NationStates Jolt Archive

Since joining the UN, the Confederacy of No Stinking Taxes has been amazed (maybe "appalled" is a better word) at what seems to be a general willingness of many nations to vote FOR a resolution that they sort of agree with, even if the proposal contains errors, blatant mistruths, flawed logic, or dangerous misrepresentations.

In discussing these issues on the board, we've been even more amazed that some nations come right out and say "So what if it's wrong? I agree with what it's trying to do!"

We were assuming that nations just cast a FOR vote for a resolution if it sounded good on a cursory reading, and didn't take the time to study the wording. Now it sounds like many nations don't care about the details of a resolution at all. Is this true?

I've voted against the last 10 or so because I didn't like small parts of those proposals.

I found them to be lacking. A lot of people said it's not a problem and we can just amend it. That doesn't work at all. If it would skip the delegate voting process and go to the floor, then it would be more meaningful.

the 'devil' is always in the details, even of this questin,
to which a simple yes or no will not suffice!

neither intent nor details are an automatic intuitive indicater of consiquences. and it is probable consiquences that need to be weighed.

it is the mandate of emotional attatchments to arebitrary assumptions that has the mundane world in the messed up and unstable condition in which it is.

to answer this poll with either a yes or a no would be in a sense tantimount to answering it with a yes

i should think this would be obvious to anyone of average intelligence

=^^=
.../\...

Simply because the poll is obviously biased in one way (against 'flawed' resolutions) Krstalis would like to remind the body that our entire nation at any time could be deemed as a wildlife preserve or whatnot due to the wording of a former UN resolution.

Likewise, we could deem other nations as such becuase the definition of such was too flawed.

We do not feel that every resolution simply for lack of defining every detail should be voted against, but we would ask that resolutions be written with more common sense then they have in the past.

Recently in the great region of Apolyton one UN member is voting against the landmine ban because they feel that the term 'land mine' is not clearly defined.

Thus some can err on the side of requiring too much of a definition as well.

Common sense needs to be appealed to and resolutions that are not worded well need be voted against and a new version drafted and submitted.

That is, after all, what the submission process is all about.

I will always examine the details and if a proposal actually DOES something i disagree with, I will usually vote against it (except for with pedantry - I supported the Equality resolution because it was painfully obvious to all that the author meant sentient life). However, I voted for the recent alternative fuels resolution, because the mistake was very minor, and since it was in the argument not the effect (it was in the preamble, rather than the resolution itself), because the ideas behind a proposal, when incorrect on such a small scale (the author was only confused about exactly what aspect of the atmosphere he was trying to protect), DON'T ACTUALLY MATTER because they have NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING, EVEN IN THE NS WORLD!!!

> i should think this would be obvious to anyone of average intelligence


Carlemnaria, I applaud you for representing all people of average intelligence!

I have voted down numerous 'good' proposals due to technicalities.

Narshon, UN representative for The Safalran Lands, says "The subject matter of the UN resolution is discussed by the Safalran people. Our final decision is based not on whether we agree with the logic of the resolution, but on whether through our own reasoning we arrive at the same conclusions. While much of the logic and statistics in the recent alternative fuels resolution were incorrect, we voted for the motion based on the effects it would have."

Well when my main nation was part of the UN I used to vote for proposals that had a good intention as welll as good wording. I voted against must of the proposals that came up for voting since must of them has some pretty flawed wording. Now I just vote no on all of the proposals with my puppet state here since must of them do more harm then good, however, if a good proposal came up I would be more than happy to vote for it. Also I noticed amendments for bills never seem to be voting on, so the whole reasoning that we can fixed a flawed resolution is crap.