NationStates Jolt Archive

For the past several weeks, only one proposal has successfully reached the voting table. This proposal was defeated today, probably because it was so badly written. Just to clear up any doubts, it would have abolished pop-up advertising.

Anyway, I suggest that in order to actually pass some UN resolutions, we need to do these things:

:arrow: Write proposals that can be easily understood.
:arrow: Get all the delegates to go and review the proposals regularly and endorse a few.
:arrow: Submit serious proposals, none of this stupid game-change stuff that's been cluttering up the proposal list lately.
:arrow: Check to see if a proposal has already been passed as a resolution before submitting it.
:arrow: Use some intelligence when reading proposals. If it's kind of garbled, try to understand it. In most of the proposals, the meaning isn't really that hard to figure out.

All this sounds very nice, but what's to guarantee that people will actually do it? Here's a novel idea: Go into the UN section of the website and actually do it!

Amen.

:arrow: Read the proposal several times too, before submitting it to avoid errors.
:arrow: Also try to get others involved with lobbying.
:arrow: When you lobby, be sure to be polite in your telegram.
:arrow: Do not lobby the same people over and over. We read it the first time, do not spam us.

The problem is, and I can say this with the utmost confidence (being a former longtime delegate), is that most of the resolutions are one of the following:

1. A redudant proposal
2. A silly and wholly un-enforceable proposal
3. A poorly worded proposal/ poorly though-out proposal
4. (this is the biggest unsung crime in the world IMHO) a proposal that threatens the sovereignity of nations.

Too many times have i seen stupid and crappy proposals reach the voting area and get passed because its a "good idea" or its something along the lines of "saves the trees, they is good!"

People need to realize that if the UN is supposed to mean something that it cant keep passing silly and sickeningly idealistic and left leaning proposals just because they sound like a good idea. they need to realize that the ramifications of these proposals affect their nations and its not just some random event once in a while that doesnt have any effect on the nationstates world and they need to read the UN rules again telling about how the UN SHOULD NOT THREATEN THE SOVEREIGNITY OF NATIONS.

The UN has become a joke because too many people joined only to find something else to do in nationstates, not because they wanted to have a sort of sim-UN and its begining to show because people are starting to drop out because its getting absurd. I have had to almost beg people to join the UN to help my delegation out so that i could try and vote down some of the more... "leftist" resolutions that seemed to come one right after the other. all of them somehow decreasing economy and increasing conservation (and nearly all of them passed i might add)

The UN should stand for something, not be some place where you can just ramble off moronic ideas and submit 30 proposals saying things like "i think so and so's nation sucks" luckily though, they never pass, but the fact that they exist is reason enough to make it all seem like a huge joke.

When I go to the Resolutions and see 19 pages of them I dont even want to begin to look at them because i know that 18 of those pages are filled with good intentions that are too lofty such as "make a giant church" or resolutions to change the game like "make francos spain go away" to other more annoying ones like "Hippos are rather large"

Don't get me wrong, I do endorse proposals both right and left, and even some of the loftier well-thought-out ones, but that makes my total number of approved resolutions on a given day about 5 out of hundreds.

I weep for the good resolutions that get passed over by the mountains of foolish proposals that people submit because they have some sort of personal agenda to be recognized, not because they want to have their resolution voted on, but because they want to be funny. I have seen dozens of good resolutions get passed over because they were last pn a long list of countless of "save the whales" or "honeybees are cool" type resolutions.

If I have changed one persons mind on the way they treat the UN or how they vote, then it will have been worth it.

If I have changed one persons mind on the way they treat the UN or how they vote, then it will have been worth it.

This is a lofty goal and His Royal Highness fully supports you in your endevors. The UN has become a joke of late. Perhaps your enlightned thoughts will restore order to this once respected body.

His Royal Highness Bradley I of the States of Stephenson

(bump)

I heartily agree with you all that the function and value of the UN is being warped by bogging the process down in troubled and/or stupid proposals. Longwinded ones.

The question is -- how to improve it?

I think that has to come from a combination of more submissions of well-done proposals and more efforts to talk them up on regional forums (where they exist) and message boards. (Talking in the NS forums is not helping much -- it's like whispering at a Stones' concert.)

