NationStates Jolt Archive

The Rain Forest proposal demonstrates that the UN is currently not working. I have seen very little support for the resolution in the forums but have seen plenty of well argumented views on why this resolution should be dismissed. I was then dismayed to see that the resolution looks almost certain to pass with approx 60% in favour (Conservative estimate as well).

The UN voting system is not working as people are not properly informed about the debate because they follow the crowd like sheep. This needs to be resolved. I call on all delegates to allow a proposal going through at the minute on Allowing UN meber states to Opt out of lesiglation to give it their full backing. Only by doing this will UN member states, who are well informed, be able to make their own decisions and not have to follow the poor decisions made by the sheep that make up the majority of the UN membership.

Mick Kinnock
YID ARMY UN Delegate

I fail to understand your dismay. The UN Sheep pass anything that comes to a vote, so criticism now is rather useless, as these same sheep don't read the forums. The time to criticize is when a proposal is awaiting approval from the delegate council, not after it has been approved. A marked number of delegates do read the forums.

Mr Kinnock speaks in relation to a proposal (regarding some kind of "opt-out" clause) which both violates game mechanics and does not exist any more in the queue.

Graf von Hermannstein
Enodian Representative

Hey, if you have a problem with the way the UN is working you can resign your membership.

Mr Kinnock speaks in relation to a proposal (regarding some kind of "opt-out" clause) which both violates game mechanics and does not exist any more in the queue.

Graf von Hermannstein
Enodian Representative

Ah I assume it was deleted then as it violated game rules - fair enough.

Regarding the YID Army having a problem with the UN - I do as does anyone else who actually seems to participate in the discussions that take place in the UN forum. If we all followed your advice there would be no membr nations left to discuss the issues, just sheep who blindly vote issues through regardless of weather it should fall under UN juridstiction or not.

I have to say,I am getting SICK of the 'sheep' arguement.

Consider that maybe the issues that pass are WHAT MOST PEOPLE WANT.

A few more things to consider:

1.People who support things are less likely to be vocal than the dissenters.

2. There seems to be a false assumption that most who write proposals have English as their first or sole language. A lot of the grammer,etc. sound more like bad translations.

3. Most, if not ALL of us here, are never going to have any real-life political power,so if we get to create what we feel is a perfect world in a virtual sense, what is the evil in that?

I dunno, some moan or other

Awight? My name is Mr. Agreeable, an' I'm a senior citizen of Albion.

Now then, Mr. Kinnock. I've seen these here forums and they're rubbish. You can't raise a squeak without someone biting your head off, and if you keep quiet, you get called a sheep and that's if you can get to the bloody forums at all. And another thing, everyone complains about what voters do vote for, alright, so what the bloody hell do you want? Show me the resolutions that are worth getting excited about, that people should be informed about! 'Cos I tell you now, I see 'this won't work and that wont work and this ain't fair' but I don't see much bloody working out of how we make the UN forum an inviting and exciting place to be bothered with! You come 'ere and you get called names like 'sexually obsessed kids' or 'an idiot' or 'a sheep'!

Its like its everyone's fault but ours. We couldn't organise properly to oppose theese resolutions, we couldn't get our message out, but its not our fault because they're sheep. You moan like a bunch of old women!

They'd didn't have this in my day, I was in the war! I'm a bloody pensioner! Right, I'm off to get some lottery cards and some food for the dog. I fink the woman down the news agents fancies me....

The "sheep" are not the problem in themselves. They go to vote and see a proposal. The idea behind it is sound, so they vote yes. The problem is that they are never exposed to a negative argument. Chances are, if everyone heared and understood both sides of the argument, the vote would be more even.

Perhaps some leading negative arguments could be displayed alongside the resolution at vote?

"2. There seems to be a false assumption that most who write proposals have English as their first or sole language. A lot of the grammer,etc. sound more like bad translations."

Resolution 245A Proper Grammar was passed just over 1 year ago.

Description: . . . Any country that files a proposal with such language shall henceforth be banned from proposals until such time as they understand the English language and can properly convey their ideas.



The UN does not care what your first language is. Business here is conducted in English.

Resolution 245A Proper Grammar was passed just over 1 year ago.
As has been repeated stated by the Mods: Res 245A was a Game Mechanics proposal passed in the days before game mechanics proposals were made illegal. Res. 245A is unenforceable via game mechanics methods, and is therefore moot.

Frisbeeteria has offered to draft a new English as the Official Diplomatic Language of the UN (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121786) proposal that should manage to stay within the bounds of game mechanics. If you wish to look over the discussion and add your thoughts, they would be welcome.

My question is: What is this resolution? I see a statement and nothing else. This vote is really meaningless. If the UN votes for this resolution then we say that we agree with this statement and that is it there is nothing to enforce. Is it a partial ban or a total ban? I'm sorry but I cannot in good conscience vote for something so vague and meaningless!!!!!

:x I agree with Envoy. People need to see both sides of the argument before voting, just like real elections.

:x I agree with Envoy. People need to see both sides of the argument before voting, just like real elections.

:x I agree with Envoy. People need to see both sides of the argument before voting, just like real elections.

everyone sees both sides of the argument before voting in real elections? ha. there's plenty of willful blindness there, too-- exploited and manipulated by the various sides of the argument, who both dearly wish that nobody saw their opponents' point of view at all.

i somewhat disagree with the assumption that UN members are too stupid to think of counter-arguments for themselves when they read a proposal, and that they absolutely need to have everything (down to the last subsidised penny that the proposal will require) spelled out for them. (okay, so i'm assuming that people read the proposals. oops.)

the fact that proposals overwhelmingly get passed is because the people who go to vote are not a random sample of the players-- people who would otherwise be inclined to vote "against" have a lower opinion of the UN as a whole and tend to stay away from it in disgust (seeing it as a miserable evil liberal enterprise designed to interfere with internal affairs, etc.)... which, paradoxically, tends to bind them into resolutions they hate... the most active UN participants (on the voting page, at least) tend to be those who *like* the UN. the problem is not myopia and not that people don't know the alternatives-- but simply that the pro-UN pro-wishywashy proposals crowd are a bigger part of the active voting bloc.

so organising solid interest-groups might be in order-- which is what regions are for, of course, although at this point there are just so many regions that they're almost irrelevant...

glum,
brother felix hortensio
chief inquisitor