NationStates Jolt Archive

The current logic under which the NS UN operates regarding the passage of Proposed Resolutions is one of "silence is consent". This is the very same premise that is used by "Date Rapist" to justify their actions since the (drunken woman, or frightened woman, or embarrassed woman) did not say "NO" that "it could not be "Rape". Sure she went to the Party ( the UN) sure she was having a good time ( watching all the debates) and making new friends (forming alliances etc.) I told her I was "gonna have my way with her". Sure she was a little "distracted" but she never said "NO".

This assumption on the part of the UN has got to stop. Silence is NOT consent, if anything it is opposition for unless I willingly state my support and take the necessary actions to demonstrate that support then I have not given my support to you, your actions, your ideas or your proposals.

A Majority in any democratic organization is a Majority of ALL its Members.
The UN has reserved the power to force compliance upon every Member Nation of those resolutions passed with less than a majority ( 50%+1) support of its membership yet it feel as though it does not have the right to REQUIRE its membership to vote on every Proposed Resolution as a condition of continued membership. This is a deficientcy that must be addressed. It can be done, just as every NS Nation recieves "Issues" to be addressed, every UN Member Nation can recieve "Proposed Resolutions" to be addressed. (only remove the "Dismiss" option)

Hmm.... I see some "Yes" votes but not post??? Oh I get it, it must be a matter of "We like it the way it is, this way we few get to run amuck amuck amuck all over everyone else and you can't do nothing about it, ha ha! Tyrrany thru manipulation , works every time."

silence is abstaining, it doesn't go either way

Silence isn't necessarily consent, even in the present system. Silence should only be interpreted in the context in which it took place. A vote for or against is aligning a position, and silence is more equivalent to ambivalence, and then you can have silent consent or silent dissent based on the non-voting party.
Silence can be interpreted a number of ways, but in any case it is resigning yourself to following whatever other members choose to vote for or against.
It has nothing to do with the level of democracy of the system, but the apathy of non-voting members.

To continue the analogy, it isn't that the UN is "date raping" its members, but that the silent members are easy.

In every organization, those who show up get to make the decisions.

Those who can't be bothered don't have a say.

This seems fair and practical to us.

How do you know this? If it is true, you're absolutely right.

In every organization, those who show up get to make the decisions.

Those who can't be bothered don't have a say.

This seems fair and practical to us.

Yes, but I was looking through all the resolutions and one passed with a total of three votes. Should the entire UN really be held to that resolution?

I'm not going to pick out a quote, but this is in response to Adriano-Trace:

It's really quite simple -- if these people think they're victimized by the UN, they can resign with one click of a mouse at any time. Your metaphor doesn't much work, either -- a much better one for this situation would be "A perfectly sober woman asked a man to get into bed and have sex, had to wait twenty-four hours for his positive response, submitted herself to his will, said nothing during the action, and could have gotten out of the situation at any time by telling him to stop. Has she been raped?"

Edited...

If you'd care to check more carefully, I'm told you'll find that "Fight the Axis of Evil" was passed one day before the start of the universe. Obviously, UN membership was not yet at its current number.

I agree that it is wrong of the UN to determine the lack of participation in a vote as agreeement. Now, what do you propose that we do about it?

Silence isn't taken as agreement. If you don't vote on a resolution, it's an "abstain" - doesn't go either way, if a delegate doesn't approve a proposal it's actually taken as a "no" vote, since the only option is to approve or do nothing.

