Protheraticessesceleon
19-01-2004, 11:24
Protheraticessesceleon is not a member of the UN. Its leaders have considered applying for membership, but do not currently have the time to deal with both the pressures of home and international politics. But I, the President, has been watching the recent UN debates with interest, and would like to share my ideas.
A lot of people have been complaining about "stupid" proposals.
These proposals would not be a problem, of course, if it were not for the fact that they are often passed. But why would so many leaders vote for a stupid proposal? Are they so misinformed? Perhaps not; often it is the case that, although the central idea of a proposal is good, the rest is not well thought-out or written. Grammar and spelling mistakes are made, and crucial details are left unaddressed. Often a proposal's supporters wish they could make a few changes. Is there any reason why they shouldn't be able to?
The problem, as I see it, is that proposals are usually posted first to the UN and then discussed on the forums. At that time, it is too late to make changes to the proposal. But it doesn't have to be this way.
The solution is not to complain to the mods or to make game mechanics proposals. The power to bring better proposals to the floor of the UN is in the hands of its members alone. What we need is for the leaders of the world to rise up and send a message to the proposal makers that they will be more likely to support a proposal that goes to the forum first. The proposal writers will respond.
After a proposal has been discussed in the forum for a few days, an informal vote could be taken, if necessary, to see which of the various versions would have the most "yes" votes. This would benefit not only the UN at large, but also the proposer, because he or she would learn which small changes to the proposal would make it more likely to be accepted.
The final product of this process would be more likely to pass because of having clean spelling and grammar and being visibly better thought-out. In addition, the proposal might contain a short statement that it had undergone such a review, and a URL to the thread in which it took place.
Nor would this idea for getting saner proposals require much work from any one person -- just a group of people each making a small contribution. If the proposer isn't planning to be available a few days later, he or she could request that a volunteer submit the final proposal when the time came. There would be no need for anyone to supervise the process; everything could be done by volunteers.
What do you think?
A lot of people have been complaining about "stupid" proposals.
These proposals would not be a problem, of course, if it were not for the fact that they are often passed. But why would so many leaders vote for a stupid proposal? Are they so misinformed? Perhaps not; often it is the case that, although the central idea of a proposal is good, the rest is not well thought-out or written. Grammar and spelling mistakes are made, and crucial details are left unaddressed. Often a proposal's supporters wish they could make a few changes. Is there any reason why they shouldn't be able to?
The problem, as I see it, is that proposals are usually posted first to the UN and then discussed on the forums. At that time, it is too late to make changes to the proposal. But it doesn't have to be this way.
The solution is not to complain to the mods or to make game mechanics proposals. The power to bring better proposals to the floor of the UN is in the hands of its members alone. What we need is for the leaders of the world to rise up and send a message to the proposal makers that they will be more likely to support a proposal that goes to the forum first. The proposal writers will respond.
After a proposal has been discussed in the forum for a few days, an informal vote could be taken, if necessary, to see which of the various versions would have the most "yes" votes. This would benefit not only the UN at large, but also the proposer, because he or she would learn which small changes to the proposal would make it more likely to be accepted.
The final product of this process would be more likely to pass because of having clean spelling and grammar and being visibly better thought-out. In addition, the proposal might contain a short statement that it had undergone such a review, and a URL to the thread in which it took place.
Nor would this idea for getting saner proposals require much work from any one person -- just a group of people each making a small contribution. If the proposer isn't planning to be available a few days later, he or she could request that a volunteer submit the final proposal when the time came. There would be no need for anyone to supervise the process; everything could be done by volunteers.
What do you think?