In particular, making newbies more aware of what effects a good proposal could have, not in the "mystical world" (what trees are actually saved?) but on their nation within the mechanics of the game.

The Lady River
Benevolent Enchantress

PS -- I'd be more likely to look through a summary list (titles and cutoff dates) than to actually read the whole 2000+ currently available. I try to at least scan through those expiring in 48 hours or less.

The real problem I have is when I sit down to write a well-worded, relevant, and useful proposal (like my Antique Arms Act, which would have exempted any gun made pre-1918 from Weapons controls).

Only about 30 people voted for it, despite me posting in the UN forum and pestering all my friends and allies.

At the end of the day, maybe we should simply ditch the UN completely? It's just not working any more, and there hasn't been anything to vote on for weeks anyway.

Methinks that the "Hippos Are Really Quite Large" proposal may have been the NS UN's death knell anyway...

The fewer resolutions the better.

There is already too much legislation.

Postive efforts such as collaborative scientific and medical research can be accomplished more effectively by international aggreements ad hoc, through an rp forum.

Besides, there is one or two, that just made the queue...

Well, I know its an effort in futility and is sure to raise some voices of "you cant do that!" but the problem is the sheer number of nations in the UN it makes the process a long, ardous, and wholly un-fun thing to do when your sifitng through dozens of the same proposals.

What I would *LIKE* to see happen would be stricter guidelines for the UN such as "no oppresive type governments" (dictatorships, police-states, etc) also a certain size would be a requirment too, because lets face it, if your gonna stick it out with a nation to make it grow lets say... past 250 million your gonna be pretty into nationstates, not just doing it for the heck of it. Those things in themselves I think would clear up 80% of the clutter that reaches the UN. Or maybe a veto function for delegates when approving resolutions so the silly and stupid resolutions might be voted down faster to let the good ones have room to breathe.

But, like I said, I doubt they would ever implement such a feature...I guess what it comes down to is making people respect the UN again by making sure people wont vote the wrong way on such proposals as "Band Spam" luckily it was voted down, but by a very close margin.

How about we resolve that the UN can never resolve anything?

I think it would be a bit harsh to ban people from the UN because their PRETEND countries aren't very nice, but I like the minimum population idea - it's the best suggestion made yet.

I do think people are having far too much of a go at the silly or fun resolutions - remember that's it's only a game and they're generally much better written than the serious ones anyway. I do wish people would stop getting proposals through to do with the annoyances of surfing the internet, though.

I notice the number of delegates needed to approve has gone up from 138 to 140 in a very short period of time - I think this is part of the problem - a lot of approvals are now needed and it's very tedious telegramming people to get you proposal approved. Most of have dayjobs, you know... well, some of us anyway...

I notice the number of delegates needed to approve has gone up from 138 to 140 in a very short period of time - I think this is part of the problem - a lot of approvals are now needed and it's very tedious telegramming people to get you proposal approved. Most of have dayjobs, you know... well, some of us anyway...

How very true; likewise, some of us have school.

I wish the number was lowered to like 50 or something....

I agree that the U.N. is overrun by sub-standard resolutions and this is preventing any worthwhile ones getting through... the only solution I can think of is to only allow Regional Delegates to propose the resolutions, as well as only allowing Reginional Delegates to approve them, before they finally get through to the masses.
This would, hopefully, reduce the number of resolutions submitted, and mean that only those who have (some) respect among the other plays will be submitting them. I know that you already need at least 2 endorsements, but maybe this ain't enough... Then again, most Regional Delegates probably only have two endorsements anyway.

Or maybe, if they're willing and have enough free time on their hands, the forum moderators could be recruited to help review the proposed resolutions. Presumably the forum moderators can be trusted, and so they could be given the right to remove any immediately that have bad spelling and incorrect grammar. Maybe if people are encouraged to pay attention to spelling and grammar, they'll pay closer attention to what they are actually writing, and put a bit more thought into it.

Yes, let's only let a handful of people play the game, because no one else matters. Please, please, please remember that this is a game, and it's very dull and tedious if only the UN Delegates are allowed to play.