What's missing in the NS UN is the concept of "quorum". No "democratic" legeslative body in the history of the world would embrace the current system of the NS UN where a "simple majority of those that "show up" is allowed to pass binding resolutions on an overwhelming majority.
What happens in a parliamentary body when "not enough" members show up? The answer, NOTHING!
I , personally, think that if the NS UN set a "bar of viability" , in other words a "quorum", of 60% of its membership. This would mean that if those that bother to vote, either way on any particular Resolution, equals less than 60% of the UN membership the Resolution can not "pass" . Why 60%? because that would at least promote a "majority participation"

Of course the best solution would be to require every UN Member nation to vote (up or down) on every resolution with the same authority that it uses to enforce compliance with resolutions passed, as a condition of membership. I mean what is the point of membership if it is not to be 'involved" in "Cooperative International Affairs"? With such a "condition of membership" we are ensured of total participation and Resolutions that are passed with legitimatcy , i.e. 50%+1 approval.
The "mechanism" for emplementing such a "condition of membership" already exist with the "Issues" systems that every NS Nation now utilizes. The only difference would be that there would be one strictly for UN member nations and that did not have a "dismiss" option ( The options would simply be "support" or "oppose".)
What is so wrong with such a system, save that it would take the advantage away from the currently dominate "tyrranical" faction of its means of rulling by illegitimate means?
If the NS UN can enforce "Compliance" it CAN enforce "Participation". Why would it not want to unless it is just being used by a few to "play God" with the rest of its member nations?

It cannot force participation in the UN, because it cannot force people to login.

Having recently found myself unable to login for a period of two weeks, I was not able to vote on two issues before the UN-both of which I would have voted against.

Expecting 100% compliance in voting is a bit extreme when you take real world interferance into account.

That said-I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of control on this.

You sound like a bunch of babies.

This system is used by most (perhaps all??) democratic governments in the world. If you are too lazy to vote then tough sh*t ! Deal with it!

Comparing this to a serious issue like date rape isn't just stupid, its pathetic.

PS: if you don't like the rules then its time to RESIGN!!!!

PPS: You're a baby. Grow up.

Actually requiring a quorum percentage is a risky step though. Think about it. There are the following groups of UN members:

1. Those who vote on every resolution come hell or high water
2. Those who vote usually, but not when they don't feel strongly about the current resolution
3. Those who would vote, but can't access the site during the time
4. Those who wouldn't vote on anything

Without doing the maths, I would assume that Group 4 would be quite large. Even if the other three groups all voted (which, given the range of political thought we have on this site, is not the greatest possibility), there's every possibility that the "silent majority" in Group 4 would still be larger. Therefore, whatever vote we have would be null and void unless a very small quorum was actually instituted.
You can see the problem with even a relatively small quorum percentage in the Proposal Queue. It only takes 120-odd approvals to get a proposal over the line, but even that requires the planets to line up correctly.

To take a real-world analogy, look at the Presidential elections in Serbia and Montenegro recently. They've had to have something like 3 or 4 goes at getting the voting done because it requires a percentage of the electorate to turn out, a percentage which hasn't been met.

Yes, but I was looking through all the resolutions and one passed with a total of three votes. Should the entire UN really be held to that resolution?
That resolution was also passed the day before the game was opened. I would assume that it's a test resolution to see if the UN was working correctly.

More on topic, if the several thousand people who do not vote simply had not joined the UN in the first place, then how would it make a difference? Many of them are just inactive. To consider all of their votes to be one way or the other just because they didn't vote is unfair to one side. Think of it like this: A statistically signifigant number of UN nations do vote. It is fair to assume that the total votes of those who did not vote for whatever reason would be approximatly the same as those that did vote, and rarely if ever tip the balance one way or the other.

Yes, but I was looking through all the resolutions and one passed with a total of three votes. Should the entire UN really be held to that resolution?
That resolution was also passed the day before the game was opened. I would assume that it's a test resolution to see if the UN was working correctly.

Ah. My mistake. I withdraw my support of Adriano-Trace.

You sound like a bunch of babies.

This system is used by most (perhaps all??) democratic governments in the world. If you are too lazy to vote then tough sh*t ! Deal with it!

Comparing this to a serious issue like date rape isn't just stupid, its pathetic.

PS: if you don't like the rules then its time to RESIGN!!!!

PPS: You're a baby. Grow up.

Darlin,' I'm sure that the the term "date rapist" was only used to get people's attention. I mean, there are a lot of other topics to look at, and this one sticks out.

