject-verb agreement, but hey, since it's you the argument obviously doesn't apply. :roll:

You've found no support the things you propose, and I challenge you to quote someone who proves this to be false. You didn't propose the Grammar Resolution (which actually was reasonable), so don't take credit as if it were your argument. Resolutions do not change game mechanics, which is what you propose. How many people, mods and players alike, have to tell you that it's not going to happen? If you don't like, it, then leave the UN. As several people have already pointed out, we're not going to weep at the loss.

As for my UN status, this is my forum voice, genius. One of my puppets has UN membership now. Oh, and tell me why exactly anyone here needs to make excuses to you? Oh, that's right, you were in model UN! :lol: Most people have just told you to piss off, take the hint.

I use a puppet to infiltrate the UN and make far left wing proposals that make everyone leave.

I use a puppet to infiltrate the UN and make far left wing proposals that make everyone leave.

Puppets are useful things. The question is, are YOU the puppet, or the parent nation?

here's some selected support:

The Dark Pheonix
Envoy


Founded: 09 Nov 2003
Posts: 41

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 11:33 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elladonia wrote:
America needs to relize that the rest of the world is much more left, and for good reason. Though, that is not the question.

Has anyone ever realized how immpossible it is to maintain a centralist nation around here, I was aiming for moderatly leftist yet after these U.N. purposals I find myself ranked as one of the most radical leftist nations. I this cannot go on.


Tisonica
Negotiator


Founded: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 1872

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:12 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enodia wrote:
Goobergunchia wrote:
<---- notes Common Sense Act II and the Bill of No Rights

They were actually quite well-phrased proposals. Not that here's the place to re-hash the arguments for and against, but they were among the better-written proposals in recent months.


Depends what you mean by better written. Both of those (common sense act in particular) came into harsh critisism for thier wording.


Maipupu
Envoy


Founded: 22 Nov 2003
Posts: 40

Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 6:11 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing that bothers me the most about the current UN resolution is the obvious lack of forethought, research, or even two iotas of common sense in writing it. Regardless, people are voting for it like it's the best damn proposal they have ever heard. If this is what the UN is about, then I am ashamed to be a member.

Co2 DOES NOT DEPLETE OZONE. IT CREATES MORE OF IT. ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READ THE F***ING TEXT OF THE BILL BEFORE YOU GO WILLY-NILLY VOTING FOR SOMETHING.

But hey, who cares? It screws the capitalists more right?

These proposals sound like they were written by 7 year olds.


Frigben
Ambassador


Founded: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 196

Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:56 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frigben wishes to register a strong disapproval of the recent rash of passing resolutions, which have not adhered to the resolution concerning grammar and spelling. The United Nations exists to ensure global peace, not as a do-it-all organisation so everyone is happy.

-

and I'm not taking credit for the Grammar Resolution, merely pointing out its existence and requesting it be enforced. you're the one who mistakenly thinks I'm taking credit for it.

and it's not a GAME MECHANIC change I'm necessarily suggesting, or expecting to happen (at this moment.) I listed several suggestions, some of which were mechanical in nature, others which weren't. I don't see how having more, or better, admins and mods is a game mechanic that can't be changed...I'm sure the people are out there, and being on a volunteer basis, would do it. I for one would be willing to contribute some time when available to this because I think the educational benefit would be a very good thing.

and I just wasn't in Model UN, I helped ORGANIZE and RUN Model UN. your selective comprehension is no excuse for personal attacks.

-

these absurd, unrealistic resolutions HAVE GOT TO STOP!!!

there's been so many far-left, quack resolutions lately, THAT HAVE PASSED...

such poorly written resolutions sicken and disgust me.

anyone else notice all of the typos in the current one? "PROVED" instead of "PROVIDE" anyone?

it's disgusting to see the moderators allowing such crap to even be allowed to be voted on.

Preparing to resign from the UN,

-

I just hope that the Hippos don't hear about this. They wouldn't like it, and I think we all know how unpleasant that can be.

and I'm not taking credit for the Grammar Resolution, merely pointing out its existence and requesting it be enforced. you're the one who mistakenly thinks I'm taking credit for it.

and it's not a GAME MECHANIC change I'm necessarily suggesting, or expecting to happen (at this moment.) I listed several suggestions, some of which were mechanical in nature, others which weren't. I don't see how having more, or better, admins and mods is a game mechanic that can't be changed...I'm sure the people are out there, and being on a volunteer basis, would do it. I for one would be willing to contribute some time when available to this because I think the educational benefit would be a very good thing.

Those people support a change, not your ideas. Half of them are just complaining about the leftist nature of the UN, as you were (which is not covered by your suggestions). There is a very distinct difference.

