NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN's "YES" rubber stamp

09-12-2003, 05:44
Someone should propose a very stupid idea, such as banning the UN, just to see if we could actually get a NO vote. Or at least rephrase questions... such as this torture issue... Should torture be legalized, instead of the current should it be banned.
09-12-2003, 06:00

That actually isn't a half-bad idea. Many of us have complained about the poor wording of resolutions, and the superficial reading that many states seem to give the measures before voting for them. If we could convince enough delegates to actually support such a measure, a measure that, say, legalized torture (nay, made it mandatory), or even better, disbanded the UN....yes, it might actually have an effect. It might actually force some institutional changes. This is an option to consider....thank you for the idea, representative of Aunts.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.
09-12-2003, 06:22
The Commonwealth of Treeonia agrees whole heartedly and with the powers vested, which is considerable in Internet Terms ( i.e., redundant DS 3's, as in ATT, UUNet & NewEdge @ 44.3 MB/Sec each, Dell Power Edge Web Server, Debian OS (Sarge) running Apache 1.3.29, plus numerous amenities such as the latest PHP and MySQL distributions, daily backups, redundant UPS including Cat Natural Gas UPS) will contribute in anyway possible to curb the repugnate and improper use of the UN.

Damn the Ozone and associated parties, lets get Union-Unencumbered Capital Investments rocking.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

[Edited to appease UN Resolutions]
09-12-2003, 07:22
Someone should propose a very stupid idea, such as banning the UN, just to see if we could actually get a NO vote. Or at least rephrase questions... such as this torture issue... Should torture be legalized, instead of the current should it be banned.Another uninformed nation speaks up. Did you forget that we recently voted down a resolution? All it takes is a concerted effort, on the part of those opposed. Don't want to put forth the effort? Don't complain.
09-12-2003, 07:49
Don't forget they'll simply delete resolutions that try to change game mechanics.
09-12-2003, 09:40
I try to post this sort of thing no more than once a day...

The NSUN does vote no to some proposals.

All proposals that can be voted on have already got the support of a couple of hundred delegates.

Proposals that change the mechanics of the game will just get deleted.

You have to obey all passed UN proposals if you are a member of the UN...

We love you really.

Today's spokesman for Nebbyland
09-12-2003, 09:43
Well, I'm not in the UN yet, but looking at the history of what's been voted on I would have voted no on almost every occasion.

I think banning the UN (both on this site and in real life) would be a GOOD idea. The UN is anti-freedom.
09-12-2003, 11:44
Its not game mechanics, its people, the uninformed masses, the people who tottter onto the U.N. page and say, "Oh, yay, goody goody gum drops, a resolution against torture, oh yay! Lets vote yes for the good of all ! ! ! "

( ( ( ALARM ) ) )

It is THESE people who do not sit down, and THINK THROUGH what they are about to click, and do not give a thought to the impact of their actions. While its easy to say, yes, the boost to human rights may be worth the cost, but AT WHAT COST? if we let this proposal through, we are looking at opening a flood-gate that we will be damn well pressed to shut. We'll be letting through the vague, the unspecified, how long till a "Anti Gay Rights" / "Anti-Pro Choice" / "Pro-Some political agenda at the cost of all economical sense" push? How long till a miss-worded proposal slips through against the minority of grammatical bean counters, cause let me tell you, its those few, intelligent people who buck the flow of drivel and haul your butt's out'a the text based fire.

You say, "oh, yes, this proposal will boost human rights" but what about the previous "Trade Union" proposal, huh did it help our economies? Hmmm?

[ Cricket Chirp ]

. . .

[ Pin dropping ]

. . .

Thought so.

Folks, the question is not, hey, lets give human rights a boost, its all a matter of respect for the power placed in the hands of individual members and the delegets.

I admit I was one of the many who let the trade union proposal in, by our ill-informed yes vote, I do not want to be part of such responsibility again.

There can be no greater crime in the U.N. then ignorance of your cast votes effect on the worldlet of the U.N.

God bless and good night.

A Rep of Komokom.
09-12-2003, 16:05
:idea: Why not get rid of the delegates and the individual nations right to vote on proposals.

This could be replaced with a small select group of nations that alone decide what proposals go to vote then vote on them.

They might decide that the UN forum is no longer needed, though. as this is where nations point out the pros and cons in the proposals and as they have already decided on a proposal then obviously there are only pros.

Ofcourse, nations that do not agree with the decisions of a small select group of nations could leave the UN, unless the group passes a proposal making it mandatory to join.

I know this is a stupid, badly written, flawed idea.
09-12-2003, 16:16
Six resolutions have been defeated. We associate ourselves with the spokesperson for Nebbyland.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region