Did you read the post from the person who was unable to log on for two weeks? Now, it is just a game -- but one that a lot of people are really into. Personally, if I missed voting on some resolutions because of a technical error, I'd be annoyed.

Lastly, do we really need to call each other names? Talk about growing up....

It makes sense to say that we need a quorum percentage when a proposal reaches the floor of the UN, but I'm not sure it would be the best solution - or even any kind of solution.

If you look at real-world states where a percentage of the electorate have to turn out to make a Presidential election valid (Serbia and Montenegro being the most recent example of this), then the election often needs to be re-run and re-run until enough votes are cast, let alone an outcome decided upon. To say "we need 2/3 of all UN members just to vote" (to take a number out of thin air) is a risky suggestion. I'm not absolutely sure, but I'd be stunned if anything like 2/3 of the UN membership has ever voted on the one proposal.
The alternative would be to have a quorum percentage of 6% or so, like the proposal queue currently does. However, we then run the risk of either provoking further complaints that "the majority haven't voted, so the resolution is of questionable validity" (as here) or long stretches where the 6% don't even turn up (as on the proposal queue).

Ok how about these ideas;

We raise the number of endorsements needed to move a proposal to a resolution to 20% of the member nation count.

We place a "Minimum Participation" requirement on the conditions of membership of say 25%. Which means that you must vote on at least 25% of all proposed Resolutions (or 1 out of 4) on a monthly basis ( not that you have to vote for any particular resolution but only that you vote). Those nations that fail to meet the minimum participation requirements are dropped to "observer" status for the following month. Such a redifinition of "status" could be appealed via an email to the MODS who would have the authority to re-enstate "full member status" for just cause.
Any Member Nation that has not moved from "Observer" status within 3 months would then be removed from the UN. ( I mean after all the point of the Game is to Play It , Right?)(This would also provide a means by which the UN could "remove dead wood" and manage the numbers to more accurately reflect the true membership. and a player could always come back in as a new nation if they wanted.)

We could develop a "second house" made up of a set odd number of "Regional Delegates" with a quarterly rotaing membership that would also have to pass and Resolution before it could be enacted.

We could set up a "Charter Council" who's job would be to preview and approve Proposals before they are presented to the General Assembly to ensure that any proposal would not "unduely enfringe" upon the Sovereignty of member nations ( which would ensure that the nature of any proposal was truly "International Cooperation" and not International Coercion)

Any or all of these ideas would be an improvement over the current system that fosters tyrrany by "majority of minority" rule.

P.S.

No I am not going to "RESIGN". It is my duty to represent the Nation of Adriano-Trace in International Relations and, therefore, I shall continue to support any move that will, in the view of my government, facilitate better International Relations, Understanding, and Peaceful Co existance. Its called "Diplomacy" and I believe it is a key element to "the Game". :wink:

Silence is nothing to do with it, Although, I do agree that things are not as they should be, what we need here is not pages of debate, but an alteration in game mechanics,

In my opinion, any proposal on the floor of the U.N. should require at least 2/3 of all votes to be passed and sadly, this is an issue that has risen before, and is rebirthed now due to growing discontent at the continous barrage of badly worded or non-specific resolutons that came in with fancy, "Its for the good of all, really!", kinda headings, Like, oh I don't know, End Barbaric Punishments and Torture kinda proposals . . . Now that was non-specific, and that Trade Union one sounded great I agree, I even misguidedly voted FOR it, but hey, when I woke up a day later after it passed and reviewed my national economy, eeek! . . . However, while these are only my personal opinions, I am sure others may agree with me . . . And as for changing game mechanics, as I sugest above, there is a slight:

BUT (To it all), AS

A change in game mechanics is currently unlikely, unless, of coarse, N.S. MK II is brought online soon, or the N.S. progenitor fixes it up. Yes You, you know who your are, if you truly read these pages and care for the problems of us mortals

(And this is me, from a fairly non-religious republic here ! :wink: To whom we give thanks and praise for this existance oh great man of pen, paper, type writer, or word doc, whatever, you writer, you! . . .)

