NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive been thinking about this quite a bit, especially as many useless proposals have reached quorum recently.

The basic idea is that we (being a group of delegates who wish to try and keep the UN as what it should be) keep a look-out for bad proposals which are likely to reach quorum, and we each telegram a group of the delegates who approved the proposal, pointing out the problems with the proposal and asking tehm to remove their approval.
If enough of us are involved, we wont need to do too much work, we only need telegram a few delegates each, so that we ensure the proposal doesnt reach quorum before it is deleted.
The basic reason for this is to target those delegates who dont read the forums and will approve anything. Also, if successful, the system would assure that only serious proposals will reach the vote (and therefore be passed, thanks to the sheep).

I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

Great, vote rigging for the UN, should get the dictatorships on side....

Considering that anything which comes to vote will get passed anyway, it could be considered that the votes are already rigged, and this is just ensureing that only the good proposals get voted for.
Besides, there's nothing saying that people will be forced to listen to us.

I think this is a great idea, and will be happy to support it. Hopefully REP will achieve delegate status within the next few days and we will gladly join any campaign to remove the trash that recently been proposed. Please wire us with details of how to organise any operation.
REP

Nibbleton,
I'm sick of the sheep analogy.
What may be bad and frivolous to you may be important to someone else. Seems everyone has the following defination: If it helps me or my view,it's good legislation.If it goes against me,it is frivolous,misguided,evil,bad,etc.

We disagree strongly. Nibbleton is right in suggesting that most proposals go largely unread or understood by those that vote for them. Also, there is a monopoly on the typr of nations who take an interest, making the process essentially ideologically biased. The use of information to even the balance can only improve the standing of the UN.

This is a new idea, and a workable solution for the problem of sheep. I had the idea that people who posted in the forums would get more votes on resolutions, but it seems that this is a more direct and plausible way to do things.

I agree that anything that reaches the open vote has a 90% chance of passing, and that something needs to be done about it. My delegate status is in flux at the moment, but I would be glad to help.

For the Future,

Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore

Seeing as how i've read over basically all of the passed resolutions, it appears that only two were actually seriously considered. This is a great idea.

Seems everyone has the following defination: If it helps me or my view,it's good legislation.If it goes against me,it is frivolous,misguided,evil,bad,etc.

With all due respect, this is contrary to the position Guaifenasin has adopted. We find that most of the UN proposals =are= in tune with legislation found within our own borders. However, we find that the majority of these proposals, although stemming from viewpoints similar to our own, have no place in the UN. It is this basis upon which we are voting against said proposals.

We would like to assist in the spamming, I mean, notifying nations of issues we are not in support of. But we would like to be sure this isn't a violation of any nationstates rules first. Is everyone sure? We are still relatively new.

~ Guaifenasin representative cq

We would like to assist in the spamming, I mean, notifying nations of issues we are not in support of. But we would like to be sure this isn't a violation of any nationstates rules first. Is everyone sure? We are still relatively new.

~ Guaifenasin representative cq

This is one point I was slightly worried about, and was therefore why I wanted a group of delegates. The more people involved, the less each person needs to telegram. This means that the telegrams will be a lot more varied instead of everyone recieveing the same thing from the same person.

There is a sticky in the forum which details the correct way to go about telegramming support for a proposal, therefore I don't think there would be a problem with telegramming for support against.

Nibbleton,
I'm sick of the sheep analogy.
What may be bad and frivolous to you may be important to someone else. Seems everyone has the following defination: If it helps me or my view,it's good legislation.If it goes against me,it is frivolous,misguided,evil,bad,etc.It may be a "good" resolution that abides by your views, but that doesnt mean it should be before the UN.

What I am proposing is basically a new way of helping to control what does and does not get passed by the UN. The voting itself now seems erroneous, so this takes a step back and deals with the resolutions at the root.

Thanks for your support and comments so far, keep it coming!

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

sounds interesting to me :D i think i like it. or that's what they tell me.

I'm a little sore from the last campaign, but I'll help on future ones where possible. Count me in.

This idea is exactly how I as representative for the Theocracy of Shirresh operate. I look for proposals that have more then 60 supporters with more than 24 hours to go or 100 votes with less than 24 hours to go and get to work on trying to support or oppose such issues.

So far, other than the Charter and the Rights and duties propsals nothing seems close to getting support so I have just let them quietly expire. I do read almost every proposal through (mostly for the amusement and absurdity factor).

Occcassionally I will telegram a proposer. For example, I sent a message to 1 infinity loop asking him to recreate his proposal after running it through a spell checker and grammer checker. After the first several lines of bad spelling, I just gave up on reading it.

This idea is exactly how I as representative for the Theocracy of Shirresh operate. I look for proposals that have more then 60 supporters with more than 24 hours to go or 100 votes with less than 24 hours to go and get to work on trying to support or oppose such issues.The main questions that I have from this are firstly, does it appear to have worked? and secondly, would it benefit from more people doing the same?

If your answers come back positive, im going to try and organsie some sort of system for doing this, and post either here or in a new topic with a link in here.

Thanks for your input everyone,
Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

Just because the sheep effect causes block voting by accident, it is still no excuse to on purpose organise block vote rigging. It is a precedent which is wrong.