I like the idea of only UN Delegates being able to propose official proposals. This would limit them, since the other UN members in the region could propose it to them, and then if the delegates like the idea it can be proposed to everybody else. Most of these bad proposals would very likly be cut down at the delegate level. However, I think we might also need one more level, since there still might be a few regional delegates willing to spam proposals.

Yes! Yes!! Let's make it all unnecessarily complicated, so no one ever gets a resolution passed!!! MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA!!!!!!!!!!

Did you think what happens when a delegate has a very different ideology to the proposing nation?

This is a mad-house! DID YOU HEAR ME?! A MA-A-AD-HOUSE!!!!!

:arrow: Get all the delegates to go and review the proposals regularly and endorse a few.
:arrow: Submit serious proposals, none of this stupid game-change stuff that's been cluttering up the proposal list lately.
:arrow: Check to see if a proposal has already been passed as a resolution before submitting it.

Our delegate regularly reviews proposals, but he or she feels that the current proposals are garbage. To force him or her to approve one of them is a violation of his or her civil rights, and is probably already forbidden by the UN.

Anyone who plays the game has the ability to become a U.N. delegate. It is not a permenant position. Many delegates are constantly being replaced. If you have to be a U.N. delegate to propse a resolution, you may have to actually play the game a bit more, and interact with the other players. If you don't have the time or don't want to interact as much, that's fine, NationStates still lets you play the game... but it doesn't mean that you should still have the right to submit proposals that will affect the other players you are choosing to ignore.
Like you said, Big Yellow Spot, the regional delegate may have very different ideologies to the nations who wish to propose a resolution through their delegate. There's nothing to stop them moving to a more like-minded region, though, or creating their own region. This would probably actually increase the number of regions which are made up of nations of similar ideologies, something which would be no bad thing for the game.

I still say the minimum nation size idea is the best one. You could play this game for years and never be a UN delegate.

I agree that the U.N. is overrun by sub-standard resolutions and this is preventing any worthwhile ones getting through... the only solution I can think of is to only allow Regional Delegates to propose the resolutions, as well as only allowing Reginional Delegates to approve them, before they finally get through to the masses.
This would, hopefully, reduce the number of resolutions submitted, and mean that only those who have (some) respect among the other plays will be submitting them. I know that you already need at least 2 endorsements, but maybe this ain't enough... Then again, most Regional Delegates probably only have two endorsements anyway.

Or maybe, if they're willing and have enough free time on their hands, the forum moderators could be recruited to help review the proposed resolutions. Presumably the forum moderators can be trusted, and so they could be given the right to remove any immediately that have bad spelling and incorrect grammar. Maybe if people are encouraged to pay attention to spelling and grammar, they'll pay closer attention to what they are actually writing, and put a bit more thought into it.
If plenty of sub-standard proposals reach the UN floor, after passing the delegates, there are probably plenty of sub-standard delegates who would be eager to clog the UN with garbage.

You may be right. I agree that the minimum size of a nation is a good idea, probably better than my one. However, I don't believe it's that hard to become a U.N. delegate. Just get a couple of your friends to play the game and create a new region. I did it for a while, with a different region to the one I have now (The Free Moose, in MCS).

I'll admit, that while a bit sneaky and underhanded that is what I did at one point (only to have it used on me later).

But seriously, the pile of resolutions that "fall unto our desks" as delegates is enough to make you jst shrug, look at the first page, and then maybe endorse one and leave. It's tedious combing over every single resolution to see if it is even qualified to be a resolution in the first place (not violating the rules) and then of picking out a handful of precious proposals that you pray might be voted on, and usually only one of those even goes to voting.

Working on the "you have to be this many people to get in" kind of thing. what if we were to go further and limit to submitters having to be at like 500 million or a regional delegate. and then everyone else would obviously have a vote like normal.

The other thing I've noticed about the UN is that there aren't any proposals to allow you to Oppress your people- for example, you can't have a proposal to Encourage Imperialism. It doesn't fit into any category, and as the point of the UN is to help force your will on other nations, those of us playing Imperialists don't really want to Futher Democracy.

How about an option to Decrease Democracy, especially for Imperialist/Communist/Monarchist/Anarchist nations?

Yes...let's pass resolutions just for the sake of passing resolutions.

That's just retarded...