Anyhoo, back to semi reality for a sec. That hence forth is my opinion for the time being.

OH, YEAH, while reviewing the U.N. forums, look for my post on my new proposal, a fairly serious and sense making proposal that I hope will lift the stature of the current U.N. and assist in helping it through this public relations fiasco. . .

With respect to you and yours, A Rep of Komokom.

bump

bump

If a nation does not vote, this is taken as abstaining...
A resolution only passes if a majority of the nations voting vote for it...
There would be no way to make everyone vote...
So what difference would it make if the nations that did not vote were in the UN or not? You cannot force everyone to be a member, and a non-voting nation can be considered a non-member nation as far as you are concerned. If they do not vote, they basically don't exist.
So it's pretty much complete democracy. There is nothing unfair about it.

The simple fact is that an abstention can only be considered a negative vote IF THEY SHOW UP. If someone just signs up for the UN just because they can, and doesn't pay any attention to the resolutions provided, then how can you honestly interpret the "silence of consent" as a "no"?

What would be BEST is that those nations that sign up for the UN, but do not vote on anything over a lengthly period of time, should be removed. I would also be happy with an amendment designating a certain amount of UN members as "quorum".

- TYB/Un Envoy Patrick Ewing

Indeed. If any nation feels that they are being abused without representation in the UN, it's simple enough for them to either start voting or resign.

Quorum doesn't exactly apply here. Quorum only means that a certain number of representatives were present and able to debate and vote if they so chose, not that a certain number of representatives have voted. Seeing as how there are no obstacles to prevent these nations from voting or joining in the debate, I see no problem with considering silence to be an abstention.

I would argue that removing the option of abstaining would infringe on each member nation's right to determine its own vote without outside interference.

Requiring that a certain number of people vote on a resolution could be a dangerous move. The membership of NationStates is not constant. What if the required number of people stop showing up? Already, at least 6% (130+) of the delegates must approve any proposal, so the "Fight the Axis of Evil" situation can never happen again.

You might also do well to notice that there have not been fewer than 10,000 votes on any given resolution since March 13, 2003. Only 4 resolutions have ever passed with fewer than 5,000 votes, and all of those, I believe, can be tracked to times when NationStates was not operating on a stable server.

As a representative of Andinostan, a nation settled by the Catholic Church and date rapists (though things have calmed quite nicely), I express my people's disdain for being made a mockery of.

Andinostan would also like to say that, despite the roofies that the United Nations slipped into our most recent torture bill, we would have slept with her anyway. She's dead sexy. Mmm...the United Nations. All soft skin and flowing hair. Come make me comply again, hot stuff!

Actually requiring a quorum percentage is a risky step though. Think about it. There are the following groups of UN members:

1. Those who vote on every resolution come hell or high water
2. Those who vote usually, but not when they don't feel strongly about the current resolution
3. Those who would vote, but can't access the site during the time
4. Those who wouldn't vote on anything

Without doing the maths, I would assume that Group 4 would be quite large.

I'm not arguing with you - you're in a much better position to assess this than I am - but it does confuse me.

As I understand it (and I've not been playing long), membership of the UN gives you the opportunity to affect laws passed on all UN member nations. In return for this you have to obey UN resolutions, which you may not agree with and which can knock hell out of your economy. So the question is - why would someone join the UN and not vote? What would be the point?

The only thing I could think of would be to 'time out' nations who didn't vote on a number of issues in a given time period (as has been suggested). I don't think there's any point raising the % votes required, under the current system resolutions would stopped being passed at all.

Shee City

No UN resolution has had a close vote yet. The winner of votes usually win by several thousand votes. Its not like a resolution got passed by 10 votes and you being a delagate with control of 11 votes would have made a difference.

Nah, the margin of winning indicates that a YES or NO vote on a resolution is statiscally significant.

No point in arguing this.