You have no idea how this game runs, and your suggestions show it. For example, the mods are volunteers, and you suggest testing them?! This is a free game! It's not going to happen, nor are any new programming features. Head to the NS2 forum if you want to complain, cause it was long ago estalished that such things will not happen to NS(1).

and I just wasn't in Model UN, I helped ORGANIZE and RUN Model UN. your selective comprehension is no excuse for personal attacks.
-

Oh, well let me begin setting up a shrine! Would you like a round or square altar? Candles? Obviously you haven't comprehended that no one else here gives two sh-ts. :lol:

Except maybe the hippos...they hold a grudge.

I was never in Model UN but I was in model congress.

Bow before my POWER and GLORY!

I use a puppet to infiltrate the UN and make far left wing proposals that make everyone leave.

Puppets are useful things. The question is, are YOU the puppet, or the parent nation?

The parent -- in a sense. I got a puppet larger than me, and a couple more about as large incase I get nuked.

I use a puppet to infiltrate the UN and make far left wing proposals that make everyone leave.

Puppets are useful things. The question is, are YOU the puppet, or the parent nation?

The parent -- in a sense. I got a puppet larger than me, and a couple more about as large incase I get nuked.

I have puppets for many purposes. This is my flagship nation, though.

I was never in Model UN but I was in model congress.

Bow before by POWER and GLORY!

Do you mean NFL Student Congress by any chance?

I said they were suggestions. I suggested to "test" the UN mods. I realize they're volunteers, I even wrote about that.

but your selective reading comprehension prevents you from making any sensical response other than some form of a personal attack. if you had a proper basis for such an attack, that'd be acceptable, but in this case, it's just sad.

I want that altar in an octagon inlaid with squares, please.

-

Edit: *Shakes head* Alright, Machinen, if you think you've made such a stellar case and have rallied support, let's just see how quickly people snap to implementing your ideas. How about you hold your breath until it happens? :lol:

Til then, I'm done with your childish insults and ridiculous self-importance.

The mods allow "such crap" to be voted on because it's actually a lot more sensible than the millions of "Human Rights" proposals saying that homosexuals should be killed and left-wingers should be rounded up and shot. If the collective will of the Rightist members of the UN managed to get a good proposal up to the vote, it'd be voted on in the same manner as the Leftist ones of recent weeks.

Unless the proposal was in any way humorous, because then it would have to be deleted to protect the players from themselves, right?

Yes, virtually every proposal that gets put forward in this game is absurd. Yes, few people here have any clue how to even begin writing one. However, they are in the democratic majority. Just the way things are.

But if the democratic majority prefers a spoonful of sugar with their medicine, you'll be right there to put a stop to it, right?

Because if anyone is having any fun, I want you to nip it in the bud. We can't have that kind of thing around here. Imagine the consequences of players enjoying themselves...dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!!!

*Sighs*

Well i've never joined and i don't intend to but i seen sooo many of these whining post. Just stop it. Its life ok? For them to have passed most people must have liked them!?

WRONG!!!!!! MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN VOTE ON THEM!!!

The Sad state of affairs is that most of the member nation states are either "kids" or puppet states of Non UN members that are "having a little fun" with the UN.

There needs to be a Rule Change that will allow the passage of those Resolutions that garner a Simple MAjority of ALL UN Members, not just of those that bothered to vote.

If the UN is going to demand that all nations MUST adhere to the Resolutions passed by the UN then IT SHOULD DEMAND that ALL Member Nations VOTE ON EVERY RESOLUTION!!!!!!!

*Sighs*

Well i've never joined and i don't intend to but i seen sooo many of these whining post. Just stop it. Its life ok? For them to have passed most people must have liked them!?

WRONG!!!!!! MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN VOTE ON THEM!!!

The Sad state of affairs is that most of the member nation states are either "kids" or puppet states of Non UN members that are "having a little fun" with the UN.

There needs to be a Rule Change that will allow the passage of those Resolutions that garner a Simple MAjority of ALL UN Members, not just of those that bothered to vote.

If the UN is going to demand that all nations MUST adhere to the Resolutions passed by the UN then IT SHOULD DEMAND that ALL Member Nations VOTE ON EVERY RESOLUTION!!!!!!!

This is a rediculous position for a number of reasons.

1) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that those voting are a representative sample of the entire population.

2) As anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of parlimentary procedure can tell you, abstentions are always assumed to be in agreement with the majority of those voting. The act of abstaining says very clearly, "I don't care very much one way or the other, what you guys decide is fine with me."