Just because the sheep effect causes block voting by accident, it is still no excuse to on purpose organise block vote rigging. It is a precedent which is wrong.Does this mean that you have a better idea of how to stop terrible resolutions being passed?
Seriously, I'm interested to hear any ideas you may have. Plus, as I said before, this does not "rig" the vote. It just attempts to persuade people not to endorse proposals, in the same way that people canvasing for support of their proposals do (except, the other way around). No-one has to listen, it merely makes the point.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

Bahgum is not only concerned by the possibility of abuse by this proposed system, but also that members of this clique of voters will be determining what is and what isn't an acceptable proposal. The term 'serious' is a worry to us, does this mean that frivolous fun proposals would be frowned upon (we would guess that if they aren't initially, that it would not be long before they were)?
No, we don't have an alternative, but we can live with the present, yes some badly written stuff gets through, but also some good stuff. At least it is not being steered by a self righteous mafia....and that is what we suspect would happen eventually to this idea, no matter how well intentioned it started out.

The term 'serious' is a worry to us, does this mean that frivolous fun proposals would be frowned upon (we would guess that if they aren't initially, that it would not be long before they were)?
As this idea is yet to definately go ahead, I have been yet to define what I believe counts as a "serious" proposal, but I would ensure that it is made clear. Basically, Im thinking along the lines of "proposals which should be before the UN" according to The Sticky (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=77286), and proposals which do not have any major flaws, loopholes, or missing information (I daresay I will create a list of guidelines on these based on a discussion amongst participating delegates).

No, we don't have an alternative, but we can live with the present, yes some badly written stuff gets through, but also some good stuff. At least it is not being steered by a self righteous mafia....and that is what we suspect would happen eventually to this idea, no matter how well intentioned it started out.
The problem I'm trying to address is that most of the stuff getting through is badly written.
We will hardly be a "self rightous mafia," as I have just explained we will be using the current proposal guidelines to help us decide which proposals we should target, and are therefore effectively helping to enforce the current rules.
Finally, I feel I must re-itterate this point: We are not forcing people to listen to us. Our telegrams could be deleted just like anyone elses. We will not be breaking thumbs or attacking nations if endoresments are not withdrawn. We are merely trying to show a different point of view.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

I concur with the original post and the ideas behind his post. This is the only way to fix propositions in advance before they become a problem.

Most of the recent propositions were good in thory, they just had loopholes that needed fixing. Mostly the Euthanasia Act (See Joccia's abuse of if), the Fair Treatment of the Mentally ill (great idea, has a few loopholes unfortunatly) and the UCPL (again, great idea, but many problems arise out of the way it is implemented)

Being able to tell delegates who don'e read the forums about some of the problems with a proposition before it reaches quorum will be the only way to prevent them from being passed.

It's not about a 'sheep argument'. Most people who vote on issues simply do not read the boards. As I said, given the examples above, it's not just about not liking the propsosition, it's not liking the way it's implemented (I'm all for Euthanasia, Fait Treatment of the Mentally ill and Universal Copyright Patents as concepts.. but all three bills had major loopholes and problems associated with them, which I would have preffered to be corrected before it passed)

Mailing out ideas and facts obout the proposals before votes, okay, thats good. But I tend to want the really stupid ideas to reach quorum so that I can vote against them. Then they are gone.

Mailing out ideas and facts obout the proposals before votes, okay, thats good. But I tend to want the really stupid ideas to reach quorum so that I can vote against them. Then they are gone.
You see, this is the probelm. In theory, you're way of thinking is how it should work. We should be allowed to let the odd stupid proposal come to vote, and laugh as every single UN member votes it down. It's the fact that the bad proposals don't get voted down on account of the overwhelming number of people who dont seem to care about the implications of the proposal which means something needs to be done.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

Any word on the tabling mechanism. It would have the same effect and would require a lot less work.

Better yet, lets declare all stupid proposals to be game mechanics. Then the Mods will be forced to delete them :twisted: .

Any word on the tabling mechanism.
Sal expressed interest, but stated that nothing wouold be done prior to the move to the Jolt servers. It's on hold.

Tabling mechanism? I appear to have missed this, can someone fill me in?

Nibbleton

Tabling mechanism? I appear to have missed this, can someone fill me in?
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113087

As far as I am concerned with this idea sending a telegram for support against proposals I see no difference in that than you would encounter from any sort of lobbying group. What it would appear to do is to create awareness of an issue rather than let the issue be passed due to ignorance.

In regards to the idea of allowing proposals to be "tabled" that would also be a good idea that would most likely increase the quality of proposals that do make it to a general vote.

I telegram all the time, and no person has ever tried to stop me.

Ah, now the tabling mechanism looks very promising indeed (assuming it actually gets implemented) as it would be very effective in ejecting bad proposals, and certainly more effective than my idea.
It would also give those delegates such as "Hovin," who endorse every proposal, something to think about, instead of mindlessly clicking approve (although it may not stop them).

Nibbleton

Instead of lobbying delegates to change their votes, let us lobby Sal to imnplement the tabling mechanism.

Instead of lobbying delegates to change their votes, let us lobby Sal to imnplement the tabling mechanism.