NationStates Jolt Archive

Going through the lists of proposals and seeing how little in the way of endorsements there are is rediculous. Granted there are some dam stupid resolutions, but there are also some very well written ones that certainly deserve approval. Maybe many of you, as delegates, should do your jobs and start endorsing some proposals.

That is a very good question, to which my answer would be - NO.

Now, this is not true for all UN delegates. Some do the job that they are meant to do and endorse proposals that they support. However, the overwhelmingly vast majority, IMO, do not use their delegate powers or even are involved in UN affairs.

I think the problem is that it is too hard to become a regional delegate, unless you join a huge region...

do i look through all 20 pages daily, no, do I usually look through the first five pages daily, yes. I think their should be stricter guidelines for proposals, because there are waaay to many bad ones that smother out the good ones.

That is a very good question, to which my answer would be - NO.

Now, this is not true for all UN delegates. Some do the job that they are meant to do and endorse proposals that they support. However, the overwhelmingly vast majority, IMO, do not use their delegate powers or even are involved in UN affairs.

As delegate I must admit that it is tedious to look through twenty pages a day. But I do look at the first page or two and I do respond to all telegrams sent to me (unless they're outright stupid).

I remember, for a few weeks, there were only 6 to 8 or 9 pages. Thats was when you could look through all the resolutions every now and then.

I as a delegate, take my job very seriously. I look through all 20 page, every few days, and therefore never miss a proposal. I read and reply to any telegram sent to me, and take action, if I approve. I wish other delegates would do the same, but what can I do... Besides be angry.

Who needs delegates? Let's make the UN anarchist by getting rid of them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

[quote="latila"]Who needs delegates? Let's make the UN anarchist by getting rid of them.[quote]

The whole point of the UN is that it is a organization, of countries trying to better the world. How can ther UN work as an anarchy. That defeats the purpose of it...

It's not far from anarchism. People work together to discuss problems and vote on solutions with direct democracy. They are free to leave if they don't like the results. There isn't a leader, either. The delegates are really the only non-anarchist componant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

you sorta have a point, but in the UN beside the delegates, the members still aren't anarchists, they come to vote with only one vote, they don't try to cheat or make a mess of stuff. It is pure democracy. With delegates, it is a Democratic Republic, but I see where you get the Anarchy part.

Frisbeeteria, while new to the position of Delegate, is nonetheless very diligent in reviewing the proposals. However, its diligence is not noticeable due to the fact that only about three proposals in the last month have been worthy of an approval ... and at least one of those was a frivolous vote, on a proposal that stood no chance of acceptance.
... is approved by at least 6% of UN Regional Delegates.
Instead of kvetching about the low quality of UN Proposals, let us instead propose a change in game mechanics. In addition to the 6% approval rating, let's add a 6% rule to permanently table the silly ones. (I'm not married to the 6% - make it 10% or even 20% if you want) Those of us who wade through the junkers could then actively participate by clearing the decks for worthy proposals.

Why should the decision lie exclusively in the hands of one or two moderators? Let the Delegates perform their duty, and keep the garbage out of the UN. Once a proposal has gotten 6% pro OR 6% con, it is automatically removed from contention. I guarantee you'll see more participation from the regional delegates.

The UN has become a dumping ground for silliness. Let's do something about it.

:: Edit :: This concept has been cross-posted in the Technical Forum if you wish to comment:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113087

THAT IS BRILLIANT! A Con vote, damn straight! That would so get more delegates doing stuff, and decrease the crap out there. Bring this up in moderation, if you want to try to get it done. (though the mods normally like to keep things the way they are)

I try to look at all 20 pages in one day, but some are not worded right or I just dont approve of. But I endorse all the proposals I and my Regionmates like.

As delegate I must admit that it is tedious to look through twenty pages a day. But I do look at the first page or two and I do respond to all telegrams sent to me (unless they're outright stupid).

I remember, for a few weeks, there were only 6 to 8 or 9 pages. Thats was when you could look through all the resolutions every now and then.

Whilst what you said may be true, a huge majority of the delegates do not venture into this forum in order to see worthwhile proposals and they do not even look at the first couple of pages in the proposals section.

I agree that most proposals out there are a waste of time, that is why I think we should try to pass one which would require a proposal to be at least 250 words long. This would stop stupid people from making a proposal which has no reason to it. The 250 word requirment would make people give an explantion to why they want their proposal passed, thus making people think more about their proposals that they submit. :D

The more delegates there are, the harder it becomes to get a proposal to vote. Reducing the number of approvals needed would get more into the vote, and give everyone else in the UN a bit more to do - as it is, some very good proposals are getting lost. Yes, some shitty ones will get through to the vote, but they'll get absolutely hammered, so it's not much to worry about.

As it is, the only proposals getting through are those where people telegram every delegate to try and ram it through. Frankly, I have better things to do.