3) If this were the case in real life, no one would ever be elected to [i]anything[i/]. Look at the United States for example. If 60% of the population is registered to vote (and I bet that's generous) , 50% of them actually go to the polls and 60% of those support the winning candidate, even the most popular US president would have the voted of less than 20% of the people. It's simply not realistic to do what you suggest.

I agree with what Feynland says.

The sad thing about always being in the minority is that you get used to never getting your way.

Short of Armed Revolution, there really isn't much you can do about it...

I agree with Feynland. some abstain, some just aren't present to vote for whatever reason.

-

Most of these resolutions are just naturally stupid. Too many people are writing these as a fantasy of what people want for a real life world. Idiotic proposals like the "Alternate Fuel" are rediculous! Of course im saying this in my own opinion, but, i really feel as though in the real world, we have the power to create alternate fuels, but the fact is that oil is such a huge part of economics that there are no countries that would want to give up such an economic powerhouse.

Of course, too many non-caring delegates and so excited to make a pretend peaceful world that they aren't thinking about how an actual country population would be harmed by such resolutions and proposals.

Ban on landmines? PATHETIC. Why on Earth would you want to weaken the UN military, and strengthen non-UN nations? It just doesn't add up!

And now this new resolution that is at the vote, the one discussing harm to witnesses, came off more like a random e-mail than a resolution. "Hey, just wanted to know if you guys wanted to pass this resolution, thanks a lot, i hope you do! bye". Now, that's not a quote from it obviously, lol, but it might as well be. I would love to see the Declaration of Independence written "Hey, like, i think we should so totally be our own country. Wouldn't that be super cool and fun? TTYL!!!"

Do you mean NFL Student Congress by any chance?

I have no idea. It was a long time ago back in High School and I haven't thought about it in years.

I would have legalized prositiution if it weren't for the uptight yahoos in the House of Representatives, though.

My, my, my. Lot's of people with sketchy knowledge of how the world works.

First: political climate aside, Americanizing the UN might be a good idea (albeit one that will never happen). American governmnent being the premere Federalist State in the world. As a world government, the NSUN is incredibly statist. It's a unitary system. What the majority of voters say is the law of the land. If we were all gun-toting facists or all ultra-left-wing communists, this wouldn't be bad. However, we are not a homogenous group. As such (reference the creation of the United States) a federal model would work better. Restrict the UN to a list of powers, say the enumerated powers in Article I section 18-19. International commerce, defence, maybe an International currency, setting up International courts, proscribing the way judges will be selected and approved, you get the idea. The other things: national armies, homosexual marriage, using landmines, et cetera, are the choice of the member states (which are homogenous and therefore the unitary system works). After four score and seven years, and then maybe an additional century, when everyone trusts everyone else, we can try to Internationalize a Bill of Rights, but at the moment the UN is far too provincial (like minded nations running over the opposition, my way or the hiway style) to be an effective government. This assumes you WANT and world government. With so little charter for the NSUN it really ought to be limited to a debate society. Why would anyone join an organization with no protections for the members?

Second: parliamentary procedure has lots of little ins and outs that make the system work and protect the minority parties. Someone mentioned that abstentions are a "I don't really care" statement and go with the majority. At least in the US House of Representatives (I have no experience with the Senate) this is not the case. Abstention simply means "I have no official stance." In many votes (roll call in particular) you must have 216 yes votes to pass. 215 yes votes, 1 abstention, and 214 no votes is a not passed bill. However, a voice vote of the same number (if you could tell from the chorus of ayes and neighs without pulling a roll call) would pass. It is in the case of such a tight voice vote that a roll call would be asked and granted. Then there is "unanimous consent" by which three congressmen and the Speaker of the House could do anything they wanted. It never happens because the minority party will suggest the absence of a quorem and request the Sergeant of Arms roust the members for a voice vote. None of these safeguards exists in NS, either officially or otherwise.

Third: another protection that doesn't exist, the motion to ammend the rules. Reference the Declaration of Independence. If a minority party feels particularly threatened it can try to ammend the rules for a vote. Requiring the vote to be unanimous or 2/3. This vote only requires a simple majority (215, 214, and one abstention passes). The Republicans in the Senate are considering this motion to break Democratic filibusters.

Finally: Will people please read enough American Politics to know that the popular vote in Presidential election means next to nothing? 48 states and the Distric of Columbia have laws requiring their electors to follow the popular vote of their STATES. But that only means that in 48 states if you carry 51% of the vote you get all the electors just as well as if you carried 100% of the vote. Federalism in action. Absent 17th amendment the President is picked by the Electors who are picked by the state legislatures which are picked by the people. The Senators are picked by the state legislatures which are picked by the people. The Representatives are picked by people. Everyone's interests are included. Sound like a good model for the UN?

First Citizen Matt
St. George's Isles