NationStates Jolt Archive

If you look at the "UN Resolutions throughout history", you will see the first resolution ever passed, called "Fight the Axis of Evil.

This resolution is very vague, saying just to increase international military spending. Worse, however, is that it passed by a vote of 2 to 1. Not a ratio of 2 votes to 1, but 2 votes to 1 vote. Today, there are over 31,000 Nations who must abide by all resolutions of the UN, including this one. Whether anyone agrees with the resolution or not is less important than the fact that 31,000 must comply with a resolution passed with just 3 voters, without getting any say of thier own

If a proposal or eventually a resolution were ever to reach the UN concerning repealing or re-voting on this undemocratic resolution, what sort of response would it receive?

It would be deleted - game mechanics.

I'm not sure if this is true, but someone on another thread said that this resolution was passed before the United Nations was even opened. (Possibly as a test resolution?)

If this is true, it would not be altering game mechanics to ask for that resolution to be deleted. It is simply respecting the wishes of the majority of UN members.

I think there is some validity to this concern.

Repealing any resolution is a game mechanics issue. Can we please not go down that road again?

I am willing to accept that this is a game mechanics issue and the resolution cannot be repealed.

However, let the record show that Londana is disappointed that a resolution was passed without all UN members being able to vote on it (if the above rumour is in fact true).

If the resolution were a test, then are you sure that it actually had any impact whatsoever on your nation? If all it was designed to do was "test the system" before the site went live, then that could well have been all it actually did.
If the objection is based more on the argument that "Well, I sure wouldn't have voted for it if I had the chance" (which is an argument I can quite understand), then why stop there? Why not say "anything passed before I could've voted on it is hereby invalid"?

I am not sure what the original complainant's argument was, but my argument is not "Well, I sure wouldn't have voted for it if I had the chance". In fact, there have been many resolutions passed by the UN which I disagree with and I would have voted against them. However, I was not part of the UN at the time, and a condition of entrance is abiding by all past rules. I agree with that.

My problem is with the possibility (yes, it is merely a possibility -- I have no facts to back this up, so this is all speculation) that the resolution was passed before *any* UN members had the right to vote on it. It was mentioned on another thread that the resolution was proposed and voted on before the UN was opened (possibly as a test resolution). I have no idea as to whether that resolution changes my nation's statistics -- I am relatively new to the game and I still have to familiarize myself with how it works. However, assuming that the resolution *was* passed without UN members being permitted to vote on it -- that is highly undemocratic and leaves a resolution which all countries must abide by (according to the game's rules) even though no one had the chance to vote against it.

Again, I understand if it is impossible to change this because these are the mechanics of the game, and this was the way it had to be set up -- I am simply voicing my displeasure with the result.

That very well might have been me saying it was (imo) a test resolution. The reason is:

Since the rise of civilization (November 13, 2002)...
<snip>
Fight the Axis of Evil
<snip of the text>
Implemented: Tue Nov 12 2002
<really large snip>
In any event, it is a resolution and it was passed by the UN, so Naleth will do our best to get around it and yet stay within the letter of the law.

Chumba agrees with Naleth.

My belief (really should check this with the tech experts) is that because the resolution was adopted one day before "the rise of civilization", whatever impact it's had falls into one of two categories:

1. Completely irrelevant impact. By this I mean that an "International Security" resolution (as this one was) does not actually result in the global military buildup that such a resolution would normally. Instead it just served as a version of [violet] and friends going "Testing...one...two" into the proverbial microphone.

2. Impact which is meant to be there. This is a lot less likely, but there's the possibility that this particular resolution and the adoption thereof is supposed to be "hardwired" into the game.

As I say, this is a guess big-time and shouldn't be believed unless you or I check it with [violet].